suspicion that the rest of the establishment has pushed back. and he hasn t been able to do anything. and steve, this question to you. the simple headline that is in play in this investigation, the question whether a u.s. president could somehow be working on behalf of russia, to say that statement is profound to say the least if indeed proven to be true. but as an investigator yourself, how significant is it that that s where we were when this investigation was launched? well, it s profoundly important that the fbi would be concerned enough to want to look into the possibility. yes, i think we have to measure this and realize what was open was a preliminary inquiry rather than a full investigation. there is a significant difference. and the other thing we have to realize is that the only people in the fbi after comey was fired who could have opened an investigation, an espionage
we were, that this investigation was launched. it is profoundly important that the fbi would be concerned enough to want to look into the possibility. yes, i think we have to measure this and realize what was open was a preliminary inquiry rather than a full investigation. there is a significant difference. and the other thing we have to realize is that the only people in the fbi after comey was fired who could have opened an investigation, an espionage investigation of the president of the united states would have been the acting director and the deputy assistant director in charge of counterintelligence and that would have been andrew mccabe and peter strzok who both have asterisks next to their name right now. and so the one thing i want to ask, as an investigator, is what happened to the preliminary inquiry? because within six months, it either has to be closed or converted to a full
i m literally writing down what you say, because it seems to me, i just wrote conduct lies in blackmail. what you re saying, this is when we make up a graphic real quick, we don t have time to turn it into a real graphic. what you re saying is there s the conduct and people can debate that and whether it s private or public, and there s certainly many republicans who say what about bill clinton s conduct and there s other democrats who have conduct. and then there s the lies only about the conduct, according to your reportings, and then there s something that seems very different is that this is a case where there s an open espionage investigation. and if there s conduct with vulnerability to blackmail, that seems de s detrimental to natio security. i think that s buy the concern of the fbi was trump vulnerability to russian
was that in january, when the fbi director met with the president, the president asked him, hey, this big espionage inquiry you re having, am i at this time one of the targets of the investigation. the fbi said no, sir, you are not personally a target of this espionage investigation we re doing. and the president says that s great, i m fine. so it was just my campaign, then, not me personally. there is no problem. that s the vindication. and the president s lawyer is today now saying actually, we re giving up even on that. and we are going to say our defense is that james comey, because of some imaginary concept of privilege that no actual executive branch lawyer would uphold, he should not have told the truth about the fallacies the president had previously put on the public record. john heilemann, the white house is being challenged very directly by james comey here. it s not just the president who he is saying is lying. he is saying the president s experiences are ly right. an
the president s team has been saying their great vindication was that in january, when the fbi director met with the president, the president asked him, hey, this big espionage inquiry you re having, am i at this time one of the targets of the investigation. the fbi said no, sir, you are not personally a target of this espionage investigation we re doing. and the president says that s great, i m fine. so it was just my campaign, then, not me personally. there is no problem. that s the vindication. and the president s lawyer is today now saying actually, we re giving up even on that. and we are going to say our defense is that james comey, because of some imaginary concept of privilege that no actual executive branch lawyer would uphold, he should not have told the truth about the fallacies the president had previously put on the public record. john heilemann, the white house is being challenged very directly by james comey here. it s not just the president who he is saying is lying.