request was sensitive and that they should keep this information closely held. the timing is important because if the aid wasn t linked to the july 25th call, if it wasn t related, why the sensitive closely held request made within two hours of that call? let s just ask mr. duffey. mr. duffey and mr. blair can testify about the concerns raised by dod to the office of management and budget, about the illegality of the hold, and why it remained in place even after dod warned the administration that it would violate the
something to do with lying about a campaign contribution to do with paying off the women. two of those four are directly related to the president. he now just pleaded guilty okay, now to lying to congress about the president s business to cover for the president. how can you say it s not related, jim? even a dummy like i didn t say it wasn t related. there s been nothing in question with conduct associated with anyone on that campaign as it related to work that they did on that campaign. it hasn t happened. norm, final word. michael cohen set up in court and he said the president, the senior person in charge of the campaign, ordered him to violate federal campaign finance laws! i just listened to that s a crime by the president and the campaign, jim. i just listened to anderson cooper, of all people, just say michael cohen, what he said today is all over the place. bad-mouth anderson cooper, jim i m not bad-mouthing anderson cooper, but that s what he said
and a new level of desperation today. none of this information to date has come close to the president of the united states. michael cohen did. he s all over the president. none of them. no one has been charged with any crimes relative to their activities on the campaign. michael cohen has. the work that they did on the cohen. no, michael cohen was charged in the campaign dshlsi cohen stood up in court and norm, i can t hear jim. michael cohen was charged with something to do with borrowing money, something to do with talking to the bank about the money that he borrowed, something to do with lying about the payoff on the women and something to do with lying about a campaign contribution to do with paying off the women. two of those four are directly related to the president. he now just pleaded guilty okay, now to lying to congress about the president s business to cover for the president. how can you say it s not related, jim? even a dummy like i didn
saying this is all we will ever say publicly? according to the washington post , the president put up and dictated that statement that was not fully explaining what the meeting was about. so i don t think this is very different. they have always tried to play a hedge on this. the e-mail chain shows there was an intent to want information that was bad about hillary clinton. but there s also there is a companion piece to it, which is at the meeting, but all accounts everyone was disappointed because that information wasn t related. it became about adoption. you could play it either way. having the president weigh in at that level is a little different. their argument has been privately, look, it is not a crime to lie to the new york times . it is a crime to lie to investigators. the flip side of that argument, and chris would know more about this than i do, i think, in your opinion trying to cover up the true intent behind something, that that could constitute obstruction.
i have seen nothing that they have reached out to bannon for his perspective. what do you know? i haven t heard anything about that. we don t know for sure, i would say. but he s going to do that now. i mean, if bannon suggested that there was some type of illicit activity and something wrong with the meeting that occurred and there may have been money laundering or something like that and the whole troop may have been marched up to talk to trip as well, i don t imagine mule ser not going to want to talk about it. unless you give a nod. we go on what people say. they go on what they believe is material to a case and what they can show. this guy having an opinion about a meeting when he wasn t even in the white house at the time is different than somebody who is a party who has firsthand information. we ll have to see. you could be right. maybe they will reach out. remember, chris, the only thing about george papadopoulos until mueller dropped that on