why you would violate your own agreement on disclosure. at least follow the rules that you ve agreed to. right. well, again, i go back to the larger picture of this infrastructure. i ll make a quick side note. what is in the news today in terms of this permanent infrastructure of fishing expeditions. hillary clinton will be asked to testify in benghazi in june about the attack. 30 months after the attack. the republicans have the blue print for the clintons and yes for the obamas too. you set up a permanent infrastructure, you get in the right-wing media and you lure the new york times to chase it too. it becomes a permanent fishing expedition. here is my question, though. you say lure the new york times. i ve seen you on twitter attacking them on the sort of alleged partnership. i guess not alleged they re going to appear on the fox news special this weekend going after the clinton. this does seem like a legit piece of journalism. i don t think they ve got anything w
integrity of the piece and said no one, quote, has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that hillary clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the clinton foundation. in another memo published online clinton spokesperson goes on to say that hillary clinton was not involved in the state department s review of the sale to the russians and the clinton foundation donor featured in the piece, quote, neither spoke to either president clinton or then secretary clinton about his company. joining me now, michelle goldberg, senior contributing writer at the nation. eric boehlert, senior fellow at media matters. what do you make of this, eric? the uranium story is interesting because there is a lot of stuff missing. if you look at that deal, when you read it from the times, you re like, oh my gosh, quid pro quo. we have a smoking gun. the deal had to be approved by the white house. the state department. commerce. treasury. energy
russia. all right, eric, what do you make of that? the uranium story is interesting. there s a lot of stuff miss ing. if you look at the deal you re like quid pro quo, a smoking gun here. that deal had to be approved by the white house, state department, commerce treasury energy nuclear regulators commission utah nuclear regulators. the idea that hillary clinton controls all those entities because someone paid her husband for a speech the way this process work is there s an intergovernmental board that has to sign off on the deals and the state department was one of those members one of many. here s my feeling, michelle. there s a bunch of distinctions to make here. let s focus on the uranium. to me what the clinton people did in pushing back i think was smart in that they focused on
in the uranium one investigation, are you trying to chin up your own russia investigation and where is the presidents evidence that hillary clinton colluded with the russians as he tweeted this morning? any specific involvement, the president has pushed for transparency if that s what you are referring to. jesse: the cnn legal analyst seem to find the genesis of the uranium story. this whole uranium thing, it comes from fox news. i mean, this is a closed investigation that came up in peter schweizer s book, clinton cash in 2015. i mean, if that makes it exactly. the book came out in 2015. it was one of the accusations, it s been discredited. two years later, fox news and republicans in congress and