steve bannon at breitbart, chris ruddy at news max, that was it. and he was a very good person for us to get you know, to spring ideas off of. i m sorry that this happened. i disagree with what steve said about don junior. he should not have said that. steve should also not havin sin waited anything about money laundering with the trump organization. i had nothing to do with president trump s business or president trump s business. anything i heard of anything, there was nothing above the letter of the law there. look, i think you re putting the nuance here, which is important. overall yes. the president is saying bannon is sour grapes, he s lost his mind was his quote. yes. you were let go from the trump campaign and then sued for allegedly leaking information. that s what they have said. what s your response if they come out and say hey you, you re just sour grapes, you re a liar, as you heard hogan try to do about everything in the book. my response is i hope the p
yes, and that s what we do every single day. thank you so much, hogan, i appreciate your time. absolutely, thanks, erin. i want to go to mark preston. your reaction, mark. well, a couple things. i think the most important thing that hogan said out of that interview, erin, is that he said all bets are off now. meaning that the war that we ve been discussing or we think might come to fruition between steve bannon and between president trump is very much real and is very much not going to be over any time soon. we saw steve bannon kind of try to put i guess a fig leaf or olive branch out to the president by saying some nice things on his breitbart radio program, but the fact of the matter is it s clear that the president wants blood now from steve bannon. look, they re engaging in a he said, he said, he said, she said, whatever it is. well, two said that but how many more people you heard that whole exchange and back and forth. they want to raise doubt on everything in here, a
i haven t heard otherwise. but i m not aware of anything specific. you were eager to call on espn to fire one of the sports casters for criticizing president trump. it wasn t just criticizing, it was a little bit different from that. should breitbart part ways with steve bannon after the comments in the book? i certainly think that it s something they should look at that time and consider, brian? thanks i d like to speak on yesterday, i profess my ignorance. you said it not me. if you want to call yourself ignorant i m not going to argue. i am. so next week when he goes to his physical, are there mental acuity tests that go along with that, or is it purely physical in nature? we ll discuss, as i said, when i announce he ll be doing the physical, we ll have a read out of that after that is completed and we ll let you know at that time. and second question i have for you is yesterday you said
two dozen requests of him asking to have an interview with the president, which he never did, he never discussed this book with the president. and to me that would be the most important voice that you could have if you were looking to write a book about an individual would be to have some time with him. he never d he was repeatedly denied that i think because we saw him for what he was. and there was no reason for us to waste the president of the united states time. and frankly i ll let you have one follow up. i appreciate that. should the letter from the president s lawyers aimed at steve bannon and aimed at the publisher be interpreted as a threat from the united states government from this administration to not publish this book? it s not from the united states government. it s from the president s personal attorney. and i think it is very clear what its purpose is and there is nothing beyond that. if you have specifics on that i would refer you to the president s attorneys. tha
months and the last year in different contents, and that basically you are bound by that. and so the only remedy is after the fact you can, you can t do . so riddle me this then, because the letter is threatening imminent legal action, you mention the nda, they are claiming that steve bannon breached the nda that he had signed some time ago. so you have the white house on one hand saying, you know, the claims in the book you heard sarah sanders a second ago, total totally fantasy, trash, but on the other hand they are irked at steve bannon saying he violated nda. i see where you are headed. it s an interesting conundrum. because usually for defamation you have to prove that what was said is not true. in some of these cases, i don t know that they want to litigate whether there is ten items out of that book, and three of the things that bannon said arguably may be true.