>> they matter. >> carl levin is one of the most respected people.hen carl was here, that was his thing. he dug into tshit, he had staff working on it, he was concerned about this dark money moving around and who was responsibility and who was benefiting. that is credible what carl is telling you. all this other stuff here, again, this is in robert mueller's court. i, looking forward like every other intel committee member of bringing all the people of interest before us so we know what's going on and we can hear from them. they have a right to tell their story. our intelligence committee is working diligently putting all the pieces of the puzzle together so we have a clear picture when they do come before us. >> you had a long time, you found no collusion, cut it out, this is all politics. this is not a witch hunt. i've seen witch hunts. i saw the bengahzi witch hunt. you get a different feeling if you sit in a room on whether people are trying to find answers or just accuse. every meeting i've been in, democrats, republicans, or a combination of bo

let's begin on that, carl levin, former lawmaker, posted about this on facebook and explained the context. that he and the government accountability office have been fighting for some time, david, on trying to stop this from happening, people setting up these u.s. bank accounts and pushing money through united states accounts without any transparency on who those folks are and the eighth man in that meeting with jared kushner and donald trump jr. is known to have set up 2000 u.s. corporations and bank accounts to do exactly that -- to push, according to carl levin, $1.4 billion through those. big deal? david, can you hear me? >> yes, i can, sorry. >> did you hear the question? >> i do not, i'm sorry. >> okay, rear admiral john kirby, did you hear that? >> yeah, i did, poppy. i'm not an expert on money laundering but this is a big deal and when you have somebody with the prominence of carl levin coming out and putting context behind this man's activities, we ought to pay attention to that. this whole thing if you take ten steps back and look at the space of information coming out about thi

but senator carl levin a democrat on that congressional panel just put out a statement on facebook. he says "as gao reported, kaveladze established some 2,000 u.s. corporations and bank accounts for a number of them. the owners of those accounts moved moved $1.4 billion through those accounts. he claims he did all this without knowing for whom he was doing it. he goes on to call kaveladze the poster child of the practice of money laundering. so more questions being raised about cape canaver about kaveladze who was the eighth person in that room. >>> joining me now on this to discuss is former u.s. attorney michael moore. great to see you. go into. >> good to see you. >> the eighth person in the room, kaveladze, from the 2016 meeting, he's being linked to the federal money laundering investigation. this was back in the 2000 when this was being investigated. is robert mueller going to look into this? >> i think bob mueller will look into a lot of it. these investigations take a long time,ing more will come out, hopefully we don't have leaks. but the problem with the explanations about

in fact, it was former michigan senator carl levin who took to his facebook page to spell out the concern. he pointed to the congressional probe that he led in 2011 that asked the government accountability office to look into how foreigners establish u.s. corporations with hidden ownership as a way to launder money through the u.s. banks so carl levin writing there, numerous corporations and bank accounts established by irakly kaveladze on behalf of people in russia, he said, the owners of those accounts then moved some $1.4 billion through those accounts. so now, at the time, kaveladze, did he speak to congressional investigators? kaveladze said he knew all of the entities for whom he set up those accounts, but former senator le vin called kaveladze the poster child of those practices, setting up those shell companies so last night, kaveladze's lawyer again reiterating that he did nothing wrong. >> what mr. kaveladze did back 20 years ago was absolutely unequivocally legal. there was never any allegation of him engaged in any criminal activity. >> was not charged. >> was certainly not ch

in fact, former michigan senator carl levin took to his facebook page to spell out his concern here. he talked about the congressional probe that he led in the year 2000 that asked the government accountability office to look into how foreigners establish u.s. corporations with hiding ownership as a way to launder money through u.s. banks. so, levin says that the investigation looked into, quote, numerous corporations and bank accounts established by irakly kaveladze on behalf of people in russia. and then he continued on to say that kaveladze, he actually set up 2,000 corporations and bank accounts where, quote, the owners of those accounts then moved some $1.4 billion through those accounts. now, kaveladze, he did, at the time, speak to investigators, and he said he knew all of the entities for whom he set up the accounts, so saying that they weren't just shell corporations, but former senator levin at the time he called kaveladze the poster child of this practice, setting up those shell companies, and then last night, though, kaveladze's lawyer said, and he reiterated that kavelad

it was a report that was created at the request of carl levin in october of the year 2000 and this report, because what it described was so flagrant, it made ibc, international business creations and citi bank and commercial bank of san francisco. it made this scam, basically this poster child for money laundering in the united states. the conclusion of the report was this giant red flag for congress telling them how easy it is. that's the word they used. for foreign individuals and entities to launder money through u.s. banks. money laundering, of course, is illegal. to hide the origins of illegally obtained money, by moving it around through different entities, that's illegal. under u.s. law, banks that suspect that their bank is being used for money laundering, they have to report it. the way banks are supposed to know if money laundering is going on in their bank, they are supposed to follow the know your customer policy. you're not supposed to open up a bank account at your bank unless you know the individual person opening it up. you validate that they are a human being. you validat

in a facebook post, former michigan senator carl levin pointed to a congressional prone in 2000 where government accountability office looked into numerous corporations and bank accounts established by him on behalf of people in russia. levin said kaveladze set up 2000 corporations and bank accounts where the owners of those accounts then moved some $1.4 billion through those accounts. kaveladze was never criminally charged. he denied any wrongdoing and claimed he knew all of the entities who set up the accounts. but levin called him a poster child of this practice and senator mark warner said kaveladze involvement with that 2000 congressional investigation is part of a colorful past that should raise suspicion about his presence in the meeting. >> i doubt if this individual who had a history of setting up thousands of fake accounts in delaware was really there to talk about russian adoptions. >> he was never implicated in any wrongdoing whatsoever. to say he has a colorful past is quite unfair and dishonest. >> reporter: kaveladze has agreed to cooperate with special counsel robert m

whatever the reason, he says he legally set up those companies and former democratic senator carl levin called him the poster child for that practice. now members of congress are intrigued. >> i doubt if this individual who had a history of setting up thousands of fake accounts in delaware was really there to talk about russian adoptions. >> reporter: his lawyer says he was there to represent his clients the wealthy russians who set up that meeting and practices to interpret, once more -- >> what he did back 20 years ago was absolutely unequivocally legal. it was never any allegation of him engaging in criminal activity. >> he was not charged. >> he was not charged and did absolutely nothing wrong. >> reporter: indeed he called the probe so many years ago a witch hunt aimed at demonizing innocent immigrants like him, instead of addressing russian corruption and flaws in the american law. the russian businessman and the russian american have become stock villains from central casting. but with his history, there is no doubt investigators want to know more about how he came to be sitting

the eighth person in the room, the money laundering, someone called him the poster child, senator carl levin, yes, there are questions about that person. >> there's not no interaction. >> you made multiple points. let's stick with the first one. matt, i want you to respond. why doesn't the president -- i mean, clearly -- at least seems to be clear how he feels about the man. why doesn't he just fire him? >> because i think what we're missing here is that i actually think the president's very fond of jeff sessions, and he's frustrated that what has happened is the democrats have been able to repeat all these false claims about russian collusion, interaction with the russians, when there's really no evidence of anything because nobody can cite any evidence, over and over again. that's really the standard. what's your evidence. and i think what he's saying is the evidence we actually do have is the dnc actually had an operative that was colluding with the government of ukraine. we actually know there have been illegal leaks, both from comey and others, obama holdovers who have been going after

they can refer, carl levin referred stuff -- >> i'm talking about when they were complicit, in blowingg bubble, as well. >> well, i -- that's an ideological argument about sort of the arrangens of the bubble, which i don't particularly subscribe to -- >> i think andrew finds the ceos that deserve to be prosecuted and you call it three big to fail >> no, but -- >> that's the sequel to too big to fail. why not three big to fail. >> i think that jesse's book is terrific and very pro-dockive argument, i think very well argued having said that we disagreed about this because i do think authors and journalists and all sorts of people have had incentives to try to find the crimes -- >> but the exclusivity and making croppy investments and greed and overleveraged none of those things are against the law. they're just bad ceos. >> right and that's exactly what "the wall street journal" editorial page and many argued about enron, this is just recklessness -- >> thought that they could take -- he thought that was his company. he thought he could take a loan from his own -- he found out he couldn'