TRUMP - Impeachment Hearings 11/18 - 11/23

"How both sides are preparing for a packed week of impeachment hearings" PBS NewsHour 11/18/2019

HINT:  A person can be arrested, tried, convicted of ATTEMPTED robbery, which means the crime was not completed.  This applies to what Trump attempted.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump says he will consider testifying on his own behalf in the impeachment inquiry.  Former U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, career State Department official Jennifer Williams, departing National Security Council official Tim Morrison, and National Security Council official Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman are scheduled to appear Tuesday.  Yamiche Alcindor joins Amna Nawaz to discuss.

"What we learned from public testimony of officials on Trump’s July 25 call" PBS NewsHour 11/19/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Tuesday marked a significant day in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump, as officials on the July 25th phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy testified in open hearings for the first time.  Lisa Desjardins, Nick Schifrin and Yamiche Alcindor join Amna Nawaz to discuss the day’s highlights, including a personal attack on a witness in the middle of testifying.

"Rep. Mike Johnson on Vindman’s reputation, witness credibility and Trump’s frustration" PBS NewsHour 11/19/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The House Judiciary Committee is ultimately responsible for deciding if impeachment charges will be brought against President Trump.  Republican Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana is a member of that committee, and he joins Amna Nawaz to discuss why he is frustrated with the impeachment inquiry proceedings so far and whether he thinks the President should answer questions about his Ukraine dealings.

"Rep. Jayapal on ‘damning’ impeachment evidence and what happens next" PBS NewsHour 11/19/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington [state] is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which will ultimately be responsible for deciding if impeachment charges are brought against President Trump.  Jayapal joins Amna Nawaz to discuss why she is disturbed by her Republican colleagues’ defense of Trump’s actions and the most “damning” evidence she has seen in the investigation so far.

"Why Gordon Sondland’s public testimony was ‘extraordinary’" PBS NewsHour 11/20/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, testified to the House Wednesday that there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine and that he followed President Trump’s orders to work with Rudy Giuliani.  Sondland also implicated Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence in a pressure campaign.  Nick Schifrin, Yamiche Alcindor and Lisa Desjardins join Judy Woodruff to discuss.

And from Trump's Propaganda Minister.....

"Kellyanne Conway says ‘there was no pressure applied’ to Ukraine" PBS NewsHour 11/20/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Trump administration quickly pushed back on the claims of Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland that Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, among others, were aware of Sondland’s efforts to get Ukraine to open an investigation into the Bidens.  Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

"What Rep. Steve Cohen thinks about the evidence against Trump" PBS NewsHour 11/20/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The House Judiciary Committee would hold hearings on impeachment after the House Intelligence Committee concludes theirs.  Do those Democrats feel they have enough evidence to move forward with articles of impeachment for President Trump?  Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) is a member of that committee, and he joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what Ambassador Gordon Sondland said.

"How testimonies from Fiona Hill and David Holmes filled in Sondland’s ‘gaps’" PBS NewsHour 11/21/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the week’s final day of public impeachment hearings, Dr. Fiona Hill, the former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia, and David Holmes, the political affairs counselor at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, testified to the House.  Lisa Desjardins, Yamiche Alcindor and Nick Schifrin join Judy Woodruff to discuss how the information they shared filled in the gaps.

"Leon Panetta and Bill McCollum on where the impeachment inquiry goes next" PBS NewsHour 11/21/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Let’s take a broader view of all the testimony in this week's public impeachment hearings.  Leon Panetta was chief of staff under former President Bill Clinton and later served as director of the CIA and Secretary of Defense under former President Obama.  Former Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla) served as one of the House managers for Clinton’s impeachment trial.  They join Judy Woodruff to discuss.

"What happens next in the impeachment inquiry" PBS NewsHour 11/22/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  This week was a historic one for American government.  Over three days, the House Intelligence Committee held public hearings with nine more witnesses as part of an inquiry into whether President Trump should be impeached.  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to discuss when the Intelligence Committee might publish a report on its findings and the upcoming role of the Judiciary Committee.

"Impeachment inquiry is ‘only just beginning’ after testimony" PBS NewsHour 11/23/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As Congress takes a Thanksgiving break, Democratic and Republican staff members are drafting reports on the impeachment inquiry that will determine the next phases of the process.  Jami Floyd, a host and legal editor at WNYC New York Public Radio, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 9/27/2019

"Shields and Brooks on the politics of impeachment" PBS NewsHour 9/27/2019

REMINDER:  An 'impeachment inquiry' is just gathering evidence of the charge.  It takes a "Charge of Impeachment," presented to the House for a vote, to start actual impeachment.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including the details of the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s decision to open an impeachment inquiry into the matter and potential 2020 political reaction to impeachment.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now back in Washington, fallout from the whistle-blower's complaint, as the formal impeachment inquiry picks up steam.

And to help analyze this historic week, I'm joined by Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So much going on this week, but I think we know where to start.

And that is — David, looking back at this conversation that took place in July between President Trump, the President of Ukraine, the White House continues to say this is perfectly appropriate, the President said perfect, conversation with the leader of another country.  Democrats are saying it was a violation of his oath, an impeachable offense.

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes.

I'm a little mystified.  I think they're sincere.  They thought it was exculpatory.  But I don't see how they could actually think that.

I mean, the crucial thing to do with that transcript is to look at the logic chain of the thing.  So Trump says, we have been very generous to you.  You haven't always been generous to us.  We have been more generous than the others.

And then — then that follows with, well, maybe you can do us a favor.  And that favor is to investigate the Bidens.

So when you just break down the logic chain, it's a very clear, we did this for you, you owe us, here's what you can do for us.

And that is — it's not an explicit quid pro quo, but it comes pretty close, I think.

Judy Woodruff:  Are there shades of questions here about what happened in that conversation, Mark, or is it clear-cut for you?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  It's clear-cut, Judy.

I mean, what it puts to rest is the lie about the confidence of the Trump campaign:  We're leading in all polls.  We're ahead.

He was so terrified, so intimidated, the President of the United States got on the phone with the leader of Ukraine to get dirt on the one Democrat who in every major poll was beating him and that candidate's son.

I mean, this shows the terror, the intimidation.  And the false bravado is just totally exposed.  And it is — David — I think David was more than kind.  It is totally explicit.

This is a country, Judy, that has a smaller army than that of Sri Lanka.  I mean, it's sitting on the doorstep of Russia, that has shown nothing but imperial totalitarian impulses toward it, translated into physical action.  It's got an economy smaller than that of El Salvador.  And we're holding $451 million?

And the President of the United States — it's a supplicant, mendicant.  It's the boss to the lowest employee.  I mean, the power is totally disproportionate.  And anybody has to acknowledge that who sees it.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, you still have Republicans, though, saying, highly appropriate for the United States to be saying to the leader of Ukraine, we want you to clean up corruption in your country, that was what…

David Brooks:  Yes.  Well, that is appropriate, I suppose, to say.

But the Republicans are not going to break on this.  And that's, I think, when — as we look at impeachment — I vaguely remember Watergate.  I was young.  But I remember a sense of gravity, a sense that we're stepping outside our party lines.  At least some people did that, Sam Ervin [D-NC], other people, Howard Baker [R-Tn].  And we're going to weigh the evidence.  And this is so serious, we can't just play normal politics.

That's not going to happen this time.  To me, this is already feeling like very normal politics, where the Democrats are going to be all here and the Republicans will be all here, and the idea of stepping outside your partisan affiliation for the sake of the truth, that's just not the way the game is played anymore.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, I want to ask you both about the role that the whistle-blower played in all this.

We learned several days ago that this is someone in the intelligence community, in the last few days, Mark, reporting, that it's an analyst at the CIA.  We don't have the name.  In fact, we're not supposed to have the name.  This person is supposed to be — identity is supposed to be protected.

But the President is calling this individual a spy, in effect, saying, this is somebody who's disloyal to the country.

Mark Shields:  Last week, the President branded the person a partisan hack, you will recall.  It's gone now to treachery.

I mean, the person who did it, Judy, assuming that it's a person of rational — and I think it's an intelligent and comprehensive and well-written complaint — had to know what he or she was putting at risk, in the hothouse in which we live here in Washington, that the identity will eventually be made public.

And I think it can only be revealed and described as act of great — of great courage to do so.

Judy Woodruff:  And pulling in, David, a number of other administration officials, which is what's launching the congressional…

David Brooks:  Yes.

That was the big thing I took away from the report, that it was — it's bigger than just one phone call.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

David Brooks:  It's partly the cover-up, but he said it was over a series of months.  There's a lot of people who were in a panic about this.

And so it's not just that one phone call, and then he heard about it.  But there was a process.  There were people who were freaked out about it.  And so there's a little more here than just one person who's going to be involved in this.

Mark Shields:  David's right, Judy, that he laid out a blueprint.

That's what the letter does and the statement does.  It's a blueprint to pursue investigation, to interview and expand.

Judy Woodruff:  And the fact that this person, what, spent four months, collected — talked to a number of different people.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  Didn't just rashly set this — set this out there and throw it out.

Mark Shields:  No.

Judy Woodruff:  But the question then comes down to is, David, the impeachment inquiry.

The House is doubling down.  We had Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence, on the program last night, saying, this is more serious than the Mueller report, which they spent months and months considering.

David Brooks:  Yes.

It's certainly narratively cleaner.  You can understand it, where Russia was much more complicated.  And, to me, the decision to do impeachment is a mistake.

They — I do agree Trump did something impeachable, but this is a political process, not a legal process.  There's no obligation to prosecute.

And, to me, it's a mistake for a couple reasons.  If your object is to get Donald Trump out of the White House, impeachment doesn't get you there, because the chance that you will get 20 senators, 20 Republican senators, to vote to vote Donald Trump out of office seems to me so remote, it's minuscule.

So the likely outcome of this is that Donald Trump will say, see, I was acquitted in the Senate.  I'm vindicated.  I beat these people.

And so he will get a little victory.  And then both parties will go into revolt.  And so that's the way it likely looks to end up.

In the meantime, you're trampling over your Democratic primary season.  You're not having the debate the voters want, which is about climate change and health care and jobs and stuff like that.

You're focusing all the attention on the Democratic side, or the bulk of it, to the Congress, not to the Presidential candidates.  And, to me, so what Pelosi has done, I think, here is taken a decision that has a very low chance of succeeding, to get him out of office, but has huge risks in ways we can't even imagine.

And so I'm a little nervous about where impeachment is going to get us.

Judy Woodruff:  You think the Democrats are doing the right thing, or not?

Mark Shields:  The Democrats are doing the only thing they can do.

I mean, what this President has done is not outrageous.  It's not indefensible.  It's criminal.  And that's what he's done.  He has totally abdicated, abrogated and corrupted his oath of office.

So when it comes to making this decision, I think the preeminent national American political leader of the 21st century is the Speaker of the House, more so than any President.  She single-handedly passed the Affordable Care Act.

She is the one major figure in the national firmament of any Presidential candidate who opposed the folly and the debacle and the tragedy of the war in Iraq.  She put at risk her majority to pass the Affordable Care Act, covering 17 million Americans, two million of whom have lost their coverage as a result of Donald Trump's policies in the last year alone.

And she knew she was losing the majority.  And she came back.  She has not — she has avoided the rush to join the pound-of-flesh club, let's get — get him for double-parking outside an orphanage on the Capitol — on Christmas Eve.

This is just too serious.  You can't turn your back on it.  I agree with David it may not be politically good timing, expedient.  It would be an act of total irresponsibility not to act when you have the evidence given to the Democrats.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you…

David Brooks:  Yes, there's this thing called the ethical responsibility.  What's the actual outcome of the decision?

And maybe she couldn't act, but she said, I will not do impeachment unless there's a bipartisan upswell of support for this.

And there's not that.  And that will never happen right now.

And so I think she was — she was forced into it by the pressure in her own party, their own caucus.  But the House is not the central question here.  The Senate is the central question here.  And it's the Senate that's going to give Trump this victory.

And, in the meantime, I just think she's given Trump the fight he wants, which is the fight against the congressional Democrats, not about policy, not about things that actually affect people's lives, but just a personality, reality TV role with inside the Beltway.

And, to me, that's the fight he wants.  I don't know where it'll go.  It'll spin wildly out of control over the next several months.  But it's — to me, it's not — the ethical responsibility is, what can I do to get Donald Trump out of the White House?  And this is not the right path, in my view.

Mark Shields:  I would say this, Judy, that, unlike David and perhaps Secretary Clinton, I do not believe people on the other side are irredeemable.

I really do believe that, when confronted with the evidence and the reality, and that this — we have seen just the beginning.  This is the tip of the camel's nose that we have seen.

I think…

Judy Woodruff:  You means in terms of…

Mark Shields:  Of what's gone on.

And I think, when people come and are under oath and are sworn to testify, I think we will find more.  And I think Republicans, at the core, are Americans before they're Republicans.  And, yes, there's a herd mentality and a silo attitude right now, but I do think that, when the — when the evidence becomes overwhelming, which I think it will be, I think they will act.

Judy Woodruff:  What do you think, David?  If not an impeachment inquiry, what should the — what should Democrats do?

David Brooks:  Well, they could have censured him and then say, let's have an election.  We're in an election year.  Let's have an election about this.

And then they can investigate and lay before the American people everything that's happened.  I think the inquiry is totally fine.  But let's not have this process swallow up an election year.

We have elections for a reason.  We happen to be in the middle one.  And let's do that.  And I think this election was a — it's a good moment for the Democratic Party.  It's an exciting election, a lot of ideas.

And to overshadow that, to me, a lot of people are going to take a look at this and say, well, we could have settled this with 100 million voters around the country or 100 millionaires in the Senate.  Who should have the power here?

Mark Shields:  He — this is question, Judy, of, he is asking, if not demanding and coercing, an ally, a subservient ally, let's be very frank about it — I mean, in the relationship between the United States and Ukraine, Ukraine is subservient to the United States on — in all candor.

He's asking them to interfere in an American election, to spill dirt on an opponent.

I mean, we can't have that.  I mean, we can't pretend that that's tolerable at all and, oh, we will just wait until the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.

It's — I'm sorry.  It's just too grave.

Judy Woodruff:  Is there — is there something, David, that would make an impeachment inquiry the right thing to do, or is it — I mean, is there anything this President can do?

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  Yes, are you saying there's nothing that…

David Brooks:  No, I'm not saying that.

But I agree with Mark on the severity of what he did.  I'm not saying that he — I think he did an impeachable offense.  I'm just saying, look at our context.  And our context is, we're in the middle of an election year.  And we should not walk down a path that will lead ultimately to failure in 99 percent.

I really do not think — and Mark and I may disagree on this — that the Republican senators who hung with Donald Trump through Charlottesville, through three years of moral turpitude, of 1,000 outrages which we speak about on every Friday, I just don't think they're going to break with him.

And I don't think the Republican voters are going to break with him.  They will find some way.

Judy Woodruff:  And, Mark, what about that?

Mark Shields:  I guess I have more confidence in the Republicans than David does.

But I'd say — and I don't argue.

Judy Woodruff:  But, Mark — but let me just…

Mark Shields:  This is totally disruptive.  I mean, it's totally disruptive to the process.

David's right.  It totally intrudes and puts everything else aside.  But I will say this.  If you're picking sides in the Democrats, you want the Intelligence Committee.  You want it to be Adam Schiff against Devin Nunes.  I mean, that's a mismatch in talent.

Judy Woodruff:  And in just five seconds, you're saying it's worth it to go through with this even if the Senate does not vote to convict?  You're saying it's worth it?

Mark Shields:  Yes, it is.

I mean, we have — we cannot sit here and pretend that this didn't happen and that it's not serious, what this President has done.  And it should be disqualifying.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark Shields, David Brooks, thank you.

TRUMP AGENDA - Abuse of Presidential Power

This revelation that Trump, during a call about giving Ukraine aid and a new weapon system, 'requested' a favor to have Ukraine investigate a political rival IS, without doubt, abuse of Presidential Power.

Remember the scene from "The Godfather" where the Don's lawyer goes to Hollywood to 'request' that a producer make a movie staring the Don's 'friend?'  The next day the producer wakes up with the severed head of his race horse in his bed?  That's what Trump did, send his mob layer Rudy Giuliani to talk about investigating a political rival.

Trump used American diplomacy for his own personal political gain.  And his release of the memo of the call proves he did it.  Also the whistleblower’s complaint confirms and substantiates the crime.

For Republicans to continue to claim that this should not be looked into is just short of treason and of betrayal of their oath of office.

"Questions over possible abuse of power overshadow Trump’s agenda at UN" PBS NewsHour 9/23/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  After President Trump acknowledged that he spoke to Ukraine's president about investigating possible 2020 rival Joe Biden, he spent the day at the U.N. fending off questions about the potential abuse of power.  Meanwhile, the administration's refusal to share a whistleblower’s complaint is pushing some Democrats closer to the question of impeachment.  Yamiche Alcindor joins Judy Woodruff for more.

"Impeachment calls grow as Trump defends withholding Ukraine aid" PBS NewsHour 9/24/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formally announced the beginning of an impeachment inquiry Tuesday after a whistleblower alleged that the President tried to force a foreign leader to aid his reelection.  At the United Nations, Trump faced questions about his own actions, and he seemed to confirm and defend the fact that he withheld hundreds of millions of dollars from Ukraine.  Lisa Desjardins reports.

"What spurred House Democrats to ramp up impeachment efforts?" PBS NewsHour 9/24/2019

NOTE:  An 'impeachment inquiry' is the equivalent of a Grand Jury officially gathering  evidence of a charge via subpoenas, etc.  To actually impeach requires a Charge of Impeachment be brought to the floor of the House for a vote.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday announced an official impeachment inquiry -- but what exactly ramped up Democrats’ political momentum toward impeachment?  And what's next for President Trump and Republicans?  Yamiche Alcindor and Lisa Desjardins join William Brangham for a broader look at the latest developments.

"What lawmakers learned from Trump’s Ukraine call memo" PBS NewsHour 9/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The release of a five-page memo describing President Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's president revealed new details of Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine.  The text shows that immediately after Volodymyr Zelensky brought up military aid, Trump asked him for "a favor."  Lisa Desjardins reports, then joins Yamiche Alcindor and Judy Woodruff for more on reactions from Trump and Congress.

And from Trump's personal defender......

"Justice Department found Trump didn’t commit a campaign finance crime raised by whistleblower" PBS NewsHour 9/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  According to the Justice Department, the original whistleblower account of President Trump’s actions on Ukraine raised the possibility of a criminal act by Trump, related to campaign finance.  But federal prosecutors reportedly decided that they could not identify a campaign finance violation from the two men's phone call.  John Yang learns more from Devlin Barrett of The Washington Post.

"How a President’s call to a foreign leader becomes a memo — and who gets to see it" PBS NewsHour 9/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  How does the White House capture a conversation between a President and another foreign leader?  And who gets to review that material afterward?  For more context on the phone conversation between President Trump and Zelensky, Judy Woodruff talks to Larry Pfeiffer, former senior director of the White House Situation Room.

"Whistleblower alleges White House tried to suppress Zelensky call details" PBS NewsHour 9/26/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It was an explosive day on Capitol Hill, as a redacted version of the whistleblower letter was released publicly, and the acting director of national intelligence testified before the House Intelligence Committee about his handling of it.  Lisa Desjardins reports on what the whistleblower complaint describes, the role of Congress and how President Trump is responding to the developments.

"In private, Trump ‘lashing out’ about whistleblower complaint" PBS NewsHour 9/26/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Amid a political swirl over his interactions with the Ukrainian president, President Trump is denying the July phone call between the two leaders included anything improper.  But behind the scenes, Trump is “lashing out” in frustration that details of that call were communicated to the person who filed the whistleblower complaint.  Yamiche Alcindor joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest.

"Former DOJ official calls Trump’s Ukraine phone call ‘fundamentally wrong’" PBS NewsHour 9/26/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  John Carlin, who previously served as the top national security official at the Justice Department, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss why he finds the details of President Trump’s call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky so disturbing, and what it would mean if White House officials tried to suppress that information.

"Why the House is moving so quickly on Trump impeachment inquiry" PBS NewsHour 9/27/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It has been a historic week for President Trump and Congress, with startling revelations about an intelligence community whistleblower’s complaint against the President ultimately leading to the launch of a House impeachment inquiry.  Yamiche Alcindor reports on the whirlwind of events and joins Judy Woodruff to discuss who besides Trump might be involved and how fast the investigation is moving.

"The legal framework protecting whistleblowers in the U.S." PBS NewsHour 9/29/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The modern-day False Claims Act protects whistleblowers who point out fraud and abuse in government.  John Phillips, who helped author the law, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the rights whistleblowers have.  Phillips is a founding partner at the law firm Phillips and Cohen and a former Ambassador to Italy under the Obama administration.

TRUMP & THE INVESTIGATIONS - The Nunes Tapes

"Secret recording highlights Nunes’ concern with protecting Trump in Russia probe" PBS NewsHour 8/9/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A secret recording acquired by MSNBC captures House Intelligence chairman Republican Rep. Devin Nunes at a fundraiser discussing the Russia probe -- specifically how Republicans should protect President Trump from the special counsel investigation into Russian election interference.  Lisa Desjardins joins William Brangham to break it down.

JAMES COMEY - Russia Investigation

"James Comey: FBI had ‘basis for investigating’ possible ties between Trump and Russia" PBS NewsHour 4/30/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former FBI Director James Comey on Monday criticized a House Intelligence Committee report that found no evidence of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign, saying the FBI had a “basis for investigating” the matter.

“There was a basis for investigating, meaning there were facts to support an investigation” into alleged ties between Russia and members of Trump’s campaign, Comey said in an interview with the PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff.  “To say there was no evidence just wasn’t the case.”

Comey joined a chorus of critics who have slammed the report in recent days.  President Trump touted the finding on Twitter, repeating his frequent claim that the Russia probe was a “total witch hunt.”

In the NewsHour interview, Comey, who is on a media tour to promote his new book, also defended his decision-making surrounding the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server during the 2016 election.

The former FBI chief said he was trying to “do the right thing” when he sent a letter to Congress less than two weeks before the election announcing the bureau had reopened its probe into Clinton’s emails.  Comey said the alternative option — not going public with the FBI’s actions — would have been “catastrophic.”

“We were stuck in the middle of a no-win situation,” Comey said.

Clinton and many Democrats have argued that Comey’s letter to Congress helped Trump win the election.  Comey, who was fired by Trump last May, has insisted he wasn’t taking sides in the race.

RUSSIA INVESTIGATION - The Democratic Memo

"What the House Democratic memo means for the Russia probe" PBS NewsHour 2/26/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee released on Saturday a [Democratic] memo that rebuts key claims made in a Republican memo that alleged federal law enforcement abused its powers when it sought so-called FISA wiretaps on a former Trump campaign aide.  Jamil Jaffer, a former senior counsel for the House Intelligence Committee, joins Lisa Desjardins to unpack the new memo.