zamel. it certainly got the president s attention yesterday when he quoted the time s piece was a, quote, long and boring story. ryan goodman, general counsel from the department of defendant and co-editor of the chief of the just security blog which is a great read you should be checking out. and jonathan chafe. there are a couple of implications to it. the first one would be this is another indication of a campaign violation. you re not supposed to take any support from a foreign national. and the new york times report says that don jr. responded approvingly. so everybody at that meeting s got a serious legal issue if the reporting is correct. the second item is that erik prince actually testified to congress and seemed to omit this particular meeting. we could call that a concealment of a material fact. in other words, it s a federal violation. it s a perjury if in fact the meeting took place and he decided to not tell congress than an instead to tell congress
they do. and i think they have good reason to think that. according to the new york times report, after this august 3rd meeting, the trump campaign embraced mr. nader and they met frequently with jared kushner and michael flynn. i will note one thing. the president broke with tradition by making saudi arabia, of all places as his first trip as setting president. it was year ago that he posed in front of the orb. how did that meeting come about? why did he break with tradition and go to saudi arabia first? we may learn more than as we learn moring these meetings. thanks for joining us. thank you. a campaign message to take back government and it s all about donald trump and corruption. plus, bill gates returns to the show in tonight s thing 1, thing 2, next.
another story about a lack of connections to the campaign. yeah, in fact this is questioning with congressman rooney. he says to erik prince, aside from writing these papers, donating supporting. a yard sign in my yard. there was no other formal communications with the campaign? correct thinking would seem to debev lie that. it would seem to directly belie it. and i think erik prince is in deep trouble because he also interviewed with mueller s team, and mueller knows everything about this meeting. jonathan, you wrote about this story and you wrote about what you think it triggered in donald trump. i want to read a great line. trump has no poker face, no chill. the closer the investigation gets to incriminating evidence, the more intensely he rages. he resembles a suspect at a crime scene screaming at the police not to go into the attic. now that attic is meaning awfully interesting. what do you mean? this aspect of the mueller investigation is the most mysterious, even t
no, no. far from it. the president and his allies are going to keep escalating until they meet hard resistance or until they succeed in derailing the mueller probe. they ve already signaled they won t accept the inspector general s findings. it will not be enough to have rod rosenstein and others of the department of justice investigate themselves. we got enough investigations where the justice department is investigating themselves. more than almost anything we ve discussed in the past, this is a basis to appoint a second special counsel. for weeks the president s congressional allies led by house intelligence chairman devin nunes have been pushing to expose the fbi s confidential source over the strenuous objections of the justice department. today with the president s backing, they won what could be another major concession. according to the white house it was agreed that chief of staff john kelly will immediately set up a meeting with the fbi, doj and dni together with congress
quote, long and boring story. ryan goodman, general counsel from the department of defendant and co-editor of the chief of the just security blog which is a great read you should be checking out. and jonathan chafe. there are a couple of implications to it. the first one would be this is another indication of a campaign violation. you re not supposed to take any support from a foreign national. and the new york times report says that don jr. responded approvingly. so everybody at that meeting s got a serious legal issue if the reporting is correct. the second item is that erik prince actually testified to congress and seemed to omit this particular meeting. we could call that a concealment of a material fact. in other words, it s a federal violation. it s a perjury if in fact the meeting took place and he decided to not tell congress than an instead to tell congress another story about a lack of connections to the campaign. yeah, in fact this is questioning with congressman roone