in helsinki. it was embarrassing to see how that went down. and since it happened, the proof has been in the putin. he s had two chances to show that trump is right and he ll be a friend, and he showed off his armaments and he blocked the united states at the u.n. what does that tell you. mr. trump has been overcommitting and overpromising and somehow has this preternatural ability to sway these authoritarian leaders. he did it with kim in singapore when he overcommitted and overpromised and he s done it again with mr. putin. on the sanctions issue, chris, on the petroleum, the russians hate sanctions, and the chinese blocked it in large part because i think the pressure is off. they want leverage with kim as he enters these negotiations both with south korea and the americans. so the notion vladimir putin is a friend, even a frenemy, i mean it s quite clear. look at what happened in helsinki.
stuff, there are guardrails. i really felt this week for the first time the president is just ignoring all the guardrails. i got to tell you adm, i was in helsinki. it was embarrassing to see how that went down. and since it happened, the proof has been in the putin. he s had two chances to show that trump is right and he ll be a friend, and he showed off his armaments and he blocked the united states at the u.n. what does that tell you. mr. trump has been overcommitting and overpromising and somehow has this preternatural ability to sway these authoritarian leaders. he did it with kim in singapore when he overcommitted and overpromised and he s done it again with mr. putin. on the sanctions issue, chris, on the petroleum, the russians hate sanctions, and the chinese blocked it in large part because i think the pressure is off. they want leverage with kim as he enters these negotiations both with south korea and the americans. so the notion vladimir putin is
relation to this investigation, but the idea that you would have to amend it more than once seems extraordinary. well, that s right. especially in respect of this meeting, given what appears to be its significance. and so, you know, if you have hundreds of meetings, as his attorney said he has, and you forget one that seems to be of minor consequence, fair enough. but this meeting seems to be of major consequence in political terms, and that s one that you don t leave out. the other thing, anderson, that strikes me as very interesting, is i can t, in my mind, yet decouple the adoption conversation from the help get dirt on hillary clinton conversation. because it seems to me that there s the possibility that the conversation goes, we will give you information with respect to hillary clinton if you can deal with the sanctions issue, which is adoption is just a proxy for sanctions. and so, if they re tying dirt
sanctions issue, sanctions that the russian government want lifted there, so we call it adoptions. two, if it is so simple, and it may be, opposition research is opposition research, then why did donald trump jr. change his story not once, twice. he said in march, i m sure i met with them, but none that i can think of at the moment and none i was representing the campaign in any way, shape or form. this morning, he admits he had the meeting as a representative of the campaign. itis not true. it s not so simple, is it? here is what i will say. if you have ever worked on a presidential campaign, you have a lot of meetings after you secure the nomination that want to meet with you. when you are doing 20, 30, 40 meetings a day, not an exaggeration, there s a good chance you might answer a question, hey, i didn t meet with anybody directly with the russian government. they didn t walk in and say i met with someone who said they
lots of moving parts, and something that i think will be somewhat long-term, ari. witness interviews. joyce, what s different than a typical investigation is you have concurrent public witness interviews on television. listen to carter page under the interrogation of george stephanopoulos on the sanctions issue, which is so legally important because it s the kind of thing that could under mine a federal law. here is the clip. snds like from what you are saying it s possible you m have discussed the easing of sanctions. something may have come up. i have no recollection and there is nothing specifically i would have done to give people that impression. you can t say without equivo equation you didn t discuss the easing of sanctioning. someone may have brought it up but if it was it wasn t something i was offering or someone was asking for. what do you think of that witness statement, joyce?