book. and she was obviously talking about this. you re having this interaction with reince priebus at that time, the white house had been warned that mike flynn was perceived to potentially be compromised by a foreign power. the fbi interview happened, the warning from the acting attorney general happened. and at that time, mike flynn was still in the white house. was he asking if mike flynn skurndly under surveillance or under a serious form of investigation? do you know what he s getting at by asking that? not for sure. i think he was asking, is there current electronic surveillance under the foreign electronic surveillance act of the national security adviser. and you did give him an answer? correct. pete, that makes the point how inappropriate that was. well, of course, tantalizingly, he doesn t say what the answer was. and where he told the answer is blacked out in the memo. so he basically says in the interview with rachel that he wanted to use it as, in her
he doesn t say, what do you mean? how can that be? he says, i want to hear this. the actual response? if it s what you say, i love it. the trump camp s explanations were confusing. strange and conflicting accounts from the very white house on the meeting donald trump jr. had with a russian lawyer. the first explanation has become a focus of the mueller investigation. because it was misleading. donald trump jr. told the new york times that the trump tower meeting was primarily about russian adoption. that statement may spell legal trouble for the president, because he helped write it, while flying home from the g-20 summit. he weighed in, offered suggestion like any father would do. the new york times reported the day after the statement was issued, there was a conference call involving the president. then hope hicks and legal team
very specifically that neither the trump organization nor the trump campaign was a party to the transaction. what he doesn t say is whether donald trump was a party to the transaction or knew about the transaction or approved of the transaction. these are all questions we would like to get an answer to. as i ve been talking to folks this morning, this is absurd on multiple levels. one, as an ethical matter, if you re a lawyer, you have an obligation to inform your client of any material change in a case like this. you can t do it without your client s knowledge. maybe the use of was not party to this is their way around that. any kind of big change in a case like this, you d have to chasha with your client. the other part of this it doesn t say he didn t. here s what else is absurd about this. this notion that donald trump has been accused of sexual misconduct at, what, in a dozen cases, and this is number 13. but this is the one you want to pay off because even if it s not tru
information they wouldn t have approved the warrant. what then? nothing. doesn t change anything with the mueller probe or anything with the doj. it suggests that if they were right, the surveillance shouldn t have been conducted and all that would mean is that underlying material saying that he got wiretap of a only if, you couldn t use it in open court. doesn t mean there was no crime committed. jeff sessions yet again appears in this statement trying to thread a needle to say now that i learned these things, i will do the appropriate thing and refer them to the appropriate place. he doesn t say what that really means. it could be an i.g. report, it could mean a larger criminal probe, although, again, i would observe it would be odd to launch criminal probe on the basis that doesn t make an allegation of a crime, or it could mean nothing. but it is notable that all of this comes out and the attorney
blacks and hispanics since 2010. steadily and about a one-point change and trump wants to take all the credit. he doesn t say thank you. jesse: deserves the credit. juan: he took all the credit. jesse: all politicians take credit when it happens on their watch. juan: kimberly, what did you think that they asap? kimberly: i was disappointed. i would ve liked them to acknowledge a tremendous achievement because it s good for the country. people are tired of seeing the partisan politics. if you applauded that, there is credibility and integrity and authenticity. why wouldn t you be happy about that achievement, whether or not you feel it was partly due to president obama or not. the point is, the outcome is