before it starts because you have an inkling that there is more afoot would be completely but to your but to laura s point, he did testify today that basically they were putting a pin in it. he was holding on to the information and that they were going to do bring it to as part of the investigation down the road. there s another reason. in all seriousness the fbi director doesn t conduct investigations, a. b, the fbi director doesn t keep secret files that in case of fire break glass. that s exactly what i heard jim comey explain today. there s another factor about, you know, why didn t jim comey continue the investigation? i ll tell you why jim comey didn t continue. because he got fired. he got fired by the president of the united states. which is part of an obstruction of justice. if you don t like what the fbi agent fbi director is doing,
and think that you re concealing the existence of the investigation by not announcing it. that s what you re supposed to do. paul: okay. so adding all of this up, the rosenstein memo, the circumstances that you followed closely you ve written for us, do you think the president was justified in firing the fbi director. in the firing? absolutely. paul: okay. in the firing, he was. right. paul: he had more than ample reason to do so. absolutely. paul: okay. you suggest to me that maybe the firing, but what about the timing and the politics? certainly, that s complicated. well, that, i mean, that s sort of stepping outside my lane a bit. paul: okay. i m pulling a james comey. [laughter] paul: well, but you re not, you re not the director. right. it couldn t conceivably have been worse. the timing was awful. it was made to appear as if, you know, somebody was trying to derail an investigation. paul: right. and, of course, you don t derail an investigation by firing the directo
break the law. neil: mark has been following this and saying enough with all of this. mark? wow, when he talked about these scandals they were scandals worth exploring and insulting then. not now? first of all, neil, welcome back. you were missed. neil: thank you very much. i will tell you this. this president could give a damn about a serious investigation on scandals swelling around his administration, and then his lack questions go on tv and tell us there s no evidence. pool plead the fifth. the attorney general doesn t conduct investigations and what is necessary, for the republicans in the house to get their act together we don t need five committees investigating benghazi. we need one special investigative committee with former assistant u.s. attorneys, other types of prosecutors, who are serious people, who have the resources necessary, fulltime, to pursue these matters and put the information on the table,
and think that you re concealing the existence of the investigation by not announcing it. that s what you re supposed to do. paul: okay. so adding all of this up, the rosenstein memo, the circumstances that you followed closely you ve written for us, do you think the president was justified in firing the fbi director. in the firing? absolutely. paul: okay. in the firing, he was. right. paul: he had more than ample reason to do so. absolutely. paul: okay. you suggest to me that maybe the firing, but what about the timing and the politics? certainly, that s complicated. well, that, i mean, that s sort of stepping outside my lane a bit. paul: okay. i m pulling a james comey. [laughter] paul: well, but you re not, you re not the director. right. it couldn t conceivably have been worse. the timing was awful. it was made to appear as if, you know, somebody was trying to derail an investigation. paul: right. and, of course, you don t derail an investigation by firing the directo