an interesting clash here. we know comey s version events. the mellows are now out, he s got this book out. we know his version, he s been on interviews everywhere. this sets up where, whose version of the truth you re going to believe here, comey s or the president s? that s where wrong that s so much agitation in the white house. what did you mean in your interview with lester hot about mr. comey and russia? that s where president trump told lester hot he was thinking about the russian investigation when he fired comey. let s listen. regardless of recommendation i was going to fire comey, knowing that it was a real good time to do it. in fact, when i decided to just do it, i said to myself. i said, you know, this russia
making. we don t know if mueller is amenable to that. it doesn t seem like that s likely. the reason you ask questions and want to interview someone is because you want to see body language. you don t want to give them a take-home test and have someone else fill out their ans for them. what this sets up, the question is you asked you read just now about comey, really sets up an interesting clash here. we know comey s version events. the mellows are now out, he s got this book out. we know his version, he s been on interviews everywhere. this sets up where, whose version of the truth you re going to believe here, comey s or the president s? that s where wrong that s so much agitation in the white house. what did you mean in your
some on the president s legal team have been trying to suggest. and some of what james comey said here was related obviously to the russian hacking effort. and that he said it was done with overwhelming technical efforts. those were his words. what stood out to you agains a former cia military analyst this what he said about the russian hacking effort? what stood out to me is how firm and conclusive he was in his responses. he didn t elaborate. he had very high confidence. we know this from the public record on this, there was consensus across the intelligence agencies and it seems that there is pretty clear confirmati bind the scenes. i do think it is interesting, this has been framed as a he said/a said/he said. and president trump himself actually hasn t said what he said. he just rye futured comey s version events. so at the press conference yesterday, i really think there was an opportunity to follow up. he said comey wasn t telling the truth, but nobody pressed him on
he s a man who s president as well cares very much about b his public image, so much so that he allowed his deputy press secretary, kellyanne conway and senior adviser and mike pence to go out and say things about how from their point of view that russia had nothing to do with the comey fire and president trump went on nbc, the following day and totally contradicted them. again, his view, throughout the campaign and in the white house is that he alone can fix it. he knows best, even if he is contradicting aids or even if it hurts staff moral in the white house, you know, he s the one that s going put forward the version events that he sees it as the right ones and sends these messages that become under if not of becoming a president or different from what we are used to of making threats
place holder for zimmerman s own personal testimony. no animation, no testimony. they think they re still getting his version events out there? well, you re right. the prosecution has put in four or five different versions of zimmerman s story, including a videotaped re-enactment at the scene. i think the defense has made the calculation all along that the jury heard his story in his own words in a very calm straight forward manner. why put him on the stand and subject him to cross examination? i want to double-check you re still there and still listening. yes. so with the animation out of the way, what do we expect these final witnesses to be about? well, we should note here that the animation, the judge decided it can t be used as evidence. the animation can still be used as a demonstration perhaps for a witness, if another witness is called, but she s ruled that it can t be introduced in evidence. was fairly clear as saying it