To cancel his summit in helsinki with Vladimir Putin on monday in the face of this, new charges brought by the Department Of Justice. Whats your take on this . I agree, he never should have taken the meeting to begin with. I mean we have no idea what he would hope to gain from this. What we know quite clearly, these were not lowlevel operatives, ali, who were indicted. These are highlevel people who worked very closely with the Senior Leadership in russia. We know putin knew this. Donald trump is only enabling Vladimir Putin by coming to this meeting, by participating in this meeting. If he does do it, and, you know, it wouldnt surprise me if he did, what he ought to do is hand him over these indictments, demand the immediate prompt extradition of all the defendants involved, and thats what he should be doing. He is playing into the hands of putin right now. The world is turned upside down,
as your prior person said. Yeah. Putin wants to destabilize nato, he wants to sow discord among
republicans, that it s all moving too fast and there needs to be time for saturation of the narrative in the public consciousness or otherwise the public gets left behind. but i thought chairman nadler actually made a very good point in his opening remarks about why urgency was important here. if we have a president who is inviting foreign interference into our elections, then we need to act immediately. you know, if there was a knife-wielding murderer out at large, we wouldn t say, we need more time to carefully collect the evidence. we d stop him in his tracks because he s harming risking harm to the public every day he s out there. and the same is true with regard to president trump. as long as he is continuing to solicit foreign influence into our elections, he cannot be checked with an election alone. he needs to be checked by the constitutional process of impeachment. again, barbara mcquade, after a long day of watching all this, thanks for showing up and explaining it to us.
personal joke between two people. i don t have to describe any of this. but when you are in a work contest and you re talking about things like removing the president via the 25th amendment, or secretly either wearing a wire or having someone else wearing a wire, that is not necessarily funny. you are in a work setting. maybe the president is off-loading some of that heavy lifting to congress. they can have those tough questions. harris: that s a possibility. i do think that it s interesting, as steve points out, that now the leverage is gone for rosenstein. he is in a position of capitulation, really. and now he s on air force one. you talk about what you would say front of your boss and we wouldn t say. you ve heard all sorts of things. you brought up that it s not funny because it s been suggested that perhaps it was a joke, and i don t know how you joke about that. that is the same sort of narrative that we have between strzok and page. get rid of the president before he s in th
there s a lot of things not in here. but for a lawyer like you, you think, wow, there are references to people who aren t named. do you have the impression that the special counsel s office knows who those other people are. why are there things that don t seem to be in here that they make references to? that s a standard way that you list out material. anyone who s either unindicted or may never be indicted is not supposed to have dirt put on their name, if you will, so organization 1 is a reference that very clearly is wikileaks and nbc confirmed that. other references appear to be roger stone based on other leaks but we wouldn t say that s 100% confirmed by mueller s office. so we have to be careful about that because people are subjects and targets of the investigation and may not ultimately be charged. that s the standard way that you do this. richard nixon was famous leanne unindicted co-conspirator in the watergate proceeding, but the same concept applying. i think what is so s
kimberly: the civility we ve been talking about. she should not get a pass for that. juan: i agree. kimberly: take it all the way, three quarters but not all the way. when you encourage actions like that and rhetoric in that kind of vitriol, violence and physical assaultive conduct can ensue. i think it s bad. chris: we wouldn t say that the president is responsible for violence because he has used course terms. we wouldn t say that that, that she is to blame for violence, right? kimberly: i didn t say that. i said she is not to be commended for her rhetoric. i think it s divisive and uncalled for and totally lacking instability. chris: not laudatory. kimberly: not favoring signs. reciprocal civility. chris: if you are watching now, you re probably escaping the scorching, disgusting heat wave. how we here at the five are managing the sweltering temperatures next.