pbs and the new york times are not the same. as you point out, the new york times is a dream job. most people end their careers at the new york times. they say, that's the thing i'm aspiring to. you were at newsday and then you were at usa today before going to the times, but still at a relatively young age, you got there in 2015. so you were still in your 20s when you got to the new york times. but then you leave the times. no one leaves the times. i mean, stipulate, pbs is awesome. we love pbs, right? that's like, what are we doing here? but but but, that's not a job you leave. so what was it about new york times to pbs that made you make that change? - well you know, gwen ifill left the new york times. - correct, that's true, good point. check mate. - so if you're someone who's a student of gwen ifill and a student of, she was a mentor of mine, and we met because we had the same hairdresser because that's how that happens, and that's how the universe, so great. - that is, by the way, not how we met. - that is, by the way, not how we met. - so seeing that, and seeing that she lef

he might be the nation's best-known first amendment lawyer, he was cocounsel in new york times case. he is now an attorney in new york city where he focuses on first amendment and media law. also the guest professor at columbia university. welcome to our program. floyd: good to be here. susan: we are pleased to welcome back ted olson. he has argued 63 cases in private practice and for the government before the supreme court, including as the general from 2001 to 2004. one of his key cases representing president bush, he is also a partner now in washington. we are pleased to have you back. you were with us on the first term and we are glad to have be back for a second season. ted: i'm delighted you would ask. susan: we will start with understanding how wrong and narrow the decision was. how did people understand the decision? what did the court find? floyd: the court found that the times in the post cannot be restrained in advance from publish and a prior restraint, as it is known. they said, a very heavy birding, that the government has to overcome, they have to show real, irreparable

>> it was in the "new york times" yesterday. >> rudy giuliani, the president's lawyer is using the "new york times" as a good source. >> does the president ever get the benefit of the doubt with you on this network? >> i think he gets the benefit of the doubt much more often than we get credit for. >> do you know most of people think i'm crazy for coming on here? howie: joining me, joy benson, sara fischer and adrienne elrod. the american academic living in london tried to get information from the campaign aides. by not naming him they say his safety could be jeopardized. now he's been i.d.'d. and this morning "fox and friends" though the mainstream media is not naming him. guy: we are past the point of protecting this man's identity. it's been reported a few places. major news organizations and quasi mainstream organizations have. so at what point does it become futile for prestige news organizations say we won't do it because it doesn't live up to our standards in the modern era. howie: certain outlets are making the judgment. adrienne: the "new york times" headlines yesterday. the em

there is four major topics in there and three of them are about obstruction. >> michael schmidt, new york times reporter who broke this and published these questions. congratulations about this and i appreciate you making time to talk to us about it. >> thank you for having me >> the new york times publishing a list of 49 questions that the special counsel's office i is -- sounds like to the president's legal team of what they want to ask him. this is a remarkable window into what they believe the president should have to answer. i should also tell you that the special counsel is not commenting on this report tonight. the special counsel's office was contacted for comment by the new york times tonight, the special counsel's office did not resp d respond. if you listen closely to the live interview we did with michael schmidt there, it seems like this list of 49 questions derive the way he describes the process of discussions between the special counsel's office and trump's lawyers. we don't know whether the special counsel's office standby these lists or we don't know if this is their complete

the first but the video who will introduce you to come it was a longtime new york times reporter and ppen to be one of the york times reporters writing the us recentlylk to and told us how the new york times got the information and how the paper conducted its work to publish that first story. [video clip] i first saw the papers and the hilton hotel on 6th avenue in new york. we had to file cabinets that were full of papers, four drawers of papers, dense of thousands of pages of documents. them,rted to go through we just began looking at them, and it was amazing to see the amount of material, to look at one document after the other, top secret, eyes only, only the president or secretary of state ambassador or commander or joint chief of staff. we started pouring through them to figure out how to do stories on them. the was so much maternal it to be dropped how to handle it journalistically. simply followed the organization of the pentagon papers and took 13 chapters and spread them out and that with them in that way. 12 ore end we cannot with 13 different days in which we run the paper

because "the new york times" has just broken a really important story on this subject today. andrew cramer in "the new york times" today reports that the four investigations into paul manafort that had been opened by prosecutors in ukraine over manafort's alleged involvement in the hand-over-fist corruption of the government he worked for there, those four open investigations into paul manafort, which apparently were quite neatly do ll lly dovetail the special counsel's work in this country and the spounts's prosecution of paul manafort in this country, those four cases in the ukraine have just been spiked. they're dead. on orders. quote, in the united states paul j. manafort is facing prosecution on charges of moneylaundering and financial fraud stemming from his decade of work for a pro-russian political party in ukraine. but in ukraine, four cases involving mr. manafort have been effectively frozen by ukraine's chief prosecutor. quote, keenly aware of president trump's distaste for the investigation by the special counsel robert mueller into possible collusion between russi

that's what the "new york times" tells us. for no reason whatsoever, they just began firing into the crowd. by the way, if you go into the fever swamps of social media and you see the left, "the new york times" knows what its appropriate began do does. it's not hard to find people on twitter suggesting that for no reason israel began shooting people because shooting people is fun. remember their message is not complicated. israel bad. and so if israel bad, then you just start shooting people because that's what you approach a monday morning. that's the message, and it's heard by social media. it's heard by anti-semites across the globe. it plays into vicious blood libels that go back millennium. it happens to be a lie. not an accidental misstatement. a deliberate, calculated, repeated lie. undoubtedly, tragically some of those killed have been palestinian, civilian human shields. this is by design, madam president. part of what hamas does is it uses terrorists to commit acts of terror. then it uses innocent palestinians as huma

the "new york times"? the "new york times" admitted they were wrong and wronged the president. i'm an alumnus of the "new york times" and on days like this i don't tell anybody. lou: if you are sitting in that crowd estimating. how can you be so wrong unless it's part of what you want. you want it to be a smaller crowd. that's the clear implication when you are so far off. lou: i think he's wrong. demean and disparage. that's the purpose of the left-wing media in this country. they think they are serving some higher purpose, namely, hillary clinton. there is still embed in these people an absolute disgust for the craft and tenets of this craft, and there has been an absolute commitment to furthering the interest of the left-wing ideology. ed: they can't understand how someone like donald trump could be elected president. lou: think about that. which one of these idiots in the national left-wing media or white house press corp would be able to carry his books to school. he's smarter than they are, he's been more successful. who do they think they are? ed: they totally underestima

times. having run a news organization that wasn't exactly that profitable, "the new york times" is the one newsganization that has cracked the code. digital revenue is higher than traditional advertising revenue or subscription revenue. "the new york times" has figured it out. so, in fact, i hope his attacks on you help "the new york times". the third irony is the one institution in our society that is protected by the constitution that is not the enemy of the people, that is the friend of the people, is the press. and he clearly does presiden't understand how the couldn't institution works. attackth the one engine meant to protect all of us. >> we worked in the white house. the white house doesn't always have different interests than the press that cover them, but they have never wage an asymmetrical war like donald trump has. donald trump lies more in one morning's tweet storm than any news organization, reputable news organization does in two decades. so, the idea that he's attacking news organizations that have lawyers, that have editors, that have standards departments, with lies is anothe

michael schmidt is the reporter at "the new york times." the headline is "mueller has dozens of inquiries for trump in broad quest on russia ties and obstruction." literally reading this off "the new york times" website right now because they have just published it. thank you, jackie, who's just hand td to me. robert mueller the special counsel investigating russia's election interference has at least four dozen questions on an exhaustive array of subjects that he wants -- that he wants to ask president trump. to learn more about trump's ties to russia and determine whether trump obstructed the inquiry itself. according to a list of the questions obtained by the "new york times." the open-ended queries appear to be an attempt to penetrate the president's thinking to get at the motivation behind some of his most combative twitter posts and to examine his relationships with his family and his closest advisers. they deal chiefly with the president's high-profile firings of the fbi director and his first national security adviser. that would be

presidents have called in the editor of the new york times, a publisher of the new york times , and saido not publish the fact that we are not getting warrants for certain things over here within the country. the times, in that case, said no. >> this is the abc news report on june 30, 1971. >> for two and half weeks, two constitutional principles have clashed. the government's view of national security versus the newspapers a view of their freedom to print. the newspapers one. from the supreme court where the issue is decided, this is abc's bill zimmerman.>> a dramatic four minutes late, the justices sat with the business at hand. they were reading the 6-3 decision, the opinion quoted from the 1963 case. any system of prior restraint of expression comes to this court wearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.>> this is how the decision turned out. >> the concurrence with the per curiam decision, speaking of the voice of court, that there were nine different opinions out of this case. six of them were concurrence cases. brennan, stewart, black, white comments -- and

he is telling the new york times that special counsel robert mueller is agreeing to limit the scope of the questions and the new york city mayor is saying it could result in a possible july interview and mueller issuing a final report by labor day and the mid- term election. that would be a win for the presidents. mueller's original questions were ridiculous and a perjury trap and what were you thinking. it doesn't matter what he was thinking and today is the one year anniversary of the mueller witch hunt. and so far there is not a single shred of evidence of collusion and that is not against the law. the special counsel is so abusive and corrupt and so conflicted that the president and his legal team are rightly going to offense to solicit the deep state team. congratulations, the president tweeted. we are in the second year of the greatest witch hunt in history and no collusion or obstruction. only collusion is done by the democrats who were unable to win the election despite the spending of far more money. >> all muller is trying to do is to get paul manafort to flip and bringing up

he's front and center on the trump beat for the new york times. one of a handful of reporters at the nation's best news orgs whose daily scoops have made journalism great again. he's michael schmidt, this is overheard. (montage of audio clips) mike schmidt, welcome. - thanks for having me. - good to see you, probably not for the first time, someone says to you, the president's been talking about you today. right? do you have the story in the newspapers. we sit here today on an average sunday. you have a story with your colleague, maggie haberman in the new york times about the prospect of the president adding an attorney to his team specifically focused on the threat of impeachment, this is an attorney who had worked on? - clinton. - clinton's impeachment. now, the president denies this is true, but he denies it in his own charming way, on twitter, and in doing so attacks the story that you wrote. this is kind of like the new normal, is it not? - yeah, and similar to other ways that he's attacked us, he sort of says that the story says something th

the "new york times" is reporting that attorney general sessions flew to florida in march of 2017 to discuss the president's attempts to ban muslims from entering the united states. "the new york times" reports mr. sessions had flown to florida because mr. trump was refusing to take his calls about a pressing decision on his travel ban. when they met, mr. trump was ready to talk, but not about the travel ban. his grievance was with mr. sessions. the president objected to his decision two days earlier to recuse himself from the russia investigation. mr. trump, who had told aides that he needed a loyalist overseeing the inquiry berated mr. sessions and told him he should reverse his decision, an unusual and potentially unappropriate request. mr. sessions refused the invitation is being investigated by the special counsel robert s. mueller iii as are the president's private and public attacks on mr. sessions and efforts to get him to resign. "the new york times" says that the special prosecutor's interest in jeff sessions' encounters with the president, quote, suggest that the obstructio

with "the new york times" is proving, we have been right the entire time, and in the process of tryingo cover up for their deep stayed friends and making excuses, they are exposing them. "the times" and the rest of the media have been trying to get ahead of what is a massive scandal, and protect the likes of comey and mccabe and peter strzok and lisa page and lynch and everyone else. the truth is finally coming out. we have been promising you this and so far, what we have been uncovering is only beginning. this is going tos get a lot wore for all of these deep state actors before it ever gets better. take a look at the side of your screen. james comey, andrew mccabe, loretta lynch, peter strzok, lisa page, all at the center of this massive scandal. comey's a liar and a leaguer and probably broke the law multiple ways. mccabe lied under oath multiple times, he could be facing criminal charges. loretta lynch, oh, she tried toe compromise the clinton email investigation and get a comey to sayo it's not an investigation, only a matter. then you have the fbi anti-trump lovebirds peter strzo

this "the new york times" thing, burn it. arbage from "the new york times" tonight, absolute garbage. >> i want to bring in a former aide to the clinton and obama campaigns who served in the white house as deputy press secretary for president obama as well. bill, your friend shawn there clearly moved. what is happening? >> i have to start by fact checking you. he's not my friend. >> a friend loosely. >> this white house is in croesus. and shawn hannity as its number one cheerleader on the outside i think he's doing everything he can to throw dust up in the air about this very serious investigation. he clearly was unhinged last night. i like he assumed his viewers all had fireplaces they could go and burn these questions. look, if this is like getting the test in advance and being able to go in and take it. if donald trump can't do that, what's he going to do here? >> this is new statement from mark meadows. i don't understand literally the claim that if rod rosenstein feels if he's being extorted out, he should get out. that's

hold on. >> "the new york times" -- >> let's take "the new york times" out of the equation, if that'sto use. the president said -- let me finish this question. the president said on air force one he knew nothing about the payment to stormy daniels, did not know where michael cohen got the money and then tweeted out this week this lawyered up statement about having reimbursed him through these retainer payments of $35,000 a month. we can take "the new york times" out of t the president did, indeed, tell something to the american people that was not true by using just his own statements. >> well, victor, one time when i was in congress i had an electrician doing work at my house. he said i'm going to go public with it and embarrass you as a politician. i know office figures often get this soft blackmail from people. clearly that's what stormy daniels was doing. that's why they had to do the nda to begin with. >> what? >> a fixer who would pay a retainer, you pay a monthly retainer and makes the problems go away. >> jack? >> i don't think you necessarily know where all that retainer goes

this was a serious concern, if every public figure and plaintiff in the country could get around new york times versus sullivan through the simple expedient of change in the claim, the new york times versus sullivan was dead and we could have a great memorial service for this. it was over, it was a scary case and scary for the reasons that if you told us that rehnquist would write the majority opinion, we would not have just been scared, we would've moved to other countries. that was a daunting proposition as well. >> steve, you actually do cartoons, rather than having academic speculate on the importance of the case or the importance of satire, what are you thinking about when you actually produce your editorial cartoons? why is satire so valuable? >> i think this is because you are taking something, satire is looking at something, whether it is a person or idea, and you are basically saying, you are not as important as you think you are. there are different ways that you could knock this person or that thing off the pedestal. there are different levels of outrageousness that you could apply t

the "new york times" has called

a new report from the "new york times" coming out just moments ago on whether team obama spied on the trump campaign. fresh new details on that and a possible change in strategy by president trump towards north korea ahead of the big meeting next month. we begin with the deadly events in the city of santa fe, texas. a 17-year-old whose name i won't dignify reading on the air. walked into an art class in santa fe high school and began shooting. 10 killed and another 10 wounded. texas governor greg abbott told officers he planed to kill himself but didn't have courage to pull the trigger on himself. this left students in shock. >> we were sitting in class. we had our door open. a teacher ran through the hallway saying there a student in the building with a shotgun. >> i heard the loud booms and i ran. >> everybody took off. i heard 3 shots. i grabbed her and we ran to the trees to get out of sight. i called mom and heard 4 more shots. >> everything you know, you hear, boom, boom, boom. [crying]. i just ran as fast as i could to hide. >> for the latest let's go to fox news reporter today

jonathan: i don't know if only for the strength of the new york times and the fact that hustler the newelies heavily on york times, and i think you could fairly argue that hustler is part of the sullivan progeny. hustler addresses questions that sullivan did not. otherwise the court would not have accepted the decision. the decision. for would we have a different result if we did not have sullivan? in the litigation specifically, claims were brought in most of those cases, and hustler addresses that head on, whereas sullivan does not come so you could make the argument that in an alternative universe, it could go the other way. george: would you think about the case -- were you there when the case was argued? my recollection is that we come and i think this was alluded to come we were very scared of this case. it was unanimous, seems like an easy case looking back on it, but at the time the facts were so bad we were all scared of it. the new york times did not whencipate in trying to -- the case went up for certification in the supreme court, but once it was granted and they were going to ta

so what "the new york times" is proving is we've been right the entire time and in the process of trying to cover up for their deep state friends and making excuses, they're exposing them. the times and the rest of the media have been trying to get ahead of what is a massive scandal and protect the likes of comey and somebody cake and strzok and lynch and page and everyone else. but they can't because the facts, the evidence, the truth is finally coming out. we have been promising you this. so far what we've been uncovering is only the beginning. this is going to get worse for all of these deep state actors before it gets better. take a look at the side of your screen. james comey, andrew mccabe, loretta lynch, peter strzok, lisa page, all at the center of this scandal. comey is a liar and leaker. mccabe lied under oath multiple times. loretta lynch tried to compromise the clinton e-mail investigation and comey to say it's notice an investigation. it's only a matter. then you have the fbi anti-trump lovebirds, strzok and page. they abused the president verbally, attacking him in texts. a

"the new york times" did not do this on purpose. ey suddenly decided that they wanted to tell the truth for once? this was not a simple accident, as evidenced by "the new york times" purposely, as andy mccarthy said, burying the lede of the story, while trying to spin and cover up for those people that they wouldn't cover for an entire year, those that are involved in all of this illicit activity. what's happening now is that of a deep state, they know they are about to be exposed, like we are expecting the ig report, after the ig report, we will get the 1.2 million documents that the ig looked at, that will follow, and i believe what is happening is very obvious and transparent. they are leaking information to try to get out in front of this scandal that we have been exposing on this program.n in other words, the information they have ignored as they talk about russia, russia, stormy, stormy. the doj is trying to protect themselves, leaking this information to friendly media. oh, "the new york times" is nobody friendlier. "the wall

this "new york times" story. >> kimberly: are you going to get him a card? >> jesse: no. "new york times" story, i see it as a confession. leakers at the fbi and doj. they know they are coming out with damning stuff. there is an abuse of power in the way this whole thing started. papadopoulos is a 28-year-old kid. he gets invited to an event at cambridge in england. who invited him? that's a good question. at the event, some professors that i have heard that the russians hacked some democrat emails. set up for drinks with the australian ambassador. set up for drinks, interesting. passes along the fact that the russians had some democrat emails. not that the trump campaign had anything to do with the hacking or were involved. just passed it on. then the investor because the fbi, says this is want to hear. the fbi sans peter strzok, the infamous peter strzok, to london to check things out. what do you know, they open up not a criminal investigation which is important, a counterintelligence investigation because for a criminal investigation you have to have hard evidence of

new york. i'm steve kornacki in for brian williams. day 470 of the trump administration. we have breaking news from "the new york times" about when trump had knowledge of the six-figure hush money payment to stormy daniels. one of the authors of that story, matt apuzzo, will join us in just a moment. he and his colleagues writing tonight, quote, president trump knew about a six-figure payment that michael d. cohen, his personal lawyer, made to a pornographic film actress several months before he denied any knowledge of it to reporters aboard air force one in april according to two people familiar with the arrangement. it was not immediately clear when mr. trump learned of the payment, which mr. cohen made in october 2016 at a time when news media outlets were poised to pay her for her story about an alleged affair with mr. trump in 2006. but three people close to the matter said mr. trump knew that mr. cohen had succeeded in keeping the allegations from becoming public at the time the president denied it. the president has spent the last several hours speaking out, in particular going into damage control mode trying t

because it's friday and this is how it goes now when you do a live news show on friday nights, "the new york times" just broke a major news story. the by line on this, adam gold mans, marc rosetti and mark rosenberg. hopefully we'll get adam goldman on the phone. this is just posted. headline as you can see there. "fbi used informant to investigate russia ties to campaign, not to spy, as trump claims." the president and conservative media and trump-supporting members of congress on the republican side in congress have recently been upset and have been making a lot of noise about recent reporting that the fbi was not just investigating russia's attack on the election and whether or not the trump campaign had any connection to russia's efforts to interfere with the election even before the election happened in 2016. there has been recent reporting that at least one informant met with people on the trump campaign during the course of the campaign who were suspected of having ties to russia. well, "the new york times" has just fleshed this out tonight. "president trump accused the fbi today, on friday

but then they got leaked to "the new york times." "the new york times" said they did not get it from a member of the legal team. so, who gave it to them? what's the motivation in getting this information out to you. we'll discuss that. but there's a focus on a few things, the trump campaign ties to russia. high profile fires. and whether the president's actions and motivations could amount to obstruction of justice. >> how do we know these questions? as you said "the new york times" obtained this list of nearly four dozen questions. they cover several categories. the firing of michael flynn, the firing of james comey and the recusal of jeff sessions and president trump's knowledge of campaign communications in business deals with russia. so, really the whole umbrella. the president just tweeted about this report. cnn's abby phillip is live at the white house with all of the latest. what's happening there, abby? >> well, good morning, alisyn. a couple weeks ago the president's legal team sat down with mueller's special counsel attorney

, political reporter for "the new york times" and an msnbc contributor. one of those all "the new york times" segments that happened increasing frequency around here. mara, i learned about you on the break you formerly covered city hall. mr. giuliani is not an unknown quantity to you. in your view, what just happened tonight? what did we just witness? >> this is rudy being rudy. anybody who has covered him or written about him or known him for any period of time. in some ways this is no different than he was 20 years ago. other ways, a lot of people who are close to him say that he's being a little bit different of late. maybe not as sharp as he used to be. i want to be very careful. he's a very smart man. but i've got to say that this is someone who brings a lot of experience. he was a prosecutor. he ran new york city. everybody loved him, hated him. he was a pretty strong figure. he was known as america's mayor. and to see that performance was really disheartening in so many ways. it's not clear, you know, that he was intentional in what he said. it came

would really make things run smoother. >> your take then on what the president tweeted in "the new york times" response with the article. >> first of all, i'd just like to give props to the "new york times" because all of the journalist and there were 30 or so if not a few more who were invited into the briefing with the senior white house official were bound by an agreement saying they would just name the agreement in as a senior white house official. even willfully misinforming the american public, they still chose to represent journalistic integrity and abide by their agreement by not mentioning the guy. i thought that was a tremendous gesture, which to me, shows that the practice of diplomacy, the practice of journalism and frankly, the practice of administrative politics is a professional practice. that stands in direct contrast to this white house who has positioned itself as not full of professionals, because a lot of people in washington don't want to be b affiliated and frankly, they have no authentic relationship with the truth. a little dirty secret b about me. i don't know if you

avenatti, been reported out by "the new york times" and other news organizations, is that this little company that michael cohen set up to pay stormy daniels, essential consultants, it appears to have been used for a lot more than just paying $130,000 to stormy daniels. it also appears to have paid michael cohen more than a million dollars. oh. according to mr. avenatti's document, three checks from essential consultants, two for a quarter million dollars, one for $505,000, were deposited in mr. cohen's own bank account last summer. a summer of 2017. what that looks like is this little company he set up paying michael cohen more than a million bucks. that's what it looks like. that raises more questions. first, was michael cohen ultimately the recipient of that million bucks or was he depositing those checks and getting that money for someone else? we don't know what happened to the money ultimately. we know michael cohen put it in one of his own bank accounts. also, where did that money come from? where did essential consultants get a million bucks? michael cohen, didn't he say he ne

new york times columnist david brooks. hugh hewitt host of the salem radio network and yamiche alsindor, white house correspondent. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press". >> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press with chuck todd." >> good sunday morning. one year into robert mueller's russia investigation we're seeing two narrative, the counter narrative that president trump and his allies are creating. for instance, members of the trump team meet at trump tower. president trump says anyone else would have done the same. mueller brings charges against former campaign manager paul manafort. the president insists mueller is going too far fishing for information. the steele dossier, they're the ones that did the collude ppg and the latest, the fbi dispatches an informant to talk to trump campaign advisers after learning of suspicious contacts with russia. president trump and his allies insist that's a sign of fbi misconduct bigger than watergate. as the evidence

new reporting in the "times" tonight on that. we don't know exactly why viktor vekselberg was stopped and questioned by mueller at a new york airport. nor do we know if they were successful in their effort to obtain and search his electronic devices when they confronted him but the "times" reports tonight that vekselberg did attend the trump inauguration, and maybe that's connected to why he was stopped. according to the "times," vekselberg attended the inauguration along with another person who donated a quarter million dollars to trump's inaugural fund. according to the "times" mueller's investigators have also questioned that trump inaugural fund donor who brought this russian oligarch to d.c. to see trump sworn in. as the "times" puts it tonight, "the interest in vekselberg suggests that the special counsel has intensified its focus on potential connections between russian oligarchs and the trump campaign and inaugural committee." also today in the special counsel's ongoing prosecution of trump campaign chair paul manafort, you might have heard there was a rip-roaring court hearing in that case with a 77-year-old judge who is k

one more way comcast is working to fit into your life, not the other way around. >> laura: a "new york timesyork times" story may have backfired in spectacular fashion with a new report that may indicate that the obama administration did, in fact, spy on the trump campaign. buried in the piece on the russia probe, more than 40 paragraphs down is this revelation. at least one government informant met with george papadopoulos, president trump tweeted that it could be bigger than watergate but was this a misstep or done on purpose? roger stone rejoins us for reaction on this development. also molly hemmingway and former whitewater prosecutor saul wisenberg. >> it's shocking and improper in my view that the fbi apparently penetrated and had an undercover person on the trump campaign that they used the lesser standards of a counter intelligence investigation. >> laura: to open counter in tell investigation you don't need a criminal predicate, correct? >> you don't need a criminal predicate. it's one thing to say they could have -- they had enough evidence to open an investigation of whether there

this "new york times" thing, put it in your fireplace and burn it. use we have sources that -- half of these questions are dumb anyway. oh, what was in your mind at the time? you don't punish or charge people for the thoughts they have in their head. >> trevor: you know, my favorite thing about sean hannity is he's the wrongest right-sounding person you will ever meet. because you realize you can get charged because to have the thoughts if you have your head. it's called criminal intent. it's such a basic concept of law and order that they put it in the name of the show. ( applause ) and you know what i find amazing about all of this? just when you think about it, what i find amazing about all of this is everyone is telling trump he shouldn't sit down with robert mueller. but why? if he's innocent, just go on to the questions. i know some people might be saying, no, trevor, mueller is clearly trying to trap trump. that's what he's trying to do, trap him. what trap? he's giving trump the questions ahead of time. that's not a trap. trump can practice hi

you're hearing this breaking news as i am from the "new york times." talk about what you're hearing from your end. >> it's interesting because rudy giuliani as he often does on weekend making rounds. he talked to "new york times" and robert costa at the "washington post" and also talked to our friend and colleague kelly o'donnell. mr. giuliani shared this information that he shared with michael schmit to nbc news. what's interesting here is this note from kelly. mr. giuliani frames this as saying he doesn't think it's unrealistic for the special counsel to wrap this up by september 1st. doesn't want to get into what he calls comey territory, meaning that it would happen -- this investigation would wrap up one or two months right before the election. he says that would be unfair and that would be unfair to both sides. what's particularly striking to me the thought that an investigation of this scale of the scope could be wrapped up in a year and four months. given that the benghazi probe took two and a half years to come to a conclusion and ken starr pro

there's no better place for the fbi to go than to "the new york times." why? 've had a longstanding relationship doing the same thing. >> there's no better place for donald trump to go than "the new york times." >> he hate "the new york times." >> the perfect place to go the fbi has no reason to leak it. the questions are legitimate and there's no stormy daniels and nothing else in there. donald trump has every reason to leak it because he needs to show that there's no credibility to this investigation. he's got motive and he has the weapon. if you read "the new york times" story, there's a little hint in there a little where's waldo hint that it came from donald trump and his team when they talk about the attribution of where this came from. >> julie: i didn't see waldo in that one. i don't know. >> the line is -- >> julie: so you're thinking the president of the united states actually leak add story to "the new york times," the one publication that he hates more than any on this planet. and then he said they leaked to it the media. you have a made-up phony cr

the "new york times" did a horrible job characterizing what he said, they say he exists. d the "new york times" say something correct or incorrect when it said donald trump is at odds with his aides. they just need to show him saying it's impossible. how already clearly the "times" overstated the statement. mollie: should he have said you mischaracterized the real person? but the problem is the news media have to be accurate. this was a major part of the story. they are saying the aide is at odds with the president. they don't have the evidence to support that claim. >> there is a pattern where president trump says with people they don't like. the president said he doesn't exist. adrienne: donald trump's erratic behavior is on full display. whenever he is frustrated with the way the media is covering any story he's involved with. he tries to disparage the source. he took a standard knee jerk reaction approach and he was wrong. this is somebody in his administration. howie: you can say the source was wrongs, biased or had an agenda. but this was at least a real person. the

"the new york times" also breaking the news the fbi agents are a bunch of drama queens, crossfire hurricane. also they interrogated an australian ambassador at the outset on day one. "the times" describes that as a break with diplomatic protocol, something that had to be deliberated in law enforcement in washington, d.c. but fbi agents did succeed in interviewing that ambassador from australia to find out what he knew about the trump campaign and its advance notice of russia's attack on our election. we get a bunch of new detail from "the times" tonight about how secret the fbi kept this investigation, including the fbi not briefing the investigation to senior justice department officials like they normally would in any other case. we learn for the first time that instead of using normal subpoenas, the fbi used national security letters to obtain phone records and other documents in the early days of the investigation. national security letter, as far as i understand it, they're a post-9/11 law enforcement innovation that basically lets them subpoena something in complete secrecy. we get al