and meet all the standard in that. as he outlined, things far less than criminal actions that could have you lose that. that s not about politics. that needs to be the standard of what security clearance means and what it means to be a part of our intelligence community. that said, i don t really see all that much centrist stuff coming out of jared kushner s office. i mean, for goodness sakes, on holocaust remembrance day and kushner leading the negotiations in the middle east, he couldn t even get his father-in-law to mention the holocaust in a statement. we ve seen terrible anti-transgender efforts in legislations come out of the white house. we ve seen horrible positions on choice and attempts to defund planned parenthood. even if he s moderate, he s got it all jammed up somewhere in the back of his office because it ain t coming out. even having said all that, if the security clearance was to be removed, it s going to be
sanctions for something of value, that s also a crime. so what matters is the details, the devil s in the details. and ultimately what i m hopeful for is given that there was i think eight people present at that meeting is that mr. mueller and his team will get to the bottom of exactly what happened. which brings us to the next point. you start out with a few people in the meeting and it s about adoption. right. suddenly you re at six and seven and then maybe eight people in the meeting. right. but it wasn t about adoption. people are just saying that. it sounds so patronizing. it was about russian sanctions, which was legitimately ms. veselnistkaya s endeavor. but that s not how the meeting was set up. there was nothing in that e-mail chain that you talked about that suggested we want to talk about the magnitsky act. but that s what people do. we have some dirt on hillary clinton and we want to provide it for you. because both rinat
the details of the meeting in four separate disclosures. my bigger concern with this issue is to me, these meetings are a matter for concern. they constitute in the worst case scenario a national security issue. but the media has so far so grossly overexaggerated many of the scandals when it comes to this administration that the average person is going to look at this and think, oh, this is another trump administration scandal, the media is losing their minds. howie: let s look at what the president said in paris. i think from a practical stands point most of people would have taken that meeting. it s called opposition research. i think the press made a big deal out of something a lot of
thing fuel the suspicion that we are not getting the whole story? of course it does. i would say these kinds of details like who exactly was in the meeting are important to an investigation. those standards will be upheld in a court of law in the ongoing case in the investigation. but when it comes to the court of public opinion as reflected by the media, they are holding the administration to a much higher standard. they want to know generally their commander-in-chief is acting with integrity, transparency and putting the national interest at the forefront of everything he s doing. it s this kind of story that calls that into question. i think that s what the media is grappling with as a whole.
all these lies? why lie after lie after lie? under normal political circumstances, this would be the end of the road with the clear admission of guilt. the worst case scenario, we did it. trump derangement syndrome out in force today. don, jr. broke no ethics rules. howie: he testified the meeting with sean hannity. in retrospect i probably would have done things differently. this was before the russian media. for me this was opposition research. howie: are the meetings as damaging as the times says. are liberal commentators going too far saying he may have broken the law?