Squeaker which side prevails. So whether it is saccone by two or conor lamb by two matters less than it is a four point margin or whatever it ends up. Even if the democrats looses, if it is close, the democrats are going to claim it is a sign. Difficult for them to claim it is a Success Story even if saccone victory. Psychologically, there is a different impact especially for republican members. Tomorrow morning if the republicans were to gather for their Conference Meeting and if they have lost this seat, there will be a different feeling inside the room about concern and panic for what november brings. The difference psychologically for republicans tomorrow morning is different than if they loose. Republicans have poured a lot
of money into this. Yeah. Through pacs and the rnc has put a Million Dollars into it, if they lose this seat, alarm bells going off. And more republicans deciding to call it quits and retire. Saying this environment is tough for me if i am in a suburban distric
general election campaign. it is general election campaign. it is interesting general election campaign. it 3 interesting because you are voting to elect people to go to westminster yet there is the performance of the devolved assembly which is really at the forefront of motor mines. we have the worst health waiting lists anywhere in the uk, the budget is really stretched. a lot of departments are facing cuts and that is feeding in or bleeding into voter decisions when they come and vote and we also have the hangover from brexit. the hardline tuv are running on a number of constituencies hoping to almost give the dup are bloody nose for the brexiteer which they are opposed to. we talked about scotland and independence. every election in northern ireland been seen as a pre run to any future border poll where people take the votes, the percentage of votes, devey them up and see how many unionists and nationalists voted and how that might be in a future referendum. we also have a growin
trump win. to conclude otherwise stretches common sense to the breaking point. less than 80,000 votes in three key states swung the election. i have no doubt that more votes than that were influenced by this massive effort by the russians. this is a huge thing to say obviously, sir, it s not just russians influenced the election, you re saying that they actually changed the outcome. is this just your belief or do you have hard evidence? well, you pretty well outlined the key passage in my book about this. and i do need to emphasize, try to make as clear as i possibly can, that when we rendered our official intelligence community assessment on the 6th of january 2017 which we briefed to then president-elect trump, we made the point that the intelligence community did not make any attempt to assess the impact on voter decisions or the outcome of the election. has neither the authority, the
seems to continuing from russia. you know now the cia director pompeo from his days on the intel committee based on what you know now, do you believe he shares your concerns about russia? i think he probably does. he has been pretty consistent in his statements about the assessment and certainly in this congressional appearances and has pretty much reaffirmed that the russians meddled. and one thing i take issue is him saying it had no impact on the election. no way to gage that. actually stretch his logic to suggest that it didn t have impact on some voter decisions. when consider the election was settled by less than 32 states which the russians targeted. and we certainly didn t examine
tallies. but that s he s conflating that to try to give the impression or the assertion that the meddling had no impact. when you consider that the election basically turned on less than 80,000 votes in three states, three key states which were targeted, by the way, by the russian effort, i think it really stretches credulity to suggest that no voter decisions were changed. and by the way, it wasn t anybody else. it wasn t china, it wasn t the 400-pound guy in his bed in new jersey, it was russia. and nobody else. you have spoken before about how you think that russian president vladimir putin appears to be treating our president as an intelligence asset. what do you see that makes you say that? well, first, i need to say i meant it figuratively, but remember putin s professional background. he s a kgb agent in the heyday of the soviet union.