Wolf Blitzer looks at politics, breaking news and international stories. Undoubtedly, hes going to confirm all the suspicions mounting for the past year that hes been using his chairmanship to protect the president. We recall last year when he viewed some things he viewed as problematic in those intelligence reports. He rushed to the white house, briefed the president about it before even briefing his committee. He was forced to step aside from the Russia Investigation on his Committee Last year, but he still wielded considerable influence from the outside. He stopped democratic attempts to subpoena witnesses, to get more records, to schedule witness interviews. Behind the scenes, he mounted his own investigation to try to sew doubt on the fbi, the Russia Investigation, the mueller probe. That led to the release of the nunes memo from earlier this year, criticizing how that fisa warrant was obtained to monitor carter page. Democrats say this is all part of this effort by devin nunes to
President itself wants to do the interview and its only his lawyers holding him back. So what is really going on here . Does the president want to talk or not . Politico suggests the answer is yes. Despite the risks. Thats because of, quote, trumps belief in his selfcreated myth, that he can convince anyone of anything if hes simply given the opportunity to get them in a room alone. Apparently that includes Special Counsel bob mueller himself. I want to bring in nbcs Peter Alexander whos live in berkeley heights, new jersey. Peter, if the president really wants to do it, he could just say yes. I mean, his legal take is working for him. So whats going on here . Yes, chris, you make a very good point. There would be one easy way for Rudy Giuliani and, frankly, President Trump, to wrap this thing up sooner. Giuliani saying he wants it to end within the next three weeks, by september 1st. He doesnt want it to interfere with the november elections. They would sit down with robert
mueller. T
the united sanctions of america. that s what russia is now calling the u.s. after the imposition of new sanctions. the russian president vladimir putin s spokesperson says the sanctions are unacceptable and called the usa, and i m quoting now, an unpredictable participant in international affairs. the new sanctions were ordered in response to the february poison attack in britain of a former russian spy and his daughter. both survived the attack. russia denies any involvement. the sanctions are actually mandated by a 1991 chemical weapons law. here with us to discuss, susan glasser, cnn global affairs analyst and write for the new yorker. you spent a lot of time in russia. the russians, presumably, insist they will retaliate. what, if anything, do you think is going to happen? well, you know, we ve seen this tit-for-tat before with diplomatic expulsions, the closing of the consulates and the like. what s extraordinary about this
is first of all, it represents a pretty belated response to this astonishing use of deadly nerve agent on british soil months ago. actually, the trump administration is required by international biological chemical weapons conventions to do something about it if a state is accused of being in violation of it. they spent months not doing anything, belatedly made this action. of course, it comes after the president s very friendly helsinki summit with vladimir putin. to me, it actually underscores just how sort of double headed the trump administration policy is. you have donald trump s policy toward russia, which is very conciliatory and very different from the often tough policy of his own administration. and this is another example of that. they did, the administration, expel about 60 russian diplomats but did not impose the sanctions, which were required as part of this 1991 chemical weapons law. and it was only after the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee, ed royce, i
joining me is ambassador chris hill. also a professor of practice in diplomacy for the university of denver, one of the most beautiful parts of the country. good to see you, ambassador. so these new sanctions are required. 1991 chemical weapons law says that s what they have to do. but is this an administration, as you see it, really taking a hard line against russia in spite of what we heard from the president and if not, in any case, what s the real impact here? well, first of all, obviously this administration has done quite the opposite with respect to russia and the president is constantly pleading for the idea that he can work with vladimir putin and otherwise sort of, you know, make the world a better place. but clearly that s not working. and i think the facts that the helsinki summit went as it did. the president and his administration had absolutely no choice but to follow up on these. frankly, these are congressional