克里斯-馬修斯：這意味著民主黨必須在2020年獲勝這意味著民主黨必須在2020年贏得勝利｜早間新聞｜MSNBC (Chris Matthews: This Means Dems Have To Win In 2020 | Morning Joe | MSNBC)

Subtitles section Play video

THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO HAS BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN
HAS BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS FROM THE VERY
THIS PROCESS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
BEGINNING. >> OKAY.
>> OKAY. >> JUST READ GEORGE CONWAY’S
>> JUST READ GEORGE CONWAY’S TWEETS.
TWEETS. CHRIS MATTHEWS HERE, I’LL JUMP
CHRIS MATTHEWS HERE, I’LL JUMP OVER ALL THE GOOD MORNING.
OVER ALL THE GOOD MORNING. CHRIS, WHEN DONALD TRUMP WAS
CHRIS, WHEN DONALD TRUMP WAS STANDING IN FRONT OF THE LINE OF
STANDING IN FRONT OF THE LINE OF CARS AND HE WAS -- HE’S GIVING
CARS AND HE WAS -- HE’S GIVING HIS SPIEL.
HIS SPIEL. HE REMINDED ME OF ROBERT DUVALL
HE REMINDED ME OF ROBERT DUVALL IN "GODFATHER II" AFTER MICHAEL
IN "GODFATHER II" AFTER MICHAEL CORELEONE JUST GOT OFF.
CORELEONE JUST GOT OFF. NOT EXACTLY HOW YOU WOULD EXPECT
NOT EXACTLY HOW YOU WOULD EXPECT DONALD TRUMP TO RESPOND TO THE
DONALD TRUMP TO RESPOND TO THE NEWS.
NEWS. >> ANY TIME WE WATCH A CRIMINAL
>> ANY TIME WE WATCH A CRIMINAL CASE WE GET A VERDICT, THE GUY
CASE WE GET A VERDICT, THE GUY WHO GOT OFF SAYS I’M INNOCENT.
WHO GOT OFF SAYS I’M INNOCENT. I’VE BEEN.
I’VE BEEN. PROVEN.
PROVEN. INNOCENT.
INNOCENT. ACTUALLY HE’S BEEN ACQUITTED,
ACTUALLY HE’S BEEN ACQUITTED, HASN’T BEEN PROVEN INNOCENT.
HASN’T BEEN PROVEN INNOCENT. THEY ALDO THAT.
THEY ALDO THAT. I JUST TELL YOU, STUDIED LIKE
I JUST TELL YOU, STUDIED LIKE YOU.
YOU. I WATCHED THIS AT 5:00 ON
I WATCHED THIS AT 5:00 ON FRIDAY.
FRIDAY. CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON.
CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON. FRIDAY.
FRIDAY. ALWAYS THE DUMPING GROUND.
ALWAYS THE DUMPING GROUND. YOU DIDN’T HAVE 24/7 NEWS
YOU DIDN’T HAVE 24/7 NEWS COVERAGE.
COVERAGE. YOU COULD HIDE IT AND KILL THEM
YOU COULD HIDE IT AND KILL THEM IN THE SUNDAY PAPER.
IN THE SUNDAY PAPER. I THOUGHT THAT WAS SNEAKY.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS SNEAKY. THEN I SAW THE NEWS.
THEN I SAW THE NEWS. NO, IT WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES
NO, IT WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES DEDUCTION, THE DOG THAT DIDN’T
DEDUCTION, THE DOG THAT DIDN’T BARK.
BARK. NO INDICTMENTS OF ANY OF HIS
NO INDICTMENTS OF ANY OF HIS ASSOCIATES, FAMILY MEMBERS OR
ASSOCIATES, FAMILY MEMBERS OR HENCHMEN FOR COLLUSION FOR
HENCHMEN FOR COLLUSION FOR SUPPORTING THE INTERVENTION IN
SUPPORTING THE INTERVENTION IN OUR CAMPAIGNS.
OUR CAMPAIGNS. WHEN I HEARD THAT NONE OF THE
WHEN I HEARD THAT NONE OF THE KIDS REMEMBER NONE OF THE
KIDS REMEMBER NONE OF THE HENCHMEN, ROGER STONE, MANAFORT,
HENCHMEN, ROGER STONE, MANAFORT, NOBODY INVOLVED.
NOBODY INVOLVED. I GO WAIT A MINUTE, THERE’S NOT
I GO WAIT A MINUTE, THERE’S NOT EVEN GOING TO BE A HID ENCHARGE
EVEN GOING TO BE A HID ENCHARGE SOMEWHERE IN HERE AGAINST THE
SOMEWHERE IN HERE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. THERE’S NOT EVEN A STATEMENT
THERE’S NOT EVEN A STATEMENT ABOUT HIM.
ABOUT HIM. SO THEY DIDN’T HAVE HIM ON
SO THEY DIDN’T HAVE HIM ON COLLUSION.
COLLUSION. THAT MEANS THERE WILL NOT BE A
THAT MEANS THERE WILL NOT BE A CONVICT SHINE THE U.S. SENATE
CONVICT SHINE THE U.S. SENATE THIS YEAR.
THIS YEAR. THAT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
THAT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I DOUBT -- I NOTE THAT IF
I DOUBT -- I NOTE THAT IF THERE’S A MAJORITY VOTE IN THE
THERE’S A MAJORITY VOTE IN THE HOUSE FOR IMPEACHMENT WILL BE
HOUSE FOR IMPEACHMENT WILL BE ALMOST ENTIRELY DEMOCRATS.
ALMOST ENTIRELY DEMOCRATS. YOU CAN MAKE A CASE FOR
YOU CAN MAKE A CASE FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. I MADE IT ON THE AIR.
I MADE IT ON THE AIR. IT’S ALL BROAD DAYLIGHT BEHAVIOR
IT’S ALL BROAD DAYLIGHT BEHAVIOR BY THE PRESIDENT.
BY THE PRESIDENT. FIRING COMEY.
FIRING COMEY. IT WAS A GOOD CASE FOR
IT WAS A GOOD CASE FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. REPUBLICANS ALREADY KNOW THAT.
REPUBLICANS ALREADY KNOW THAT. THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTING
THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTING IMPEACHMENT.
IMPEACHMENT. I THINK THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO
I THINK THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO WIN THE ELECTION.
WIN THE ELECTION. >> WHAT.
>> WHAT. >> THEY GOT WIN THE ELECTION.
>> THEY GOT WIN THE ELECTION. CAN’T WAIT FOR UNCLE ROBERT TO
CAN’T WAIT FOR UNCLE ROBERT TO TAKE CARE OF THEM.
TAKE CARE OF THEM. UNCLE ROBERT DID WHAT HE THOUGHT
UNCLE ROBERT DID WHAT HE THOUGHT HE DID WAS RIGHT AND BARR DID
HE DID WAS RIGHT AND BARR DID WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS RIGHT.
WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS RIGHT. YOU GOT TO DO YOUR OWN CASE.
YOU GOT TO DO YOUR OWN CASE. LOOK WE WATCHED KNICKS ON GO
LOOK WE WATCHED KNICKS ON GO DOWN ON EVIDENCE, THE JUNE 23rd
DOWN ON EVIDENCE, THE JUNE 23rd TAPE WHERE IT WAS CLEARLY
TAPE WHERE IT WAS CLEARLY INVOLVED IN OBSTRUCTION.
INVOLVED IN OBSTRUCTION. LEADING THE CASE FOR COVERING IT
LEADING THE CASE FOR COVERING IT UP.
UP. WE SAW THE CLINTON STUFF, HOW HE
WE SAW THE CLINTON STUFF, HOW HE LIED UNDER OATH.
LIED UNDER OATH. WE HAD HIM.
WE HAD HIM. WE LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, WE
WE LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, WE LOOKED AT THE FACTS.
LOOKED AT THE FACTS. RIGHT NOW THERE’S NO CASE FOR
RIGHT NOW THERE’S NO CASE FOR HIS REMOVAL ON COLLUSION.
HIS REMOVAL ON COLLUSION. THEN WE’LL ARGUE ABOUT
THEN WE’LL ARGUE ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE FOR A
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE FOR A WHILE.
WHILE. THERE AGAIN, A JUDGMENT CALL.
THERE AGAIN, A JUDGMENT CALL. BARR MADE HIS JUDGMENT OVER THE
BARR MADE HIS JUDGMENT OVER THE WEEKEND.
WEEKEND. THE REPUBLICANS HAVE MADE THEIR
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE MADE THEIR JUDGMENT, YES, YES, YES, BUT
JUDGMENT, YES, YES, YES, BUT WE’RE NOT REMOVING HIM FROM
WE’RE NOT REMOVING HIM FROM OFFICE.
OFFICE. EVERYBODY WILL BE PARTISAN ON
EVERYBODY WILL BE PARTISAN ON THIS, LET’S FACE IT.
THIS, LET’S FACE IT. >> THE QUESTION IS, CHRIS, THAT,
>> THE QUESTION IS, CHRIS, THAT, OF COURSE, MAYBE HISTORIANS WILL
OF COURSE, MAYBE HISTORIANS WILL BE SORTING THROUGH, IS IF
BE SORTING THROUGH, IS IF THERE’S NO COLLUSION, IF THERE
THERE’S NO COLLUSION, IF THERE WAS NO IMPROPER CONDUCT, IF
WAS NO IMPROPER CONDUCT, IF DONALD TRUMP HAD NOTHING TO
DONALD TRUMP HAD NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT ALL ALONG WHY DID
WORRY ABOUT ALL ALONG WHY DID THE PRESIDENT LIE ABOUT HIS
THE PRESIDENT LIE ABOUT HIS CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA DURING THE
CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA DURING THE CAMPAIGN REPEATEDLY, WHY DID THE
CAMPAIGN REPEATEDLY, WHY DID THE VICE PRESIDENT LIE ABOUT THEIR
VICE PRESIDENT LIE ABOUT THEIR CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA IN JANUARY
CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA IN JANUARY OF 2017.
OF 2017. WHY DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LIE
WHY DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LIE IN FRONT OF THE UNITED STATES
IN FRONT OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ABOUT HIS CONTACTS?
SENATE ABOUT HIS CONTACTS? I MEAN WE CAN GO --
I MEAN WE CAN GO -- >> SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST LIARS.
>> SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST LIARS. >> THAT’S THING.
>> THAT’S THING. THEY WEREN’T LYING ABOUT TALKING
THEY WEREN’T LYING ABOUT TALKING TO RUSSIANS AND THE OTHER LIE
TO RUSSIANS AND THE OTHER LIE ABOUT TALKING TO VENEZUELANS AND
ABOUT TALKING TO VENEZUELANS AND ANOTHER TALK ABOUT TALKING TO
ANOTHER TALK ABOUT TALKING TO THE CHINESE.
THE CHINESE. THEY ALLIED.
THEY ALLIED. >> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION --
>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION -- >> ABOUT TALKING.
>> ABOUT TALKING. >> THE WAY PEOPLE BEHAVE, THEY
>> THE WAY PEOPLE BEHAVE, THEY DON’T LIKE BEING INVESTIGATED.
DON’T LIKE BEING INVESTIGATED. WHY DID SADDAM HUSSEIN CLAIM HE
WHY DID SADDAM HUSSEIN CLAIM HE HAD ALL THESE WEAPONS AND THEY
HAD ALL THESE WEAPONS AND THEY GO HIDE IN A SPIDER HOLE.
GO HIDE IN A SPIDER HOLE. HE DIDN’T HAVE THE WEAPONS.
HE DIDN’T HAVE THE WEAPONS. >> HE WAS MORE AFRAID OF THE
>> HE WAS MORE AFRAID OF THE SHIA THAN THE UNITED STATES.
SHIA THAN THE UNITED STATES. I CAN EXPLAIN THAT A LOT BETTER
I CAN EXPLAIN THAT A LOT BETTER THAN I CAN EXPLAIN THIS, WHICH
THAN I CAN EXPLAIN THIS, WHICH IS WHY WOULD YOU CONTINUE LYING
IS WHY WOULD YOU CONTINUE LYING ABOUT YOUR CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA.
ABOUT YOUR CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA. >> TWO YEARS OF LOOKING INTO IT
>> TWO YEARS OF LOOKING INTO IT AND THEY CAN’T GET IT.
AND THEY CAN’T GET IT. I AGREE WITH YOU.
I AGREE WITH YOU. FIRST OF ALL THERE’S A LOT OF
FIRST OF ALL THERE’S A LOT OF PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THERE WAS
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THERE WAS BACK AND FORTH MEETINGS.
BACK AND FORTH MEETINGS. ALL THE MEETINGS, CIGAR BAR AT
ALL THE MEETINGS, CIGAR BAR AT THE TRUMP TOWER.
THE TRUMP TOWER. >> HOW ABOUT THE MEETING ON AIR
>> HOW ABOUT THE MEETING ON AIR FORCE ONE WHERE DONALD TRUMP HAS
FORCE ONE WHERE DONALD TRUMP HAS EVERYBODY AROUND HIM SAYING OKAY
EVERYBODY AROUND HIM SAYING OKAY THIS IS HOW WE’LL LIE ABOUT OUR
THIS IS HOW WE’LL LIE ABOUT OUR MEETING WITH THE RUSSIANS.
MEETING WITH THE RUSSIANS. >> GET YOURSELF AS A JOB AS
>> GET YOURSELF AS A JOB AS SPECIAL COUNSEL BECAUSE IN THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL BECAUSE IN THE END --
END -- >> BECAUSE IN THE END THERE’S
>> BECAUSE IN THE END THERE’S MORE OF THAT ONION TO UNPEEL.
MORE OF THAT ONION TO UNPEEL. >> YOU CAN MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.
>> YOU CAN MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. IT WAS RESOLVED THIS WEEKEND
IT WAS RESOLVED THIS WEEKEND POLITICALLY.
POLITICALLY. >> WE HAVEN’T SEEN THE REPORT
>> WE HAVEN’T SEEN THE REPORT YET.
YET. THERE ARE PARTS OF THE REPORT
THERE ARE PARTS OF THE REPORT THAT SAID THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT
THAT SAID THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT EXONERATED.
EXONERATED. JOINING US FROM POLITICO
JOINING US FROM POLITICO SPECIALIZING IN LEGAL AND
SPECIALIZING IN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES, JOSH
NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES, JOSH GERSTEIN AND FORMER CIA DIRECTOR
GERSTEIN AND FORMER CIA DIRECTOR JOHN BRENNAN, SENIOR NATIONAL
JOHN BRENNAN, SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE
SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST FOR NBC NEWS.
ANALYST FOR NBC NEWS. LET’S START WITH DIRECTOR
LET’S START WITH DIRECTOR BRENNAN.
BRENNAN. WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST QUESTION
WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST QUESTION THIS MORNING PERTAINING TO THE
THIS MORNING PERTAINING TO THE MUELLER REPORT AND ESPECIALLY
MUELLER REPORT AND ESPECIALLY THE ONE LINE THAT WAS QUOTED BY
THE ONE LINE THAT WAS QUOTED BY ROBERT MUELLER AND THAT THIS
ROBERT MUELLER AND THAT THIS DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM ON THE
DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM ON THE ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION.
ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION. >> WELL, GOOD MORNING, MIKA.
>> WELL, GOOD MORNING, MIKA. I THINK LIKE, VIRTUALLY EVERYONE
I THINK LIKE, VIRTUALLY EVERYONE ELSE I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT AS
ELSE I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT AS MUCH OF THE MUELLER REPORT AS
MUCH OF THE MUELLER REPORT AS POSSIBLE SHOULD BE RELEASED TO
POSSIBLE SHOULD BE RELEASED TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN
CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
PUBLIC. WILLIAM BARR’S LETTER SUMMARIZES
WILLIAM BARR’S LETTER SUMMARIZES THAT REPORT AND--
THAT REPORT AND-- SHAKES SOME TANTALIZING MOMENTS
SHAKES SOME TANTALIZING MOMENTS IN IT.
IN IT. I ACCEPT ROBERT MUELLER’S
I ACCEPT ROBERT MUELLER’S DETERMINATION DESPITE THE PUBLIC
DETERMINATION DESPITE THE PUBLIC CALL BY DONALD TRUMP FOR THE
CALL BY DONALD TRUMP FOR THE RUSSIANS TO GO AFTER HILLARY
RUSSIANS TO GO AFTER HILLARY CLINTON’S E-MAIL AND MEETING AT
CLINTON’S E-MAIL AND MEETING AT TRUMP TOWER BY DON JR., LOOKING
TRUMP TOWER BY DON JR., LOOKING FOR DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON, AND
FOR DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON, AND THE REFERENCE THAT CHRIS MADE TO
THE REFERENCE THAT CHRIS MADE TO ALL THE OTHER MEETINGS THAT WERE
ALL THE OTHER MEETINGS THAT WERE TAKING PLACE, I ACCEPT THAT HE
TAKING PLACE, I ACCEPT THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH AFTER
WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH AFTER HIS INVESTIGATION THAT THERE WAS
HIS INVESTIGATION THAT THERE WAS A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OR
A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OR CRIMINAL COORDINATION WITH THE
CRIMINAL COORDINATION WITH THE RUSSIANS IN THE INTERFERENCE OF
RUSSIANS IN THE INTERFERENCE OF THE ELECTION.
THE ELECTION. I THINK WE SHOULD BE RELIEVED
I THINK WE SHOULD BE RELIEVED THERE WAS NOT THIS ACTIVE
THERE WAS NOT THIS ACTIVE CONSPIRACY GOING ON BETWEEN U.S.
CONSPIRACY GOING ON BETWEEN U.S. PERSONS.
PERSONS. DOESN’T MEAN THEY DIDN’T DO
DOESN’T MEAN THEY DIDN’T DO WRONG THINGS OR UNETHICAL
WRONG THINGS OR UNETHICAL THINGS.
THINGS. ON THE ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF
ON THE ISSUE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, I THINK THAT REALLY IS
JUSTICE, I THINK THAT REALLY IS AN OPEN QUESTION.
AN OPEN QUESTION. AS WILLIAM BARR’S MEMO
AS WILLIAM BARR’S MEMO REFERENCES, BOB MUELLER SAID
REFERENCES, BOB MUELLER SAID THERE’S EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES
THERE’S EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES AND WE NEED TO HAVE A BETTER
AND WE NEED TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY WHAT IS
UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY WHAT IS UNDERLYING THAT STATEMENT.
UNDERLYING THAT STATEMENT. SO I DO THINK CONGRESS AND
SO I DO THINK CONGRESS AND AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED A BETTER
AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED A BETTER INSIGHT INTO THIS ISSUE.
INSIGHT INTO THIS ISSUE. >> TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE
>> TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S INTERPRETATION HE WRITES IN THIS
INTERPRETATION HE WRITES IN THIS FOUR PAGE SUMMARY THE SPECIAL
FOUR PAGE SUMMARY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT FIND ANY U.S.
COUNSEL DID NOT FIND ANY U.S. PERSON OR TRUMP CAMPAIGN
PERSON OR TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL OR ASSOCIATE CONSPIRED
OFFICIAL OR ASSOCIATE CONSPIRED OR KNOWINGLY COORDINATED IN
OR KNOWINGLY COORDINATED IN RUSSIA’S EFFORTS TO INFLUENCE
RUSSIA’S EFFORTS TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IS THE WORD "KNOWINGLY"
IS THE WORD "KNOWINGLY" IMPORTANT THERE?
IMPORTANT THERE? >> WELL, I THINK IF YOU’RE
>> WELL, I THINK IF YOU’RE TALKING BEFORE, PEOPLE DO SOME
TALKING BEFORE, PEOPLE DO SOME THINGS UNWITTINGLY.
THINGS UNWITTINGLY. CLEARLY THERE WAS AN EFFORT BY
CLEARLY THERE WAS AN EFFORT BY RUSSIA TO TRY TO ENGAGING A
RUSSIA TO TRY TO ENGAGING A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BY MAKING
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BY MAKING OFFERS TO SUPPORT THE ELECTION
OFFERS TO SUPPORT THE ELECTION PROSPECTS OF DONALD TRUMP.
PROSPECTS OF DONALD TRUMP. I’M GLAD THAT THERE WAS NOBODY
I’M GLAD THAT THERE WAS NOBODY WHO WAS ACTIVELY VETTING THAT AT
WHO WAS ACTIVELY VETTING THAT AT LEAST ACCORDING TO BOB MUELLER’S
LEAST ACCORDING TO BOB MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. CLEARLY THERE WERE THINGS GOING
CLEARLY THERE WERE THINGS GOING ON THAT RAISED DEEP SUSPICIONS
ON THAT RAISED DEEP SUSPICIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT AMERICAN
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT AMERICAN PERSONS WERE ACTIVELY WORKING,
PERSONS WERE ACTIVELY WORKING, AGAIN WITTINGLY OR UNWITTINGLY
AGAIN WITTINGLY OR UNWITTINGLY WITH THE RUSSIANS.
WITH THE RUSSIANS. BUT BOB MUELLER SAYS NO.
BUT BOB MUELLER SAYS NO. >> JOSH, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S
>> JOSH, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT DOES HAVE THIS LINE IN
REPORT DOES HAVE THIS LINE IN IT.
IT. BARR’S INTERPRET JAFGS IT WHERE
BARR’S INTERPRET JAFGS IT WHERE HE QUOTES THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IT
HE QUOTES THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IT DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM.
DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM. I’M WONDERING THERE ARE A LOT OF
I’M WONDERING THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THIS MORNING AS TO
QUESTIONS THIS MORNING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT BARR’S
WHETHER OR NOT BARR’S INTERPRETATION CAN BE TRUSTED.
INTERPRETATION CAN BE TRUSTED. BUT ROD ROSENSTEIN WAS INVOLVED
BUT ROD ROSENSTEIN WAS INVOLVED IN THIS.
IN THIS. THERE ARE A LOT OF REASONS TO
THERE ARE A LOT OF REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT HE’S WORK WITHIN
BELIEVE THAT HE’S WORK WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE LAW.
THE PARAMETERS OF THE LAW. >> I WAS DOWN AT THE JUSTICE
>> I WAS DOWN AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ALL DAY YESTERDAY AS
DEPARTMENT ALL DAY YESTERDAY AS THEY WERE GETTING READY TO SEND
THEY WERE GETTING READY TO SEND THIS INFORMATION OVER TO
THIS INFORMATION OVER TO CONGRESS AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR
CONGRESS AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT BARR WAS TRYING TO HUG ROD
THAT BARR WAS TRYING TO HUG ROD ROSENSTEIN IN THIS LETTER
ROSENSTEIN IN THIS LETTER BECAUSE HE’S SAYING THESE ARE
BECAUSE HE’S SAYING THESE ARE DECISIONS THAT WE MADE JOINTLY
DECISIONS THAT WE MADE JOINTLY AND ASSESSMENTS THAT WE MADE
AND ASSESSMENTS THAT WE MADE JOINTLY.
JOINTLY. A LOT OF THEM ARE HIGHLY
A LOT OF THEM ARE HIGHLY TECHNICAL.
TECHNICAL. I MEAN SOUTHEAST THINGS YOU AND
I MEAN SOUTHEAST THINGS YOU AND JOE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS
JOE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS MORNING, THE FACT THAT THE
MORNING, THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT DID MANY OF THESE ACTS
PRESIDENT DID MANY OF THESE ACTS THAT SOME CONSIDER POTENTIAL
THAT SOME CONSIDER POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION, IN PUBLIC, HE SAID
OBSTRUCTION, IN PUBLIC, HE SAID THAT WAS A FACTOR THAT LEANED
THAT WAS A FACTOR THAT LEANED AGAINST CHARGING THEM AS
AGAINST CHARGING THEM AS OBSTRUCTION.
OBSTRUCTION. THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN’T FIND
THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN’T FIND AN UNDERLYING CONSPIRACY ON THE
AN UNDERLYING CONSPIRACY ON THE OVERALL ISSUE OF WHETHER THERE
OVERALL ISSUE OF WHETHER THERE WAS COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS
WAS COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIANS IS ANOTHER THING.
IS ANOTHER THING. WHY WOULD SOMEBODY COMMIT A
WHY WOULD SOMEBODY COMMIT A COVER UP IF THEY DIDN’T COMMIT
COVER UP IF THEY DIDN’T COMMIT THE CRIME.
THE CRIME. SO THEY WENT THROUGH ALL THESE
SO THEY WENT THROUGH ALL THESE FACTORS AND SOME OF IT IS HIGHLY
FACTORS AND SOME OF IT IS HIGHLY TECHNICAL, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE,
TECHNICAL, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BARR AND ROD ROSENSTEIN SAY
THE BARR AND ROD ROSENSTEIN SAY BECAUSE THE LAW HERE, THE
BECAUSE THE LAW HERE, THE UNDERLYING LAW ON OBSTRUCTION
UNDERLYING LAW ON OBSTRUCTION SAYS THAT THERE HAS TO BE AN
SAYS THAT THERE HAS TO BE AN ONGOING PROCEEDING.
ONGOING PROCEEDING. MOST PEOPLE THINK IT MEANS
MOST PEOPLE THINK IT MEANS OBSTRUCTING AN FBI INVESTIGATION
OBSTRUCTING AN FBI INVESTIGATION IS ILLEGAL.
IS ILLEGAL. IF YOU READ THE TECHNICALITIES
IF YOU READ THE TECHNICALITIES IN THIS LETTER, OBSTRUCTING AN
IN THIS LETTER, OBSTRUCTING AN FBI INVESTIGATION IS NOT
FBI INVESTIGATION IS NOT ILLEGAL.
ILLEGAL. ONLY OBSTRUCTING A GRAND JURY
ONLY OBSTRUCTING A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. DID PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOW THERE
DID PRESIDENT TRUMP KNOW THERE WAS OBSTRUCTION ON A GRAND JURY.
WAS OBSTRUCTION ON A GRAND JURY. >> MIKA, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR
>> MIKA, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR DIRECTOR BRENNAN.
DIRECTOR BRENNAN. >> PLEASE.
>> PLEASE. >> MR. BRENT NARNGSNAN YOU SAID
>> MR. BRENT NARNGSNAN YOU SAID PAST YEAR YOU BELIEVE PRESIDENT
PAST YEAR YOU BELIEVE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CONDUCT APPROACHES THE
TRUMP’S CONDUCT APPROACHES THE LEVEL OF TREASON.
LEVEL OF TREASON. DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT BASED
DO YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT BASED ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S
ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S LETTER?
LETTER? >> WHAT I SAID WAS THAT HIS
>> WHAT I SAID WAS THAT HIS PERFORMANCE IN HELSINKI WAS
PERFORMANCE IN HELSINKI WAS NOTHING SHORT OF TREASONOUS.
NOTHING SHORT OF TREASONOUS. WASN’T USING IT IN A LEGAL TERM
WASN’T USING IT IN A LEGAL TERM I WAS USING IT IN THE SENSE OF
I WAS USING IT IN THE SENSE OF WHAT HE WAS DOING WITH MR. PUTIN
WHAT HE WAS DOING WITH MR. PUTIN AS FAR AS HAVING A TWO HOUR
AS FAR AS HAVING A TWO HOUR ONE-ON-ONE MEETING WITH HIM
ONE-ON-ONE MEETING WITH HIM WITHOUT HIS ADVISORS PRESENT AS
WITHOUT HIS ADVISORS PRESENT AS WELL AS HIS GIVING VLADIMIR
WELL AS HIS GIVING VLADIMIR PUTIN A PASS DURING THAT
PUTIN A PASS DURING THAT CONFERENCE THAT BASICALLY SAYING
CONFERENCE THAT BASICALLY SAYING THE RUSSIANS DID NOT INTERFERE
THE RUSSIANS DID NOT INTERFERE IN THE ELECTION.
IN THE ELECTION. I FOUND THAT WAS FLOUTING AND
I FOUND THAT WAS FLOUTING AND TRAMPLING UPON THE ASSESSMENTS
TRAMPLING UPON THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT WERE NANCE.
THAT WERE NANCE. I STILL BELIEVE THERE ARE A LOT
I STILL BELIEVE THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE
OF QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED, QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY
ANSWERED, QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY HE’S LIED SO MUCH AND SO OFTEN.
HE’S LIED SO MUCH AND SO OFTEN. I DO THINK HE, DONALD TRUMP IS
I DO THINK HE, DONALD TRUMP IS CONCERNED THAT OPENING UP AN
CONCERNED THAT OPENING UP AN INVESTIGATION ON CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION ON CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY ABOUT WORKING WITH
CONSPIRACY ABOUT WORKING WITH THE RUSSIANS WOULD OPEN UP A
THE RUSSIANS WOULD OPEN UP A PANDORA’S BOX OF OTHER TYPE OF
PANDORA’S BOX OF OTHER TYPE OF THINGS THAT COME PLY INDICATE
THINGS THAT COME PLY INDICATE HIM AND I THINK THE REFERRALS BY
HIM AND I THINK THE REFERRALS BY BOB MUELLER TO THE SOUTHERN
BOB MUELLER TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND OTHER
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND OTHER PLACES DEMONSTRATE THERE’S A LOT
PLACES DEMONSTRATE THERE’S A LOT OF INVESTIGATIVE THREADS THAT
OF INVESTIGATIVE THREADS THAT COULD IMPLICATE MR. TRUMP.
COULD IMPLICATE MR. TRUMP. >> CHRIS, ON POLITICS I DISAGREE
>> CHRIS, ON POLITICS I DISAGREE THAT DEMOCRATS CAN WALK AND CHEW
THAT DEMOCRATS CAN WALK AND CHEW GUM.
GUM. BUT I TALKED TO A DEMONSTRATE ON
BUT I TALKED TO A DEMONSTRATE ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHO SAID THE FOG OF INDECISION
WHO SAID THE FOG OF INDECISION AROUND OBSTRUCTION STRENGTHENS
AROUND OBSTRUCTION STRENGTHENS THEIR ABILITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT
THEIR ABILITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE OBSTRUCTION REPORT IF
THE OBSTRUCTION REPORT IF NOTHING ELSE.
NOTHING ELSE. HOW DO YOU THINK THAT GOES?
HOW DO YOU THINK THAT GOES? WHAT SORT OF CAUTIONS WOULD YOU
WHAT SORT OF CAUTIONS WOULD YOU HAVE FOR THEM AS THEY EMBARK ON
HAVE FOR THEM AS THEY EMBARK ON THAT.
THAT. >> WATCH PELOSI.
>> WATCH PELOSI. SHE’S THE BEST.
SHE’S THE BEST. I’VE NEVER SEEN ANYONE CORRAL
I’VE NEVER SEEN ANYONE CORRAL MEMBERS OF EITHER PARTY.
MEMBERS OF EITHER PARTY. SHE GETS 100% TURNOUT.
SHE GETS 100% TURNOUT. MY OLD BOSS COULDN’T DO THAT.
MY OLD BOSS COULDN’T DO THAT. THE POWER SHE HAS TO BE FEARED
THE POWER SHE HAS TO BE FEARED BUT NOT HATED.
BUT NOT HATED. THAT’S THE TRICK TO BE FEARED
THAT’S THE TRICK TO BE FEARED BUT NOT HATED.
BUT NOT HATED. I WATCHED HER AND NADLER ON
I WATCHED HER AND NADLER ON "MEET THE PRESS" AND I WATCHED
"MEET THE PRESS" AND I WATCHED HIM VERY CAREFULLY TALK AS IF
HIM VERY CAREFULLY TALK AS IF SHE’S WATCHING.
SHE’S WATCHING. AND I THINK THE MESSAGE FROM HER
AND I THINK THE MESSAGE FROM HER IS DON’T BLOW THIS THE WAY THE
IS DON’T BLOW THIS THE WAY THE REPUBLICANS BLEW CLINTON.
REPUBLICANS BLEW CLINTON. DON’T DO THAT.
DON’T DO THAT. DON’T GO OUT THERE LOOKING LIKE
DON’T GO OUT THERE LOOKING LIKE YOU’RE USING THE METHODOLOGY OF
YOU’RE USING THE METHODOLOGY OF IMPEACHMENT FOR PARTISAN GAIN.
IMPEACHMENT FOR PARTISAN GAIN. DON’T GET CAUGHT DOING THAT.
DON’T GET CAUGHT DOING THAT. THE WAY THE SCORECARD ON THAT
THE WAY THE SCORECARD ON THAT WORKS IS UNFAIR IF REPUBLICANS
WORKS IS UNFAIR IF REPUBLICANS DON’T SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT IT’S
DON’T SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT IT’S PARTISAN BY DEFINITION.
PARTISAN BY DEFINITION. IF THEY HOLD TIGHT WITH THEIR
IF THEY HOLD TIGHT WITH THEIR 88% W-THEIR GRASSROOTS -- I WAS
88% W-THEIR GRASSROOTS -- I WAS ON FIFTH AVENUE IN NEW YORK THE
ON FIFTH AVENUE IN NEW YORK THE OTHER DAY.
OTHER DAY. THEY ARE CRAZY.
THEY ARE CRAZY. THE DEMONSTRATORS ON FIFTH
THE DEMONSTRATORS ON FIFTH AVENUE ARE UNBELIEVABLE.
AVENUE ARE UNBELIEVABLE. END POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.
END POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. ONE GUY SAW ME, I GUESS THIS GUY
ONE GUY SAW ME, I GUESS THIS GUY LIKED ME.
LIKED ME. THEY WERE ALL THERE YELLING
THEY WERE ALL THERE YELLING HAVING THE TIME OF THEIR LIFE.
HAVING THE TIME OF THEIR LIFE. I THINK THE DEMONSTRATE IN THE
I THINK THE DEMONSTRATE IN THE SUBURBS -- JUST REMEMBER, A LOT
SUBURBS -- JUST REMEMBER, A LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE LEFT ARE
OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE LEFT ARE STARS.
STARS. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. FROM MEDIA COVERAGE AND THE
FROM MEDIA COVERAGE AND THE EXCITEMENT.
EXCITEMENT. DEMOCRATS WON THE 2018 ELECTION
DEMOCRATS WON THE 2018 ELECTION IN THE BURBS WITH MODERATE
IN THE BURBS WITH MODERATE CANDIDATES AND THOSE PEOPLE HAVE
CANDIDATES AND THOSE PEOPLE HAVE TO RUN AGAIN AND AGAIN IN THOSE
TO RUN AGAIN AND AGAIN IN THOSE SWING DISTRICTS.
SWING DISTRICTS. >> THEY HAVE TO NOT WANT TO TALK
>> THEY HAVE TO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT RUSSIA AND MUELLER IN THE
ABOUT RUSSIA AND MUELLER IN THE SUBURBS IN VIRGINIA, THE SUBURBS
SUBURBS IN VIRGINIA, THE SUBURBS OF PHILLY.
OF PHILLY. IT IS BREAD AND BUTTER ISSUES --
IT IS BREAD AND BUTTER ISSUES -- >> SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY, SAVE
>> SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY, SAVE MEDICARE AND DON’T GO SOCIALIST.
MEDICARE AND DON’T GO SOCIALIST. THAT’S THE MESSAGE.
THAT’S THE MESSAGE. SAVE OBAMACARE.
SAVE OBAMACARE. DON’T GO INTO MEDICARE FOR ALL.
DON’T GO INTO MEDICARE FOR ALL. >> CHRIS, YOU BROUGHT UP --
>> CHRIS, YOU BROUGHT UP -- >> BY THE WAY WHO GETS TAX WHEN
>> BY THE WAY WHO GETS TAX WHEN WE RAISE TAX.
WE RAISE TAX. THE GUY MAKING 150 AND HIS WIFE.
THE GUY MAKING 150 AND HIS WIFE. PAYING FOR COLLEGE.
PAYING FOR COLLEGE. THAT GUY AND WOMEN KNOW WHEN YOU
THAT GUY AND WOMEN KNOW WHEN YOU SAY SOCIALISM YOU’RE THINKING
SAY SOCIALISM YOU’RE THINKING ABOUT THEM.
ABOUT THEM. >> CHRIS, YOU BROUGHT UP THE
>> CHRIS, YOU BROUGHT UP THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. ISN’T IT SOMETHING, WE GOT IN
ISN’T IT SOMETHING, WE GOT IN OUR OWN WAYS WENT THROUGH THAT.
OUR OWN WAYS WENT THROUGH THAT. AND PEOPLE WOULD ALWAYS COME
AND PEOPLE WOULD ALWAYS COME BACK AND BE BREATHLESS.
BACK AND BE BREATHLESS. LINDSEY GRAHAM WOULD LOOK OVER
LINDSEY GRAHAM WOULD LOOK OVER EVIDENCE HE WAS IN A PURPLE
EVIDENCE HE WAS IN A PURPLE RAGE.
RAGE. TALKING ABOUT BILL CLINTON.
TALKING ABOUT BILL CLINTON. HE LOOKED HORRIBLE.
HE LOOKED HORRIBLE. THIS IS THE END OF HIM.
THIS IS THE END OF HIM. I HEARD IT WAS THE END OF BILL
I HEARD IT WAS THE END OF BILL CLINTON A THOUSAND TIMES.
CLINTON A THOUSAND TIMES. AND MIKA WILL TELL YOU
AND MIKA WILL TELL YOU THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS,
THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, I SAID TO HER ALL ALONG WHEN
I SAID TO HER ALL ALONG WHEN SOMEBODY WOULD GO THEY ARE GOING
SOMEBODY WOULD GO THEY ARE GOING TO GET TRUMP.
TO GET TRUMP. I GO NOPE.
I GO NOPE. NOPE.
NOPE. >> THAT’S TRUE DE.
>> THAT’S TRUE DE. >> THERE’S A REPLAY OF CLINTON.
>> THERE’S A REPLAY OF CLINTON. ALWAYS -- IT ALWAYS SEEMS A LOT
ALWAYS -- IT ALWAYS SEEMS A LOT EASIER THAN IT IS, THEY ARE NOT
EASIER THAN IT IS, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET HIM.
GOING TO GET HIM. THERE ARE SO MANY PARALLELS,
THERE ARE SO MANY PARALLELS, EXCEPT YOU JUST CHANGE THE
EXCEPT YOU JUST CHANGE THE PARTIES.
PARTIES. >> YES.
>> YES. SELF-PROPELLED BELIEF.
SELF-PROPELLED BELIEF. >> SELF-PROPELLED BELIEF BY THE
>> SELF-PROPELLED BELIEF BY THE REPUBLICANS.
REPUBLICANS. >> TEETHICAL STUFF AND SEXUAL
>> TEETHICAL STUFF AND SEXUAL STUFF WHICH EVERYBODY IS TWO
STUFF WHICH EVERYBODY IS TWO FACED ABOUT.
FACED ABOUT. EVERYBODY.
EVERYBODY. YOU GET DEMOCRATS LAY OFF THE
YOU GET DEMOCRATS LAY OFF THE GUY.
GUY. MOVE ON.
MOVE ON. MOVEON.ORG DON’T TALK ABOUT THE
MOVEON.ORG DON’T TALK ABOUT THE SEX ANY MORE.
SEX ANY MORE. NOW IT’S THE PAYOFFS TO WOMEN.
NOW IT’S THE PAYOFFS TO WOMEN. PEOPLE HAVE FLIPPED 180 ON EVERY
PEOPLE HAVE FLIPPED 180 ON EVERY ARGUMENT.
ARGUMENT. YOU WERE TOUGH ON CLINTON.
YOU WERE TOUGH ON CLINTON. I WAS TOUGH ON CLINTON.
I WAS TOUGH ON CLINTON. I HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT ON THIS.
I HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT ON THIS. I DO THINK THE EVIDENCE OUR JOB
I DO THINK THE EVIDENCE OUR JOB IS NEWS FIRST, ANALYSIS SECOND
IS NEWS FIRST, ANALYSIS SECOND AND OPINION THIRD.
AND OPINION THIRD. ALL THREE OF THEM ARE JOBS.
ALL THREE OF THEM ARE JOBS. IF YOU DON’T DO THEM YOU DON’T
IF YOU DON’T DO THEM YOU DON’T HAVE A JOB.
HAVE A JOB. PEP WANT YOUR OPINION.
PEP WANT YOUR OPINION. FIRST THING THEY WANT IS THE
FIRST THING THEY WANT IS THE NEWS.
NEWS. THE NEWS IS TRUMP WON THIS
THE NEWS IS TRUMP WON THIS WEEKEND.
WEEKEND. >> THAT’S THE NEWS, MIKE
>> THAT’S THE NEWS, MIKE BARNICLE.
BARNICLE. >> HOLD ON A SECOND HE WON THE
>> HOLD ON A SECOND HE WON THE NEWS CYCLE, HE WON THE PR
NEWS CYCLE, HE WON THE PR BATTLE, HE WON THE BRANDING
BATTLE, HE WON THE BRANDING EXERCISE.
EXERCISE. WE DON’T KNOW WHAT’S IN THIS
WE DON’T KNOW WHAT’S IN THIS REPORT.
REPORT. >> THAT’S RIGHT.
>> THAT’S RIGHT. >> MIKE BARNICLE, LOOK AT THAT
>> MIKE BARNICLE, LOOK AT THAT HEADLINE.
HEADLINE. I WOULD ARGUE THAT HE NOT ONLY
I WOULD ARGUE THAT HE NOT ONLY WON THIS WEEK.
WON THIS WEEK. >> "WASHINGTON POST".
>> "WASHINGTON POST". >> "THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS"
>> "THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS" REPORTS NO COLLUSION AND FOR
REPORTS NO COLLUSION AND FOR DONALD TRUMP THAT’S NOT ABOUT
DONALD TRUMP THAT’S NOT ABOUT THIS NEWS CYCLE, THAT’S NOT
THIS NEWS CYCLE, THAT’S NOT ABOUT HIS SPEECH THIS WEEK, THAT
ABOUT HIS SPEECH THIS WEEK, THAT IS HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT IN 2020.
IS HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT IN 2020. THE DEMOCRATS TRIED TO COME
THE DEMOCRATS TRIED TO COME AFTER ME BECAUSE I’M A
AFTER ME BECAUSE I’M A DISRUPTER.
DISRUPTER. THE PRESS LIED ABOUT ME BECAUSE
THE PRESS LIED ABOUT ME BECAUSE I’M A DISRUPTER.
I’M A DISRUPTER. I’M NOT IN THEIR LITTLE CLUB.
I’M NOT IN THEIR LITTLE CLUB. >> IT’S A WITCH-HUNT.
>> IT’S A WITCH-HUNT. >> THEY PUT, WHAT ARE THE
>> THEY PUT, WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS, 500, 2,000 --
NUMBERS, 500, 2,000 -- >> IT’S LONG REPORT.
>> IT’S LONG REPORT. >> 2020 IS A LONG WAY AWAY.
>> 2020 IS A LONG WAY AWAY. THIS IS A MOMENT POLITICALLY FOR
THIS IS A MOMENT POLITICALLY FOR A DEMOCRAT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
A DEMOCRAT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT SO STEP UP AND TALK TO THEIR
SO STEP UP AND TALK TO THEIR PARTY AND MOUNT A NEW ARGUMENT
PARTY AND MOUNT A NEW ARGUMENT IN A POST-BARR LETTER WORLD.
IN A POST-BARR LETTER WORLD. THE SPEAKER PELOSI IS THE
THE SPEAKER PELOSI IS THE STRATEGIST.
STRATEGIST. THEY ARE GOING AROUND IOWA AND
THEY ARE GOING AROUND IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.
NEW HAMPSHIRE. WHO WILL HAVE A NATIONAL MESSAGE
WHO WILL HAVE A NATIONAL MESSAGE OF HOW TO TAKE ON DONALD TRUMP.
OF HOW TO TAKE ON DONALD TRUMP. >> THAT’S IT.
>> THAT’S IT. >> THAT’S THE QUESTION.
>> THAT’S THE QUESTION. MIKE BARNICLE.
MIKE BARNICLE. >> THE MAYOR OF SOUTH BEND,
>> THE MAYOR OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA INDICATED HE HAS A
INDIANA INDICATED HE HAS A NATIONAL MESSAGE ON THAT.
NATIONAL MESSAGE ON THAT. THAT HEADLINE, YOU KNOW, I AGREE
THAT HEADLINE, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH JOHN BRENNAN, THAT HEADLINE
WITH JOHN BRENNAN, THAT HEADLINE IS KIND OF -- A LOT OF PEOPLE
IS KIND OF -- A LOT OF PEOPLE DON’T WANT TO HEAR THIS, IT’S
DON’T WANT TO HEAR THIS, IT’S GOOD NEWS FOR THE COUNTRY
GOOD NEWS FOR THE COUNTRY BECAUSE BASICALLY IT SAYS THE
BECAUSE BASICALLY IT SAYS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT GUILTY OF TREASON.
IS NOT GUILTY OF TREASON. THAT’S ALWAYS A GOOD THING.
THAT’S ALWAYS A GOOD THING. >> THAT’S A GOOD DAY.
>> THAT’S A GOOD DAY. >> BUT, JOSH, LET ME ASK YOU
>> BUT, JOSH, LET ME ASK YOU WITH REGARD TO THE REST OF THE
WITH REGARD TO THE REST OF THE REPORT AND WE ONLY HAVE
REPORT AND WE ONLY HAVE FRAGMENTS OF IT SO IN ESSENCE
FRAGMENTS OF IT SO IN ESSENCE WE’RE ALL FLYING BLIND ON WHAT
WE’RE ALL FLYING BLIND ON WHAT ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR IS TALKING
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR IS TALKING ABOUT, BUT ONE OF THE ELEMENTS
ABOUT, BUT ONE OF THE ELEMENTS IN THE LACK OF A SPECIFIC CHARGE
IN THE LACK OF A SPECIFIC CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION IN THE REPORT
OF OBSTRUCTION IN THE REPORT AND, AGAIN, WE DON’T KNOW WHAT
AND, AGAIN, WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WOULD LEAD UP TO BOB MUELLER’S
WOULD LEAD UP TO BOB MUELLER’S DESCRIPTION OF WHY THEY DIDN’T
DESCRIPTION OF WHY THEY DIDN’T WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH
WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH OBSTRUCTION.
OBSTRUCTION. HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU THINK IT
HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU THINK IT WAS IN TERMS OF REASONING WHAT
WAS IN TERMS OF REASONING WHAT HE CAME TO WAS THE FACT THAT
HE CAME TO WAS THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO SWORN SIT DOWN
THERE WAS NO SWORN SIT DOWN TESTIMONY AS TO STATE OF MIND BY
TESTIMONY AS TO STATE OF MIND BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITH MUELLER AND HIS
STATES WITH MUELLER AND HIS INVESTIGATORS?
INVESTIGATORS? >> WELL, I THINK THAT WAS
>> WELL, I THINK THAT WAS IMPORTANT.
IMPORTANT. AND IT’S HARD TO SEE HOW YOU CAN
AND IT’S HARD TO SEE HOW YOU CAN MAKE A CASE WITHOUT THAT KIND OF
MAKE A CASE WITHOUT THAT KIND OF INFORMATION.
INFORMATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT SEEMS LIKE
ON THE OTHER HAND, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WAS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
THAT WAS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. AND IT DOESN’T HAPPEN IN MOST
AND IT DOESN’T HAPPEN IN MOST CASES.
CASES. I MEAN THE PRESIDENT -- THERE
I MEAN THE PRESIDENT -- THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT
WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT ISSUES HE COULD RAISE
DIFFERENT ISSUES HE COULD RAISE TO BLOCK THAT KIND OF TESTIMONY,
TO BLOCK THAT KIND OF TESTIMONY, BUT HE ALWAYS COULD HAVE TAKEN
BUT HE ALWAYS COULD HAVE TAKEN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. PEOPLE SAY OH, THAT’S
PEOPLE SAY OH, THAT’S POLITICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
POLITICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. ABOUT 20 THINGS THAT ARE
ABOUT 20 THINGS THAT ARE POLITICALLY IMPOSSIBLE HAVE
POLITICALLY IMPOSSIBLE HAVE HAPPENED.
HAPPENED. SO I THINK PART OF WHAT’S
SO I THINK PART OF WHAT’S HAPPENED HERE WITH BARR IS THAT
HAPPENED HERE WITH BARR IS THAT HE’S TAKEN OUT KIND OF A BALLOON
HE’S TAKEN OUT KIND OF A BALLOON MORTGAGE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION,
MORTGAGE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, RIGHT?
RIGHT? HE’S COME OUT WITH A TOP LINE
HE’S COME OUT WITH A TOP LINE FINDINGS THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY GOOD
FINDINGS THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY GOOD NEWS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE AND
NEWS FOR THE WHITE HOUSE AND PRODUCING THE KIND OF HEADLINES
PRODUCING THE KIND OF HEADLINES WE’RE SHOWING WHICH ARE STILL
WE’RE SHOWING WHICH ARE STILL ALMOST TWO YEARS AWAY FROM THE
ALMOST TWO YEARS AWAY FROM THE ELECTION.
ELECTION. BUT THE BILL WILL COME DUE.
BUT THE BILL WILL COME DUE. THE REST OF MUELLER’S EVIDENCE
THE REST OF MUELLER’S EVIDENCE WILL COME OUT.
WILL COME OUT. AND EVEN BARR ACKNOWLEDGED IN
AND EVEN BARR ACKNOWLEDGED IN THAT LETTER THAT THERE’S
THAT LETTER THAT THERE’S SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON BOTH
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES ESPECIALLY ON THE
SIDES ESPECIALLY ON THE OBSTRUCTION ISSUES WITH RESPECT
OBSTRUCTION ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO EACH ALLEGED ACTION THAT THE
TO EACH ALLEGED ACTION THAT THE PRESIDENT TOOK THAT WAS
PRESIDENT TOOK THAT WAS OBSTRUCTION.
OBSTRUCTION. SO THERE WILL BE ANOTHER CHAPTER
SO THERE WILL BE ANOTHER CHAPTER TO THIS STORY.
TO THIS STORY. NOW WHETHER THAT’S IN 30 DAYS,
NOW WHETHER THAT’S IN 30 DAYS, 60 DAYS, 90 DAYS --
60 DAYS, 90 DAYS -- >> THAT’S SUCH A GOOD POINT.
>> THAT’S SUCH A GOOD POINT. FOR BARR TO HAVEFVE SQUANDERED
FOR BARR TO HAVEFVE SQUANDERED POLITICAL CAPITAL ON THIS WHERE
POLITICAL CAPITAL ON THIS WHERE HE HAD DENT IN THE BODYWORK ON
HE HAD DENT IN THE BODYWORK ON OBSTRUCTION HE WAS ALREADY
OBSTRUCTION HE WAS ALREADY DOUBTED ABOUT WHETHER HE COULD
DOUBTED ABOUT WHETHER HE COULD BE A NEUTRAL ARBITER OF THE
BE A NEUTRAL ARBITER OF THE OBSTRUCTION CASE.
OBSTRUCTION CASE. HE TOOK ON MR. WATER.
HE TOOK ON MR. WATER. TRUMP MIGHT NEED HIM TO HAVE
TRUMP MIGHT NEED HIM TO HAVE MORE CREDIBILITY AND HAVE
MORE CREDIBILITY AND HAVE CREDIBILITY -- IT’S TRUMP.
CREDIBILITY -- IT’S TRUMP. YOU KNOW HE’S AN UNINDICTED
YOU KNOW HE’S AN UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRACY IN NEW YORK.
CO-CONSPIRACY IN NEW YORK. THERE’S 17 INVESTIGATIONS INTO
THERE’S 17 INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIM.
HIM. HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL JUST LOST
HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL JUST LOST HIS CREDIBILITY AMONG I WOULD
HIS CREDIBILITY AMONG I WOULD GUESS ALL DEMOCRATS AND MAYBE
GUESS ALL DEMOCRATS AND MAYBE EVEN SOME REPUBLICANS OR LIKE
EVEN SOME REPUBLICANS OR LIKE WOW TRUMP DID GOT IT.
WOW TRUMP DID GOT IT. SO BARR MIGHT NEED HIS
SO BARR MIGHT NEED HIS CREDIBILITY BACK.
CREDIBILITY BACK. ROD ROSENSTEIN WAS A WITNESS IN
ROD ROSENSTEIN WAS A WITNESS IN IT.
IT. I DON’T KNOW WHAT ROD ROSENSTEIN
I DON’T KNOW WHAT ROD ROSENSTEIN OF DOING ADVISING ON WHETHER OR
OF DOING ADVISING ON WHETHER OR NOT TO CATEGORIZE THE
NOT TO CATEGORIZE THE OBSTRUCTION CASE AS CRIMINAL OR
OBSTRUCTION CASE AS CRIMINAL OR NOT.
NOT. ROD ROSENSTEIN WAS THE GUY WHO
ROD ROSENSTEIN WAS THE GUY WHO WAS SO STRUNG OUT HE WANTED TO
WAS SO STRUNG OUT HE WANTED TO WEAR A WIRE TO CATCH TRUMP AS A
WEAR A WIRE TO CATCH TRUMP AS A RUSSIAN AGENT.
RUSSIAN AGENT. YOU COULDN’T FIND TWO MORE
YOU COULDN’T FIND TWO MORE DAMAGED ARBITERS OF THE MUELLER
DAMAGED ARBITERS OF THE MUELLER CASE WHICH WAS REALLY IN A LOCK
CASE WHICH WAS REALLY IN A LOCK BOX.
BOX. WE TRUSTED IT UNTIL BARR GOT HIS
WE TRUSTED IT UNTIL BARR GOT HIS MUDDY FINGERS ON IT AND ROD
MUDDY FINGERS ON IT AND ROD ROSENSTEIN WEIGHED IN.
ROSENSTEIN WEIGHED IN. THEY MIGHT WISH TO HAVE THEIR
THEY MIGHT WISH TO HAVE THEIR CREDIBILITY BACK.
CREDIBILITY BACK. >> WE HAVE A PREVIEW OF THE 4:00
>> WE HAVE A PREVIEW OF THE 4:00 SHOW.
SHOW. I KNOW WHERE HE’S GOING.
I KNOW WHERE HE’S GOING. >> IMAGINE IF YOU’RE BILL
>> IMAGINE IF YOU’RE BILL CLINTON RIGHT NOW.
CLINTON RIGHT NOW. HE SAID NO PRESIDENT IS GOING TO
HE SAID NO PRESIDENT IS GOING TO TESTIFY ONE OATH, HE’S NOT GOING
TESTIFY ONE OATH, HE’S NOT GOING TO LOOK FOR PERJURY TRAP OR SET
TO LOOK FOR PERJURY TRAP OR SET ONE.
ONE. CLINTON GOES IN, BEFORE A GRAND
CLINTON GOES IN, BEFORE A GRAND JURY AND SAYS WE ALL WATCHED
JURY AND SAYS WE ALL WATCHED THIS HUMILIATION.
THIS HUMILIATION. HE GOT IN TROUBLE DOING IT.
HE GOT IN TROUBLE DOING IT. WAS BOB BENNETT WRONG.
WAS BOB BENNETT WRONG. MR. PRESIDENT, BILL CLINTON,
MR. PRESIDENT, BILL CLINTON, TAKE FIFTH, YOU’LL NEVER BE
TAKE FIFTH, YOU’LL NEVER BE IMPEACHED.
IMPEACHED. >> IT WAS A DIFFERENT TIME.
>> IT WAS A DIFFERENT TIME. THAT’S THE LESSON THEY LEARNED.
THAT’S THE LESSON THEY LEARNED. >> WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO TAKES
>> WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO TAKES THE FIFTH.
THE FIFTH. DONE HURT HIS IMAGE.
DONE HURT HIS IMAGE. >> I TOTALLY AGREE.
>> I TOTALLY AGREE. >> I CAN TELL YOU THIS, IT WAS A
>> I CAN TELL YOU THIS, IT WAS A SURPRISE BY THE REPUBLICANS WHO
SURPRISE BY THE REPUBLICANS WHO ACTUALLY DID NOT LIKE THE FACT
ACTUALLY DID NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT WE MADE THE PRESIDENT OF
THAT WE MADE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SIT AND HE SAT
THE UNITED STATES SIT AND HE SAT THERE AND HE ANSWERED QUESTIONS
THERE AND HE ANSWERED QUESTIONS AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT HELPED
AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT HELPED HIM IN THE END EVEN THOUGH THERE
HIM IN THE END EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A CHARGE AND IT MADE US LOOK
WAS A CHARGE AND IT MADE US LOOK LIKE WE WERE ON A WITCH-HUNT.
LIKE WE WERE ON A WITCH-HUNT. IT’S PROBABLY WHY HE LEFT OFFICE
IT’S PROBABLY WHY HE LEFT OFFICE WITH A 60% APPROVAL RATING.
WITH A 60% APPROVAL RATING. >> HE GOT IMPEACHED IN THE
>> HE GOT IMPEACHED IN THE HISTORY BOOKS.
HISTORY BOOKS. >> AND ENDED UP TO BE A VERY
>> AND ENDED UP TO BE A VERY POPULAR PRESIDENT.
POPULAR PRESIDENT. >> AND HIS WIFE HAD A VERY --
>> AND HIS WIFE HAD A VERY -- >> ALL RIGHT.
>> ALL RIGHT. >> LET’S NOT TALK ABOUT THAT.
>> LET’S NOT TALK ABOUT THAT. >> SOSO, MR. BRENNAN, HOW
>> SOSO, MR. BRENNAN, HOW SURPRISED WERE YOU BY THE
SURPRISED WERE YOU BY THE FINDINGS YESTERDAY BY THE
FINDINGS YESTERDAY BY THE CONCLUSIONS THAT WERE DRAWN, AND
CONCLUSIONS THAT WERE DRAWN, AND I’M JUST CURIOUS DID YOU RECEIVE
I’M JUST CURIOUS DID YOU RECEIVE BAD INFORMATION THROUGHOUT THIS
BAD INFORMATION THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS LIKE SO MANY OF US DID
PROCESS LIKE SO MANY OF US DID THAT THERE WAS MORE THERE THAN
THAT THERE WAS MORE THERE THAN ENDED UP IN THE REPORT REGARDING
ENDED UP IN THE REPORT REGARDING COLLUSION?
COLLUSION? >> WELL, I DON’T KNOW IF I
>> WELL, I DON’T KNOW IF I RECEIVED BAD INFORMATION BUT I
RECEIVED BAD INFORMATION BUT I SUSPECTED THERE WAS MORE THAN
SUSPECTED THERE WAS MORE THAN THERE ACTUALLY WAS.
THERE ACTUALLY WAS. I AM RELIEVED THAT IT’S BEEN
I AM RELIEVED THAT IT’S BEEN DETERMINED THERE WAS NOT A
DETERMINED THERE WAS NOT A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY WITH THE
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OVER OUR
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OVER OUR ELECTION.
ELECTION. I THINK THAT’S GOOD NEWS FOR THE
I THINK THAT’S GOOD NEWS FOR THE COUNTRY.
COUNTRY. SO I STILL POINT TO THINGS THAT
SO I STILL POINT TO THINGS THAT WERE DONE PUBLICLY, OR EFFORTS
WERE DONE PUBLICLY, OR EFFORTS TO TRY TO HAVE CONVERSATION WITH
TO TRY TO HAVE CONVERSATION WITH THE RUSSIANS THAT WERE
THE RUSSIANS THAT WERE INAPPROPRIATE, BUT I’M NOT ALL
INAPPROPRIATE, BUT I’M NOT ALL THAT SURPRISED THAT THE HIGH BAR
THAT SURPRISED THAT THE HIGH BAR OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY WAS NOT
OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY WAS NOT MET.
MET. I AM SURPRISED THAT THAT SECOND
I AM SURPRISED THAT THAT SECOND PART OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
PART OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN TERMS OF HOW IT CAME OUT.
IN TERMS OF HOW IT CAME OUT. I DON’T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT
I DON’T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT ROBERT MUELLER WANTED THE
ROBERT MUELLER WANTED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PRONOUNCE ON
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PRONOUNCE ON THAT ISSUE OR WHETHER OR NOT
THAT ISSUE OR WHETHER OR NOT ROBERT MUELLER IT WAS UP TO
ROBERT MUELLER IT WAS UP TO CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE WEIGHT
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE WEIGHT OF INFORMATION INDICATES WHETHER
OF INFORMATION INDICATES WHETHER DONALD TRUMP TRIED TO OBSTRUCT
DONALD TRUMP TRIED TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE.
JUSTICE. THERE ARE SOME SURPRISES THERE.
THERE ARE SOME SURPRISES THERE. I THINK THAT’S WHY GETTING TO
I THINK THAT’S WHY GETTING TO THE FULL MUELLER REPORT IS THE
THE FULL MUELLER REPORT IS THE BEST WAY TO GET SOME OF THESE IF
BEST WAY TO GET SOME OF THESE IF NOT ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS
NOT ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
ANSWERED. >> ALL RIGHTER.
>> ALL RIGHTER. JOHN BRENNAN, THANK YOU VERY
JOHN BRENNAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US.
MUCH FOR BEING WITH US. JOSH, SAME THING, THANK YOU TOO.
JOSH, SAME THING, THANK YOU TOO. GREAT TO HAVE YOU HERE.
GREAT TO HAVE YOU HERE. NICOLE WALLACE, WE KNOW WHAT
NICOLE WALLACE, WE KNOW WHAT WE’LL SEE AT 4:00.
WE’LL SEE AT 4:00. HIS MUDDY HANDS.
HIS MUDDY HANDS. >> IT’S OVER.
>> IT’S OVER. THE COLLUSION QUESTION IS OVER.
THE COLLUSION QUESTION IS OVER. IT’S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.
IT’S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
ASKED AND ANSWERED. >> DEMOCRATS SHOULD MOVE ON.
>> DEMOCRATS SHOULD MOVE ON. >> THE WHOLE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
>> THE WHOLE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT COULD HAVE MOVED ON.
COULD HAVE MOVED ON. THEY COULD HAVE MOVED ON BY
THEY COULD HAVE MOVED ON BY LETTING MUELLER’S
LETTING MUELLER’S NONJUDGMENT JUDGMENT STAND.
NONJUDGMENT JUDGMENT STAND. >> ROBERT MUELLER COULD HAVE
>> ROBERT MUELLER COULD HAVE ALSO --
ALSO -- >> HE COULD HAVE CLEARED HIM.
>> HE COULD HAVE CLEARED HIM. >> HE COULD HAVE VERY EASILY
>> HE COULD HAVE VERY EASILY SAID THAT THIS IS A QUESTION FOR
SAID THAT THIS IS A QUESTION FOR CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO DETERMINE.
TO DETERMINE. >> AS YOU’RE SAYING --
>> AS YOU’RE SAYING -- >> MAYBE DE.
>> MAYBE DE. >> WE HAVE THREE PARTIAL QUOTES.
>> WE HAVE THREE PARTIAL QUOTES. >> THIS IS THE TIME WHERE
>> THIS IS THE TIME WHERE EVERYBODY IS UNPRECEDENTED.
EVERYBODY IS UNPRECEDENTED. YOU COULD HAVE TAKEN MUELLER’S
YOU COULD HAVE TAKEN MUELLER’S WORK WHICH NO ONE ATTACKED AND
WORK WHICH NO ONE ATTACKED AND HANDED IT TO CONGRESS.
HANDED IT TO CONGRESS. IT’S LIKE A HALF MADE DINNER.
IT’S LIKE A HALF MADE DINNER. I DIDN’T FINISH THE SALAD.
I DIDN’T FINISH THE SALAD. >> DO YOU KNOW WHY HE DIDN’T DO
>> DO YOU KNOW WHY HE DIDN’T DO THAT?
THAT? YOU GOT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT TALK
YOU GOT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT TALK ABOUT SOURCES BECAUSE SOME
ABOUT SOURCES BECAUSE SOME SOURCES HAVE BEEN WRONG
SOURCES HAVE BEEN WRONG THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS.
THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS. TWO SOURCES I TALKED TO, AND ONE
TWO SOURCES I TALKED TO, AND ONE OF THE TWO SOURCE, A TRUMP
OF THE TWO SOURCE, A TRUMP SUPPORTER SAID THERE’S HIGHLY
SUPPORTER SAID THERE’S HIGHLY EMBARRASSING INFORMATION IN
EMBARRASSING INFORMATION IN THERE.
THERE. HIGHLY EMBARRASSING POLITICAL
HIGHLY EMBARRASSING POLITICAL INFORMATION IN THERE FOR DONALD
INFORMATION IN THERE FOR DONALD TRUMP.
TRUMP. SO THEY DON’T WANT TO RELEASE
SO THEY DON’T WANT TO RELEASE IT.
IT. THEY WANT TO KEEP AS MUCH OF IT
THEY WANT TO KEEP AS MUCH OF IT OUT AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.
OUT AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE. >> THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE DONE WHAT
>> THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE DONE WHAT THEY DID.
THEY DID. >> I AGREE.
>> I AGREE. YOU KNOW ONE THING, EVERYBODY
YOU KNOW ONE THING, EVERYBODY AGREED INTEREST.
AGREED INTEREST. IT WASN’T FAIR OF COMEY TO LASH
IT WASN’T FAIR OF COMEY TO LASH AWAY AT HILLARY, EVEN THOUGH HE
AWAY AT HILLARY, EVEN THOUGH HE DIDN’T PROSECUTE.
DIDN’T PROSECUTE. I THINK PROSECUTORS SHOULD SAY
I THINK PROSECUTORS SHOULD SAY GUILTY OR NOT AND THEN
GUILTY OR NOT AND THEN SHOULDN’T.
SHOULDN’T. EITHER YOU PROSECUTE OR YOU
EITHER YOU PROSECUTE OR YOU DON’T.
DON’T. THE IDEA WELL WE HAVE SOME
THE IDEA WELL WE HAVE SOME THINGS.
THINGS. I DON’T HAVE THE GUTS TO
I DON’T HAVE THE GUTS TO PROSECUTE.
PROSECUTE. HE’S SORT OF GUILTY TOO.
HE’S SORT OF GUILTY TOO. HE THREAT DOOR OPEN FOR BARR.
HE THREAT DOOR OPEN FOR BARR. HE SHOULD HAVE SAID OFFER IN.
HE SHOULD HAVE SAID OFFER IN. >> CHRIS MATTHEWS, STAY WITH US
>> CHRIS MATTHEWS, STAY WITH US IF YOU CAN.
IF YOU CAN. STILL AHEAD ON "MORNING JOE" AN
STILL AHEAD ON "MORNING JOE" AN IMAGE FROM BACK IN 1989 WHEN A
IMAGE FROM BACK IN 1989 WHEN A PAST PRESIDENT MEAT FUTURE ONE.
PAST PRESIDENT MEAT FUTURE ONE. EARLIER THIS MONTH THAT PICTURE
EARLIER THIS MONTH THAT PICTURE WAS TWEETED OF RICHARD KNICKS ON
WAS TWEETED OF RICHARD KNICKS ON AND DONALD TRUMP.
AND DONALD TRUMP. TOM BROKAW JOINS US ON THE
TOM BROKAW JOINS US ON THE DIFFERENCE AND SIMILARITIES OF
DIFFERENCE AND SIMILARITIES OF THE 37th AND 45th PRESIDENT.
THE 37th AND 45th PRESIDENT. YOU’RE WATCHING "MORNING JOE".
YOU’RE WATCHING "MORNING JOE". WE’LL BE RIGHT BACK.
WE’LL BE RIGHT BACK. >> ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT FIND
>> ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT FIND CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT SECRETARY
CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT SECRETARY CLINTON OR HER COLLEAGUES
CLINTON OR HER COLLEAGUES INTENDED TO VIOLATE LAWS