tucker: nbc news actively covered up harvey weinstein s abuse of women, that was clear months ago when the story first broke and we told you about it then. it is even clearer now. the remarkable thing is that nbc is still lying about it but more elaborately. in a long memo release last night nbc chairman andy lack spent 11 pages claiming that his network could not air the investigation of weinstein, the same piece that ran in the new yorker and won a pulitzer prize, not enough evidence, not enough on the record allegations against harvey weinstein. that is false and now we can prove it is on our nbc show this morning, megyn kelly bravely pointed out, because she still works there that there was in fact and on the record source b against harvey weinstein, it was rose mcgowan. and nbc knew this because of the
the slogans on the barn. we have never said that. but i think what has happened now is, after an attempt to paint russian involvement as a one-way street where the russians were trying to hurt hillary and to help trump and trump was somehow dealing with them, i think we have seen it is a much more complicated picture, because it is a fact that this foreign agent, the former british spy, christopher steel, did get information from russia s gnomic russians were connected to the kremlin. just look at the dossier. the dossier has sourced a and source b, and source c, and the identified as a former senior russian intelligence official or a senior russian financial official. so it s not a secret that they are dealing with people in the russian government connected to the kremlin. what has changed now is we are seeing these democratic efforts to get dirt on trump from russia, and that does sound
intelligence report, but the stuff that s not in that report, it is information about the sources. his report says source a says this, source b said that. without knowledge who those sources are, we just can t decide. what we would do in the intelligence community, for every one page of intelligence report that might go go to people like phil mud to read, there might be 100 pages or more on that person, on their motivation, on their access, who are their sub sources, why is this person talking. this is the type of information we would have to know, if that source really has the information access they say they have, can they be trusted, long before you put out a report. even then, put out an intelligence report, we would cross check it, reference with other information from other sources to see if it makes sense, then throw it over to folks like phil to take a look at. let s assume this had come your way. what then are the considerations as to whether it should rise to the level of a