information from, you can use it. we both agree that you don t stretch the criminal law. the times didn t reward the russians with the promise of dropping the sanctions. every politician says if you vote for me, i will be helpful on the right to choose. i will be helpful on passing, that is the way politics operate. you say that i am defending trump. i am not defending trump. i didn t vote for him or support him. i am against almost all of his policies. if hillary had won the election, i would have written a book. i brought my cover that i had made up. it would be exactly the same book and everybody would love me because i would be defending hillary clinton. but now my arguments help president trump so i am a
aggressive enough in protecting him from this investigation. it s hard to imagine there wasn t some very active conversation happening at the time. paul, again, i describe this as a theory because what we don t know is the text of the letter. we don t have it. the times didn t have it. there are leaks to the post about it. if it were blocked for russia and then you had a cover story and then russia comes out because donald trump coughed it up in an interview with lester holt that will go down as one of the most revealing interviews fr about an investigation in world history. he wants to know all about the circumstances of who wrote this letter, what were the different drafts and what was said. just the fact the the word russia was mentioned in
until i read that times story this morning, i was part of that group that believed, hey, the russians didn t manage to get down to the electoral process. president obama warned them off of that. that story makes me wonder. there s been no forensics done on this. no one has really looked backwards to see and certainly homeland security hasn t. this is a national infrastructure project. russia has weaponized information and learned to effectively ae tack democracy with our own democrat systems. is the trump administration taking this seriously enough? i can t speak for all the work the trump administration is doing. you re making my head spin.
i reported the way he put it together and added the historical events that happened in between to basically show that the government you should the obama administration had done some surveillance of individuals close to trump or computer server in trump tower and that somehow the result of none of that had been confirmed. you haven t confirmed. it was speculation. we have been trying to confirm some of this and we never had. the new york times, the washington post. the times didn t. allusions to it but no one confirmed it. the times had former and current government officials talking about some of the conversations that had been listened into. you know, so if what you re saying was true, it was being treated as established reality because all of the pieces were being used to build a case about russian hacking and influence. and all of a sudden like a jenga tour that case fell apart and
you have when you say you must be searching your mind about this. who would have done you the favor. ey didn t send it to your newspaper, didn t send is to the times didn t send it to fox. they must have thought you would be just the right person. did they say to give it to rachel? was that your call? no, that was my call. i first thought maybe donald had leaked it but his reaction in turning what could have been for him a terrific story about himself, he s managed to squander by his reaction to this. so clearly he didn t leak. when donald leaks things, he doesn t complain about them. he didn t complain about the pictures of his wife, the pornographic pictures posted in the new york post or three pages of state tax returns that got out last year. i suspect both of those came from him. so my guess is somebody who is aware of the very sophisticated knowledge that i have of tax and that i ve particularly written