michigan, not moscow. we have dni, former director jim clapper saying no one under my purview would have anything to do with that. he couldn t discount local and state. he said there were no fisa warrants. the suggestion was there was a fisa warrant taken out on the president. the president essentially blaming a former president of a felony, calling him a bad or sick person and offering no proof. that is a very different suggestion than what is the extent of contacts and communications between the trump administration and russia. i would also say in the same article today, the screaming headline that just is false, is not what i was saying, it also says my husband is in line with the solicitor general job. that job went to somebody else. all right. that s wrong. where is the screaming headline, retraction? i never said it. that would be really bad if i did it. you re quoting from an article. now you re selectively quoting.
proof. that is a very different suggestion than what is the extent of contacts and communications between the trump administration and russia. i would also say in the same article today, the screaming headline that just is false, is not what i was saying, it also says my husband is in line with the solicitor general job. that job went to somebody else. all right. that s wrong. where is the screaming headline, retraction? i never said it. that would be really bad if i did it. you re quoting from an article. now you re selectively quoting. i m saying i never said that. i was talking about surveillance generally. people will fit that the way they want to fit it. i ve watched it, i ve read it and i talked to kelly. he believes you were throwing it out there generally. he was asking you about the investigation specifically. then he should correct his headline. i know i m great click bait. the question is why were you doing this?
prsure building that these investigations might grow. aelect committee on independent investigation. what democrats are focusing on now are trying to argue a 9/11 style commission to investigate russian meddling in the election by the hacks we have been talking about and that it should include mike flynn. elijah cummings was on saying he has a republican from north carolina to sign on to a bill to create this and on the senate side, chuck grassley, a republican asking for more information, briefings and documents around what flynn has done. as of now, there s no screaming headline about changes up here in the investigations, but, there are potentially movements that show kind of the increasing potential pressure and also set the stage for potential new information. chuck grassley has a committee with real teeth. if they are able to find out new
it s an editorial. i would be concerned if i felt that that editorial was matched idea for idea in the news coverage and i don t see that happening. david ignatius, look at the headline today. this is sort of what we do. we look at media and we pound the new york times all the time but that, yesterday, has followed up on the top of the the wall street journal spies keep intelligence from trump. that is a screaming headline. you dig down into the story and you actually find out that they don t have one single instance of where important intelligence was kept from the president of the united states. they have a pretty good quote from adam shift, the ranking democrat on the house intelligence story. the story is thinned beyond that quote, so i didn t think it was a blockbuster. the story is thin. look at this headline, guys. i ll take david off the box but it is an extraordinarily thin story, but mike, again, yesterday, instead of talking
a news outlet to go ahead and publish the rest of this story quote/unquote and it s fake news. as donald trump said last night. i agree it s a political witch-hu witch-hunt. if cnn reports something and people on twitter, shady organizations or buzz feed or reputable organizations start then reporting other things, you cannot hold cnn responsible for what other people are doing. they re responsible for what they do. we stand by our reporting 100%. i think we both made our points but i appreciate i can hold cnn accountable for having the screaming headline that he was briefed on something if he wasn t. that s what it says. it says intelligence chiefs presented trump with information russia efforts to compromise him. it doesn t say briefed. it said he was presented with information, there was information in the documents. ? a footnote or sliding it under a gum wrapper? that s not what the headlines