i m just asking that he was wrong if he did or wrong if he didn t. if he hadn t said anything, the report came out, they would say he influenced the election because he didn t talk about it and didn t say it. and now they re saying he influenced it because he released it. what was he to do? and also he is right. i think hind light is always 20/20. maybe he shouldn t have done it, but i think he has a point. do you disagree with that, scott? i do disagree. i think that close to an election, when you have somebody part of the unelected pu bureaucracy making a decision that close to our election, yeah, i think it was improper. what do you think you would be saying now if hillary clinton was president and then this report came out today and it showed that while there was an investigation that was reopened into hillary clinton s e-mails and they never talked about it, what do you think you would be saying today, scott?
now. if you read his if you read what he wrote in the new york times, and i read all of it, it sounds you can correct me if i m wrong. i m just asking that he was wrong if he did or wrong if he didn t. if he hadn t said anything, the report came out, they would say he influenced the election because he didn t talk about it and didn t say it. and now they re saying he influenced it because he released it. what was he to do? and also he is right. i think hind light is always 20/20. maybe he shouldn t have done it, but i think he has a point. do you disagree with that, scott? i do disagree. i think that close to an election, when you have somebody part of the unelected bureaucracy making a decision that close to our election, yeah, i think it was improper. what do you think you would be saying now if hillary clinton was president and then this report came out today and it showed that while there was an investigation that was reopened into hillary clinton s e-mails and they nev
rosenstein authorizing him to investigate collusion with the russians by paul manafort. you can t investigate sins. you can onlyan investigate fedel crimes. there is no such federal crime as collusion. sean: how do they not know that? they know it. but they hope that by investigating collusion, they ll gete, somebody to obstruct justice, to commit perjury, to commit one of these other peripheraln crimes, as they always say, but it s not the cover up, it s that it they are trying to induce a cover up, which is why innocent people should not be testifying unless they absolutely have to because you can be indicted for perjury even if you tell the truth, if youet say something that someboy else says differently. sean: that is a spectacular statement. you can be indicted for perjury if you tell the truth. if somebody part, contradicts you and the prosecutor believes the person who contradicts, you are indicted. sean: i will get back totr that question in a second. let me go to j
that s what his team wants to talk about and not as sean spicer was pressed about multiple times today, reports of infighting he called over blown as you called out, that he called sensational. no surprise spicer would aim his fire at the press saying the media got away with the story a little bit. clearly there are ideological differences though when you look at where the advisers are, but the president as his team pointed out, is somebody who wants to bring people together with a diverse point of view. the question is, and i talked to somebody part of a previous administration who talked about what it is like in those first 100 days when there is infighting and the point was made that, listen, there needs to be a diverse set of opinions but there also has to be the discipline to say, hey, this is what we re doing, we re not going to leak it or talk about it, we re going to get it done. is there a sense of cohesion in this administration, in the west wing about where exactly they re
that was my next point. it was more the politicizing of intelligence, as opposed to the intelligence itself. this is something donald trump doesn t know the difference about. it appears he doesn t understand that what went wrong with the lead-up to the iraq war and the claims of wmd, it was exactly that. the it was the politization of the intelligence. not the intelligence itself. that is what we learned in hindsight. somebody part of the bush administration and supported the war in iraq, that is what we have learned from that and we hope not to repeat those errors again. 17 intelligence agencies have concluded that russia was behind this. that is very different than the iraq wmd. all i m trying to communicate to you and i fall back on the on his business career, and until he takes office, that s all we have to fall back on. he knows how to make judgments based on facts. not supposition, facts. he s not getting the facts, that s the problem. you re assuming the daily presiden