despicable demonstratesing a god who belongs in history, so i agree with the privilege and also revoking the privilege when its been abused so in john brennan s case i think it s appropriate and with respect to some of the other people under consideration, i will tell you, maria, i think that it s entirely appropriate when someone at the department of justice or the fbi or in our intelligence community is under investigation or has been criminally referred or fired or demoted because of misconduct that you revoke their security clearances. why would you give them access to national security information under those circumstances? maria: so would you expect others then to see their security clearance go away like a sally yates? i would. i would expect them to work carefully again not only as a blanket approach but the argument on the other side is that somehow by john brennan and others that this is an effort to stifle free speech, that s absolutely absurd, maria. john brennan has just
that uranium one decision and of course she hires this cut-out fusion gps who was using supposedly russia intelligence sources to lander information into the fbi and doj. think about this maria. peter strzok whose investigating hillary clinton s e-mail abuses at the same time is working with hillary clinton s campaign apparatus to try to take out president trump, or then candidate trump. outrageous conflict and mueller is conflicted himself because he s using all of this material created by strzok by ohr, by steele, by the clinton dnc dossier. we haven t even gotten into the spygate where the fbi/cia was going at or sending informants targeting the trump campaign to try to dig up dirt. maria: yeah, they were sending informants in well before the launch of the investigation, which was july 31 of 2016 but there were informants trying to taunt trump campaign people way before that. you know, i mean, we were just talking with john ratcliffe and there s no surprise or no
for purposes of this investigation is the white house counsel, not mcgahn. he basically is recused from that because he was a witness which is fine and i think the president has to decide that. you and i can have feelings about it but the fact is we know enough about it now to know that crimes were committed, perjury, if there was any collusion with the russians they re the one who did it and there s evidence of it. maria: well what about that? does robert mueller need to see the dnc server? where is the server? how is robert mueller going to get his hands-on all of the information pertaining to the election in 2016? the justice department and the fbi never asked to see the server. its been given to them in bits and pieces on a report done by an outside agency that worked for them. so that s a totally maria: this really blows my mind
to question the president. right now, we re going back and forth with letters to try to set out ground rules. we wrote them a letter a week and a half ago they haven t responded yet which tells me they re not in a rush and someone just asks me well are you delaying? hardly in comparison to the special counsel. we ve been going since june and we responded in two, three days, four days they responded in two weeks, and these are all-important things to whether you can do an interview or not particularly in light of the fact that they already have all of the information they re going to ask us about except they don t have it under oath from the president so then we get very nervous that they re trying to trap him into perjury which is not supposed to be what they are doing they should be trap ping people into a crime, if a crime is a crime, the president says he did nothing wrong. we don t think they have any evidence that he did. come on, write your report put it out and we ll write ours