Dispute. Now turning attention to the ron johnson letter if i may. Yes. On august 31st, Senator Johnson is getting ready to travel to ukraine on September 5th with senator with murphy. And he wanted johnson wanted the aid released so he calls the president and sought permission to be the bearer of good news. Right. The president said im not ready to lift the aid. They had this Senator Johnson, he writes a tenpage letter, very detailed, and he gives some remarkable detail and i would like to read it. Its on page 6. I this is Senator Johnson speaking, he said i asked him whether there was some kind of
arran arrangement where ukraine would take some action and the hold would be lifted. Without hesitation, Senator Johnson says, President Trump immediately denied such an arrangement existed and he started cursing. He said, no way. President trump said no way. I would never do that. Who told you that . And Senator Johnson goes on to say that President Trumps reactionnt here was adamant, vehe
fisa warrant applications was not part of the opening. but nevertheless, he s very kritkri critical of how that was used and how those warrants weret de and whether or not the fbi should have been more forthcoming. but hee still found no evidenc ofou bias. he says he has more questions about their motivations. and heth says that there will b another investigation into the process of opening fisa warrants. something we ve been talking about for a long time through many administrations int termsf how american citizens are railed by their own governments. but the reaction we saw today from the fbi director was so different from what we saw from the attorney general that i think it s clear there s really a gap here. then also, how closely aligned william barr is with john durham. the u.s. attorney that he tapped to run a criminal investigation. so il think eyes will soon be shifting in the new year over to john durham. and questions will, again, arise over how, you know, his i don t want
went in october of 2017 and in december we finally got a witness and it was in the following spring after a lot of pushing a and pulling, a lot of tug of war we reached a deal with doj where we went down to doj and they gave us access to documents and they gave us access to i think, you know, north of 800,000 pages, but they made us come down there, they made us go into a scif, these documents weren t classified, and, you know, wasn tcl until m and junew, of that year that we started this process that the investigation had been ongoing and that is disappointing. obviously we all wish there was an easy button. congressional investigations of consequence take time. right. it took i think six months before thein first document was
in terms of whether or not it s fair across the board. you know,fa i mean i i thk julia s right. eyes will shift toward the durham probe because that s whereau donald trump would like eyes to shift toward. because i believe this is, what, the third release of parts of the horowitzha investigation. and it s an exercise in cherry picking from this white house. they do not like, as they did not like most of the mueller report once someone told donald trump that it did not completely exoneratet him on either contas with russia. there were 150 of those. or criminal obstruction of justice. there were ten cases of that. so what what do you make of all of the eggs being taken out of the horowitz basket? if you google any fox host and horowitz, you ll find i don t advise it. it s not fun. you get down the rabbit hole. you lose yourhe evening. but you ll find dozens of hits of horowitz was going to be the gold standard. horowitz wase gonna nail the f on the origins of the russia investig
correct?is on certain facts we don t. we have firsthand information on the may 23rd meeting in the oval office, a lot of firsthand information, although all conflicting on the july 10th meeting. there are episodes i think during the course of this investigation that we haven t been ableig to at least get everyone s account. but the investigation hasn t been able to reveal firsthand evidence relatingev to the president other than the call transcript. and i think we ve already talked about this, that ambassador sondland would presume things, assume things, and form opinions based on what other people told him and then he would use those as firsthand, that is correct? you know, it started with his