Early, bureau chief at politico, Jonathan Lemire. I liked it. Do it every morning. John heilemann is here. Why are you here so early . I dont know. Thats a lot for us at 6 00. Me rolls in from the club. Works out well. Its like Super Tuesday, starting on a super note. I have to prepare emotionally for heilemann to be in the room. Wow. Bbc news katty kay is with us, as well. So important it is Super Tuesday. I have an announcement to make, personal. Hopson is an emotional support dog. I know you love him, joe, except for the humping problem. Wow. How do you stop that . Some dogs cant be stopped from that. I joe was still getting his mic on, so i was helping you out. Congratulations, hopson. Gosh. You could have stretched just a little bit less on that. Hes a good dog. I just do want some advice on that. No, no. Sweetheart, i may talk a lot hey, sweetie . Rapid turn. I may talk a lot, but i want you to know what comes out of my mouth scares you . Its the things that i dont say that have
was done in accordance with recommendations and this renders it moot. joining me now, david fahrenthold, who has covered the trump organization for years. david, good morning. exactly what does this mean? what s the significance of this? well, look, so the things the statements we re talking about here were things that trump would use. he would have his accounts prepared and give to potential lenders, potential business partners. basically a way to tell the world how rich he was. and what is happening now is his accountants are saying, look, we want you to know and other people to know, those statements shouldn t be relied on. ten years of them shouldn t be relied on. the thing that you used to sum up your wealth was not accurate. what that means is that they have discovered what trump gave them, the information they gave him about himself was not accurate. and i think that s important for these cases, because what they re trying to do is prove
company s long time accounting firm is now cutting ties with the trumpa organization saying the financial statements it prepared almost a decade can no longer be viewed as reliable. that paperwork is at the center of investigations whether the former president s company broke the law by inflating its assets. the accounting firm also says the documents as whole don t show material skrep seesz, which the trump organization is taking as vindication tonight in a statement claiming this renders the investigations against it moot. but experts say getting a letter like this is highly unusual and could suggest significant issues with those financial statements. lester. thank you. in brunswick, georgia today, the issue was race. did three men convicted of murdering ahmaud arbery do so because he was black? it s the central question as their federal hate crimes trial got under way. here s blayne alexander. reporter: it s the case that help launch a wave of protests over racial injustice. t
eventually became that infamous dossier on then-candidate trump. aside from the more salacious paragraphs it also alleges several connections between trump aides and russian operatives. before we go on, while some claims in the dossier seem to line up with known facts, some of the more serious allegations do v not yet been proven true. but for that matter, neither have they been proven untrue. behind bob corker s oh, i m sorry. let me bring jonathan lamiere in on this. the washington post reporting and the president s reaction are an interesting new development. we know who paid for the dossier. there were some rumblings that if the person had paid for that had paid for the original product could have been the russians and that would have rendered it moot. but what is the clinton campaign s explanation for so compartmentalizing this that its own senior campaign staff didn t know about it, and lied about it.
former president trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction. that is what the dry and even attempted boring spin looks like. they landed as the book notes and you may remember from what we covered the impeachment, they landed on something that nobody believes. that they were so concerned about the procedural precedent of a former president that they can t consider his guilt and that is why mcconnell called it moot. you could use whatever hypothetical you want. a president dropping a nuclear bomb in the united states and then removed from office or no longer there, you could bet it is procedurally possible to say that person can never run for office again. wherever the bar is, it exists and it was bs to claim otherwise. republican leaders, they wanted him out and they admitted it privately according to the reporting and then they publicly did the opposite. we want you to have all of the facts. i ve shown you back and forth, but as for the forth of it, mccarthy now in respon