doj and the fbi. what will be interesting to see is if a more formal request for investigation comes from the white house to doj and the fbi. at that point doj and the fbi are going to have to explain to the white house why there doesn t appear to be any evidence of a crime and why they didn t simply do an investigation of a white house personnel matter. i don t think it s going to get to that point. to kelly ann s point, if there is a foreign government that finds out who the author of this op-ed is, could they then ultimately have blackmail leverage over this person: i think that s a stretch based on what we know right now. i think that given the high profile nature of this op-ed, the explosive allegations, ins going to take long before the identity of the writer is made public one way or another. so i think this is going to be a sort of short-lived mystery. the president reacted as soon
information and then is using it, how do we know what the person gay what is it in the op-ed that would make it treason? what makes you think the how when we secure that the four corners of any op-ed are all that somebody who doesn t have the guts and the courage to come out and put their name to that op-ed, how do we know they haven t promised other things or taking other documents? so greg, here s the interesting part. most analysts agree treason is not at play, but if there is someone inside the white house who s undermining the president s policy directives that falls within any kind of chain of command, i m talking about other orders of policy directives, is there a crime that is being committed that he has talked about in this op-ed? no, probably not. i think this is a white house personnel matter, and the president s comments aimed at doj are largely being ignored by
by the president as a pretext to fire him or attack him since he was looking for reasons to do so with the mueller investigation? this could be a little less political. absolutely. i think that if we have a scenario in which the justice department comes out and says we re not going to conduct an investigation or they say we did look into it and we couldn t figure it out. that is a really elegant way for the white house to be able to say, look, the justice department is the reason we don t know the answer to this. the justice department is the reason why we re not having a conclusion to this episode and it pressures an attorney general who is already under fire. i don t know that the president will actually need this as a pretext to fire jeff sessions. he already has reasons that he s discussed with members of congress and he s getting them on board with that plan. it certainly wouldn t help the attorney general. let me read you the excerpt from the bob woodward book. this made a lo
expenses not a loan, so is wasn t illegal and trump wasn t required to disclose a payment. you know who is not buying that? the government s top ethics official who released a letter to rod rosen tine in connection with the disclosure. he asserted the office of government ethics had concluded the payment made by mr. cohen is in fact required to be reported as a liability despite trump s claim and added that rosen tine may find the disclosure relevant to any inquiry you may be pursuing. that s something. indeed, according to david apple s predecessor, the let ser tantamount to a criminal referral. oge reported the president to doj for potentially committing a crime. joining me now, georgetown law professor, neal katyal. the legal significance of the president putting this in writing and the referral by oge. they re both huge. this is a big deal.
today at a dozen retailers. this is a big weekend for the president s health care plan as well. the website that s cause sod much the past two months is supposed to be upgraded this weekend. there are concerns about the accuracy of price estimates on the site. water cannons and tear gas was you used on unruly crowds today protesting permits for their demonstrations. i m doug in washington. i ll see you at the top of the hour for special report. well snooping this year scandals from the nsa to doj. we want to ask if you think it s okay in certain circumstances. snooping on your kid or fishing around for info of your exes