you touched are unresolved. we don t know yet the most critical question. namely, was there, you know, per the mandate a link, any kind of coordination between the trump campaign and the russian government? but remarkably enough, when you look back on all the things you ticked off, the year started with michael flynn talking to the russian ambassador. michael flynn of course at the end of that year being indicted. the year also ended with michael cohen admitting in court that he had perjured himself when he suggested that the trump tower deal in moscow had ended much earlier than in fact it did. the one constant, don, throughout this year is that people very close to donald trump lied. and what did they lie about? they lied about russia. paul manafort.
projects he didn t disclose. if he was doing it to protect the president, maybe he knew the president was pursuing a trump tower deal in moscow, and lifting the sanctions would be necessary in order to pursue the financial ambitions. so i think that, of course, that is still the major question here. it wasn t just him that lied. it was mcfarland. it was a number of people who had to change their stories about this. clearly, there was something more nefarious going on. i think it is interesting that instead of explaining why they lied, they re trying to put it back on the fbi, even though mueller gave him such a good deal. i mean, he only had to plead guilty to one count of lying, even though he s, you know, vulnerable to violations and serious charges. natasha and doug wise chris, may i comment on that? guess not. still ahead, trump administration s jaw-dropping response to the death of a 7-year-old girl who died in their custody. tonight, what we know about what
the republican national convention screaming lock her up, i think you have to ask his psychiatrist that question. it is a mystery to me and many others. natasha, there s one there s another mystery here that remains unsolved, which is, why did he lie? it is so striking. 170-page filing, the defense sen sentencing memo, no explanation. presumably, if there is one, well, he thought it d create bad publicity for the president. they never explain. this goes back to, i think, the explanation, which is, he wasn t necessarily just doing this for the president. he was maybe doing this for his own personal reasons. maybe he was pursuing e illicit projects he didn t disclose. if he was doing it to protect the president, maybe he knew the president was pursuing a trump tower deal in moscow, and lifting the sanctions would be necessary in order to pursue the financial ambitions. so i think that, of course, that is still the major question
the president, maybe he knew the president was pursuing a trump tower deal in moscow, and lifting the sanctions would be necessary in order to pursue the financial ambitions. so i think that, of course, that is still the major question here. it wasn t just him that lied. it was mcfarland. it was a number of people who had to change their stories about this. clearly, there was something more nefarious going on. i think it is interesting that instead of explaining why they lied, they re trying to put it back on the fbi, even though mueller gave him such a good deal. i mean, he only had to plead guilty to one count of lying, even though he s, you know, vulnerable to violations and serious charges. natasha and doug wise chris, may i comment on that? guess not. still ahead, trump administration s jaw-dropping response to the death of a 7-year-old girl who died in their custody. tonight, what we know about what happened and the backlash to what the aclu is calling a culture of crue
on great many issues. this hush money payment, considering that it is alleged that he had a role in that. but it may also be that with respect to other information michael cohen can provide about the trump organization, about the effort to make this trump tower deal in moscow or other financial entanglement with the russians, you would imagine that the cfo, chief financial officer, or the accountant for the organization itself, may know where the financial bodies are buried. so it could be obviously a very key witness. as we have been discussing, you ve said that the president could be indicted while he s in office, after he leaves office, related to the michael cohen crimes. but the president told reuters last night that he was simply relying on his lawyer, namely michael cohen, and that there was no violation, he said, because the payments were civil. what do you make of that defense? i don t make much of it, honestly, given the nature of the discussions.