up this procedural vote that was supposed to be tomorrow. you know, when i started the day, i did not think that the day was going to end with the senate unanimously by voice vote moving on to kavanaugh s confirmation. an fbi investigation being opened, and jeff flake coming and building these forces, this coalition to force that. so it was quite a wild ride and something that was remarkable and totally unexpected when the day started, joy. yes, indeed. i think a lot of people are trying to speculate whether it was that elevator moment that changed jeff flake s mind or whether it was that conversation that we saw him that have, that side conversation with senators coons and klobuchar. do we know what was said? whether that was what moved him to change his mind to say he wanted these conditions met before he voted yes? yes, i asked jeff flake these exact questions once he left the
moving on to kavanaugh s confirmation. an fbi investigation being opened, and jeff flake coming and building these forces, this coalition to force that. so it was quite a wild ride and something that was remarkable and totally unexpected when the day started, joy. yes, indeed. i think a lot of people are trying to speculate whether it was that elevator moment that changed jeff flake s mind or whether it was that conversation that we saw him that have, that side conversation with senators coons and klobuchar. do we know what was said? whether that was what moved him to change his mind to say he wanted these conditions met before he voted yes? yes, i asked jeff flake these exact questions once he left the committee room. he said the women who were confronting him in the elevator didn t play a role in his decision, but what he did say is that he when he put out that statement this morning saying that he was going to vote yes
post cold war has been a debate. i ve been to multiple nato summits and feel like it s always a side conversation, what s it going to be. when nato got involved in libya, it was always is this a good idea or a bad idea, what s it going to be. that s still part of this challenge. is that what s making it easier for president trump to potentially blow up this alliance a little bit because nato is uncertain of what its mission is? well, i actually think while everyone is focusing on the rhetoric, what i m told is that there was an agreement on a nato summit declaration today which the president joined, which ratified a lot of measures that nato is taking to strengthen its ability to reinforce and protect the eastern countries and hopefully to deter russia from trying to do in the baltic states what it did in ukraine. that s the good news. i think actually nato at a time when we thought the cold war was over and russia was no longer a
dana: kimberly guilfoyle. kimberly: the problem i m having with this is what is wrong with the president doing something like this? if you are at an event when everyone is there, what s so nefarious about it if he s not able to have a normal conversation with other people that are attending this? this is what people do. good question. having covered a lot of these summits, there are all kinds of sideline conversations. you are absolutely right. it doesn t necessarily mean that anything bad or sinister happened. on the other hand, given all these investigations back here stateside, there are questions being raised as to why the president would have a side conversation without a u.s. official with him. typically, even if you have a side conversation, you would want to have your interpreter or national security advisor or somebody because even if it s an informal chat, with someone like the president of russia,
spray, here are the leaders shaking hands, the others are suggesting wait a second, after the cameras left, there was some sort of secret meeting where president trump went over to president putin and went on for some time and didn t bring an american translator or an american official of any kind for this conversation with vladimir putin. why would that be significant? that would suggest there was no public record within the u.s. government of this meeting. the president wasn t saying this was a meeting, it was on the sidelines, let s talk about syria and other subjects. you remember when you are working with president bush, there would be the bilateral meetings that would last 1-2 hours and then on the sideline of a dinner, you might have a conversation with tony blair or another world leader to continue the conversation. they could have been what this is but the critics are suggesting it was something more sinister here and maybe the president was trying to follow