Put what on the president . This idea that you just said the the New York Times is reporting that the president approved either wrote or approved the that is not an outlandish suggesting. I take the the New York Times reporting on its face and why wouldnt a father thats president of the United States want to have a say in what his son was putting out that involves him and his presidency. Seems like a legitimate thing thats why i asked. 39yearold son whose running the Trump Corporation and the trump organization, so he doesnt need to be looked over the shoulder by his father. Heres what i think we need to really focus on and obviously i appreciate you having me on. I need to be clear about three things here. Number one, the president was not aware of the meeting, did not attend the meeting and was only made aware of the emails very recently by counsel and not seen the emails. In fact, you know, i didnt see the email until yesterday and im one of the lawyers. So there you have it. Okay.
e-mail someone this guy goldstone saying this information came from the russian government and the russian government is backing his father. the idea that he would never have had a conversation either before this meeting after receiving the e-mail or after the meeting even though there was allegedly no there there, to point out to his dad, you know what, i got this thing that s claiming the russian government is backing you, i mean, that s kind of a bombshell in these e-mails. and it doesn t sound like it s the first time he s heard it. he doesn t really react to that. that s right, anderson. it raises all sorts of questions. one is, obviously, why did the president last week say that there may be other countries involved in the meddling in last year s election. i think if and when he s asked about this later on this week, he cannot say any more, i don t think, that there might have been other countries involved in the meddling in last year s election when you have e-mails going back
point two is, the three points were. he was not aware, did not attend and just found out about the e-mails or saw the e-mails yesterday. right. let me ask you something, how can you see these e-mails as anything other than proof of russian efforts to infiltrate the election? well, look, first of all i just heard your last guest who said the entire thing was a put up. that none of this true. i know he said that but if you don t think that there are questions of credibility in this situation, whether it s don junior who changed his story or the notion that this man, mr. goldstone who obviously is going to have to come forward and clear this up at some point, can you imagine not firing a guy who made up a lie like this about you, counsellor? can you imagine? if you had somebody working for you who said that you met with prosecutors and had sensitive information and that you wanted to help an election and you don t fire the guy, that s pretty strange?
other side of this investigation is who hacked the dnc e-mails and whether they ever had a conversation with the trump campaign about those e-mails. we don t know the answer to that. we have one tiny clue that s being lost in the noise. the campaign was willing to speak with russians who they knew when they walked through the door were going to potentially provide information derogatory about hillary clinton. that s huge. the rest of this to me, noise. does it matter that their argument is that the guy goldstone in the e-mails was lying, which i feel really we have to hear from goldstone. he could be lying, but wow, what a doozy he spun with all this detail. if that s true that he s lying, does it all go away or does the intent to take that meeting still matter? there are two pieces. that suggests to me that anything past the meeting was not significant in terms of the election. i don t think that s a huge issue here. the issue here is there s an
goldstone whose apparently the biggest liar in the world says so. this publicist decides to spin one of the most fantastical stories i ve ever seen and, by the way, 24 hours later still isn t fired for it even though just threw his employer under the bus. i know what you re thinking because you re a lawyer. the to give the lawyer a break. i have this thing in my chest that goes boom boom boom. it s called a heart. it makes me human and this defies common sense. the guy had 24 hours. how long would it take you to fire someone who spun a tale about you being a russian agent and trying to infiltrate the election. quickly. here s the differential. i don t know your other guests that you had on the previous segment. i m not trying to disparage his legal capabilities at all. i don t know who he represented. i don t like hitting the lawyers in that regard. it happened in 24 hours. i want to clear up one other point.