stand trial in the united states. it s an entirely different ball game if there are americans named or unnamed should he decide to do an indictment. there could be strategic reasons why he wouldn t necessarily name an american who was part of hacking and leaking campaign. but either way it could give away too much of the case perhaps? it could give away, he could want to hold back on that to try to pressure somebody to try to cooperate with the investigation. there are a number of different reasons. that s what i think, that gets at the heart of the matter. not only an american but was there anyone in the trump campaign or any trump associates who s potentially corroborated with wikileaks. so cynthia, this guy mueller very rarely, that we can tell ever gets out over his skis. everything is planned and timed out. how will this be a part of the story? well, prosecutors and trial lawyers are basically story tellers. that s what he has to do. you know, his first indictment really
has contravened that. what we re reporting today is the justice department is now going back and taking another look at a criminal investigation that apparently went on into this whole question of how this deal was approved and then some contributions to the clinton foundation. it s not unheard of for the justice department to take another look at a case, not necessarily improper. after all, eric holder when he was the attorney general took another look at cia interrogations after bush administration lawyers had cleared those cia people. that s not unheard of but it does start to raise the hackles in the context of everything else you re describing which is a concerted campaign to try to chait subject and divert attention and talk about things that hillary clinton did instead of the obvious investigation into donald trump. you know, barbara, it does seem that what s happening is the republican party i shouldn t say all republicans but those who are particularly loyal and allied wit
there s a debate, it s a continuous and ongoing debate been the military about how much do retired officers or ncos get involved in politics. it s one thing to support a candidate or speak highly or do programs like some people have done. i m tempted to be apolitical on this program, but sometimes you get sucked in one way or the other because of action of political candidates. in this case michael flynn went over the top. that was the first indicator that something was desperately wrong with this guy. and i think it proved a lot of people it generated quite a bit of discussion in both the retired and the active corps about this individual being vehement, unconstitutional in the way he approached this. what happened to michael flynn? he did have correct me if i m wrong, he had a distinguished
we re watching a lot of things across the country when people are accused of something, whether it s matt lauer or anybody else, and there s generally come getting to the bottom of it. when you fire a national security adviser four weeks into your presidency, that s not a very good optic. but i think he did. and van put his finger on the problem. it s a zombie prosecutor who is, if he is going beyond what is normal, which i believe he is, and i said from the beginning, this should not be about what is the lies by flynn, what s happened is, this guy mueller is trying to overturn an election now, because he thinks so somebody should be able to lie to a federal prosecutor and get away with it? no, of course not. but what is the purpose of an ever expanding prosecutor if you get a federal prosecutor who decides he doesn t like you, you got a lot of trouble, and it doesn t matter what the truth is. he ll find out you filed van, is that what s happening
this is this guy mike flynn, surprisingly to many people who knew it, maybe not, but he lied to mike pence, he lied about that, and he was fired for his job, and he lied to the fbi, which even the most basic sort of bureaucrat knows you can t lie to the fbi. so president trump fired the guy within 25 days, realizing he couldn t do the job. it s very unfortunate wait, let me just stop you there. he was informed flynn lied, and you just said 25 days later no, no, no, i m sorry i misspoke, anderson. flynn only worked for 25 days as national security adviser so the white house was informed and two weeks went by and they kept him in the job until he was only fired because the washington post had the story. for a guy [ overlapping speakers ] the timeline, anderson, i guess you re right.