are on a collision course. this is slated for six months before the election. if this sort of evidence is put into the public domain and is heard in a court, how much damage will that do to the campaign of a man who wants to be president? it is hard to man who wants to be president? it 3 hard to predict that. as you noted, it seems the former president is very able to parlay seemingly career destroying revelations for other politicians into a fundraising drive, into something that cements his lead. there may be a limit to that. there was a poll recently that showed that republicans seemed to believe in increasing numbers that trump committed crimes in this case. we are still waiting, washington, dc for a another indictment to land in
andrew and hugh and we re joined by rick stagle. mr. secretary, thank you for joining us. once said to edit is to choose. it seems to me when you are given a pile of stuff that is salacious and could be career destroying or at least anybody, including a r president-elect, you decide whether it s true or not. you don t act in reckless disregard. yes. i wouldn t reckless disregard. i would not have published it. it wasn t a news story. i d like to know why that was included in the intelligence briefing. it was included as a an addendum described in the papers as disinformation. which is another reason not
irresponsible to drop highly salacious and flat-out false information on the internet just days before he takes the oath of office. welcome back. those were some of president-elects closest allies condemning buzzfeed for their decision to release that 35 page document about donald trump. they came under harsh criticism. we re back now with katie, andrew and hugh and we re joined by rick stagle. mr. secretary, thank you for joining us. once said to edit is to choose. it seems to me when you are given a pile of stuff that is salacious and could be career destroying or at least
of unsubstantiated allegations, probably false, about donald trump. they weren t the only ones. buzzfeed came under harsh criticism by a number of news organizations today. we re back with katy tur, rick stang stengel, hugh hewitt. ben bradley, the great editor of all times at the washington post who broke the watergate story with the help of woodward and bernstein once said to edit is to choose. it seems when you re given a pile of stuff that s salacious and could be career destroying, at least reputation destroying for anybody, including a president-elect, you decide whether it s true or not. you don t act in reckless disregard. yes, i wouldt reckless disregard. we ll get to that in a second. i woul not he published it. it wasn t a news story, it was something included in an intelligence briefing. i d like to know why that is. but it wasn t included as