those are two separate issues as far as i m concerned. sanctions in terms of preventing the russian government from interfering what we re seeing right here, these are independent groups. we don t know if they re affiliated with the russians, government itself for sure, but maybe they are. i do think we are on to something that the russians are interfering with the elections and i think both parties should be concerned because there s evidence they re interfering on both sides of the aisle so we so prevent and eliminate that. i think that s what it s pointing out. it isn t showing that somehow donald trump s organization or his campaign reached out to the russian government and somehow was trying to interfere with our russians to make trump the president of the united states. in fact, the opposite appears to be true, from what the mueller indictments reveal. it is a 37-page indictment. i haven t read it all. i m skimming through it right now. here s an interesting fact. we are going to
again, all open source information. but does he speak to is he saying this publicly because now he is willing publicly to make a statement that the president was unwilling to do? and that perhaps he may have felt and believed the intel community, his own community, before, but was reticent in making that public so as to be in step, you know, with his boss? i think that it s hard to be in step with the president when the president used his tweet after this information came out to kind of sow conspiracy theories again and say there wasn t actual kind of any collusion between the president and the campaign and the russians. so i do think h.r. mcmaster is trying to take a policy line here and say, okay, russia interfered, we re serious about it, we re going to do something about it. but, again, there is that daylight between the president s tweet, the official white house statements and h.r. mcmaster s comments at the munich security conference. look, let s hope that they get
house to keep us safe? they can t even keep their own house in order. and then on the issue of the russia investigation and those indictments of 13 russians, the president has tweeted out he sees this as an issue of collusion. no collusion. so, you know, scott does the president have a clear understanding of about what these indictments mean? well, these specific indictments, yes, he does have a clear understanding. as rosenstein said in press conference, the specific indictment showed no collusion. that doesn t mean there won t be no future indictments. the only person who knows what s going on here clearly is bob mueller. he was obviously in the middle of an expansive investigation that really no journalist had found out about at all. should the white house be worried about what potentially is next? yes, if i were on either side of this, the left or the right, i wouldn t be jumping to too many conclusions. i wouldn t be licking my wounds because we don t know what else
that s my next question. nobody ever wants to discuss that. yes, you have an intervention. we did this with jared laufer in. we did it with james holmes. the psychiatrist, the school administration, everybody could see it. all the signs were there. and the professor s hands were tied. the administration s hands were tied. this whole idea is you civilly commit somebody and having a sit-down with them and going what s bothering you, do you want to talk about it, is not nearly as effective as somebody in a uniform with a badge going what are you thinking, because we are on you. and sometimes that whole kind of finger-pointing and going whatever you re thinking, we re going to stop it, is the only language they understand. i really think we need to empower authorities to work with mental health professionals do an intervention that is effective. catherine, do you agree with that? because it is interesting, even if you had a lot of complaints, people said he joked about this, if he legall
that was created by, you know, an op research firm, funneled by sources and then going to a fisa court, not disclosing the fact this was a politically so let me ask you this, do you feel like this indictment, do you feel like this indictment is an avenue in which to interrupt any planned russia meddling in the upcoming 2018 election? this document is showing that the russian operatives were meddling in the 2016 election. the question is you re asking me, like, do i think, of course, this is what it clearly shows. this whole trump/russia collusion to try to win the election and beat hillary clinton hasn t necessarily had anything to do with it but it s not over, right? are you feeling like this is the conclusion?