but if jack kelly tells you something off the record, who is then you got reason to run with that. that is considered very impeccable source. but the other thing is you have to think about people s agenda. not even how many sources you have or how good your sources are, but what their agenda is. why they are telling you this, what me might have to gain and how they are spinning it and that is a challenge in this story and increasingly becoming a challenge becauser seeing instances where there are people who want to set reporters up to fail now and that is and that is a concern i think a year ago we didn t have in the way we do now. that seems like an active thing to look out for in reporting the story at this point. there is an obvious desire to discredit everything having to do with the investigation. and one of the things that has happened is the press has in some ways been out ahead of actual investigators. the best example of this
and so really once the first story published, it didn t shake loose new sources of information that allowed us to keep going with different angles. so let me ask you about the dulles stakeout, dan. because the craziest detail of all of the flights is he chartered a flight from philadelphia to washington, d.c. which i never heard of a person commercial or not, flying from washington to philadelphia. i ve literally never heard of a person doing that. they are two hours away, you could drive or walk if you have enough time. they are close cities. how did you stake out that flight? so it was a team effort and i think dan and i had different advantage points if you will as to how we did. it but in a nut shep, i was in a car and i was driving and dan was on feet and he was able to see charter
there is a very big difference between making honest mistakes and purpose my fli misleading the american people, something that happens regularly. you can t say i m not done. you cannot say you cannot say that it is an honest mistake when your purposely putting out information that you know to be false. there have been errors and corrections in reporting on the russia investigation and other stories and those errors have been weaponized and used as fodder for a president who is painting any press as fake news even when the reporter is still accurate. and still with me. and that sort of that thsort of back and forth about errors in the russia story and corrections of which there have been some. a lot of things have born out, for instance david ignatius s column and we know months later michael flynn pleaded to that. how would you character what we know about this story at this point. i think we know a sliver of this story at this point. art mueller runs a tight ship. nothing s
intelligence service into our political system and it remains that. and it is important to always remember because collusion is a huge deal from the perspective of american scandal. the trump administration half of this story is what the russians were up to and that is remarkable. thank you. after the break, harvey weinstein and the reckoning. that is next.
this and they don t get to it. investigators on the committee don t get it until a year after the break-in and i herd that and i heard that and thought there might be a lot we don t know. what is striking how much we ve learned since a year ago. you go back to early january, i have nothing to do with russia. that was trump s line. and then we learn about the kislyak and flynn conversations, we learn about the trump tower meeting. we learn about papadapoulos and jeff sessions meetings. how much we ve learned and how little we really know. and whether it adds up to what the what the core allegation in the dossier that there were real collusion or collaboration or were these just a series of incidents that just happened because things happen. and we don t know. and we know there is a pattern of them of the white house trying to minimize and spin and deny, but i have to say, covered many white houses, that is the instinct of reaction of every white house when there is an embarrassi