take home test that they have time to prepare for, lawyers answering the questions on behalf of the president, talking them over, it suggests to me they re trying to loosen up the top soil so later on if it comes out there is inconsistencies between what the president said and other witnesses have said, or they re simply able to have a satisfactory answer toify any of those questions, they can say well, we said these were irrelevant. we said these were perjury traps. we said this was problematic. they clearly combed the public record of what donald trump has said and what he hasn t said about lots of things that were asked about, i m sure that are being asked about in these questions. say whether the president knew about the don jr. meeting at trump tower, et cetera, et cetera. i m sure that they have to kind of square the circle. it s not an easy job for them, but what they consider irrelevant or traps is sort of irrelevant, to be honest. it s what the special counsel wants to ask t
stepping up to show they have what it takes to challenge president trump in 2020. but first, late-night laughs and the white house hunt for the op-ed writer. the op-ed sent tremors through the west wing and launched a frantic guessing game as opposed to the other trump games. there s collusional chairs, charade of a marriage and pin the crime on the don jr. i m going to say it was kellyanne in the situation room with the laptop. i m surprised by how good a writer ivanka is. mel anya, said no, it s not me. if i have something to say, i ll write it on my jacket. just look at him. look at that face. that s a face that says just practicing for the glee club at school, mrs. cleaver. look at the way he looks at donald trump in every picture. he s there in the background. fantasizing about ways to
other channels? i watched a lot of that interview earlier, and he did not say that the president was out ofe line, and he did not say he did say, though, that he had new information that was widely publicized including the don jr. meeting in trump tower that most of us didn t know about until this last summer. so there are more information that has come out, and i think this is led him to believe there s been some sort of collusion, not necessarily with the president, and maybe a conspiracy that involved americans that needs to be dealt with and needs to be uncovered by mueller. as for the president stripping his clearance, look , i don t think any of us believe that a president should use the power of his office to retaliate against his political opponent. that s unamerican. it s a banana republic-like move. this is not something we associate with the american president. this is like nixon enemies list except for sarah sanders goes to the podium and reads the names on the enemies
email or a recording of the president saying, even off-the-cuff, yeah, i know this one is coming out? there was that moment where he right before the don jr. meeting at trump tower with the russian lawyer where he did say i am going to make a big speech on hillary clinton, et cetera, and that didn t materialize. presumably, and who knows because nothing really came out of that don jr. meeting. i don t know if nothing came out of that don jr. meeting. the president has certainly said things, and especially the timing of them and content of them that raise eyebrows and questions about what he knew and when he knew it. to your point, i think it would be, the president does he uses twitter avidly. he does not text. he does not email. i think it is highly unlikely that she would have a text or an email from the president himself. we just don t know about a possible recording, a possible offhand comment or maybe an email from someone else in the
don has received notoriety for a brief meeting that many politicians would have taken and most importantly and to the best of my knowledge nothing happened after the meeting concluded. first of all, people pointed out you don t hear the word using that phraseology to the best of my knowledge. that is what we lawyers use. are you struck by anything else there? what is striking is that it does not matter. we know that events did happen after the meeting. we know wikileaks released a lot of material. we know that it came on certain strategic time periods of the campaign that this material was released, but for a legal theory, it does not actually matter. if you are talking about conspiracy which is what we want to be talking about as opposed to collusion, you don t have to have something to have happened. for conspiracy, all you needed was an agreement between two