Exhibiting the kind of profound indifference to the racial contours of the jeff session nomination that i wouldnt have expected from somebody as savvy as mitch mcconnell. If they did that on purpose to be racially provocative, to stir you racial currents here, i think thats scary and gross. If they did it accidentally, i think its political malpractice. But i think theyve just turned this issue and Elizabeth Warren and the Jeff Sessions nomination into a much hotter, more hotly contested and sort of scarier thing that its been up until now. It was remarkable. Do you think it changes any votes . Thats my last question. I dont know. Weve seen a lot of republicans say they were willing to support Jeff Sessions, joe mancion. An extraordinary legal battle over the fate of the travel ban. A threejudge panel is considering an argument on whether to keep a hold on the order. Is there any reason for to us think theres a real risk . The president determined that there was a real risk. I cant bel
seven days before to six days before. it was clear richard nixon was directing them to call over to do the investigation. that tipped a lot of the republican senators and congressmen. you ve got the same thing again with the stone walling and not providing information. the big difference here is that we have a bureaucracy in place that is affected by these whistleblowers. people who are career cia or others have stepped forward and been pretty credible and backed up already by the taped transcript. that was something i found investigating abuse of power in watergate. nen the old obstruction of
holding sessions in contempt of congress over the slow walk of the subpoenaed documents and their reactions. and of course, the claims that turned out not to be true. he will join us in a few minutes. but first, tonight, rod rosenstein, he may release previously redacted portions of the memo, outlining the mueller investigation. and this is important. i want to discuss the so-called firestorm around the pick for the cia. tomorrow, gina haspel, she is set to appear for what will be a pretty contentious confirmation hearing. the democrats, then media, and anyone who generally hates donald trump has been trashing this career cia official, slamming her treatment of terrorists after 9/11 when we lost 3,000 americans, and some alleging she was way too tough
whip steve scalise, they are now inching closer to holding in contempt of congress over the slow walk of the documents and claims of national security that turned out not to be true. scalise will join us in a few minutes. but first, judicial watch tonight has announced that robpr rosenstein may release previously redacted portions of the memo outlining the scope of the molar investigation. finally. i also wanted to address the so-called firestorm around the presidents pick to leave. democrats, the media and anyone who generally hates donald trump have been trashing this career cia official, slamming her treatment of terrorists after 9/11, when we lost nearly 3,000 americans, and some alleging that she was way too tough with some of the world s most
today there are reports the trump administration is floating another name. sue gordon. get her, maybe we should vote against gina haspel nomination? one of the big concerns, gina haspel, a career cia employee, one of the best people they would get at head director of cia. democrats worry who else might donald trump appoint if this one fails. and play quickly sound from a couple interviews. with a president who does not always attach his decisions to the real world, to data, to evidence, gina haspel is the one woman i want in that room. i can talk to you how she did her job as a senior cia official. with the utmost intellectual honesty and integrity. how what are we expecting