On MSNBC’s “Up with David Gura” Saturday, former FBI agent and Homeland Security expert Clint Watts broke down the worst potential fallout from President Donald Trump’s consistent attacks on the Russia investigation — and his recent claim that there’s nothing wrong with taking political dirt from hostile foreign powers.
“If you are an investigator doing counterintelligence of our election in 2020 — you could be working at the CIA or the FBI — chances are you will be the one ultimately investigated if you push this forward,” said Watts. “Would you want to run down a lead when you hear your boss is wrong, oh, by the way every FBI agent that touched the case going into 2016 has essentially been pushed out, fired, demoted.”
“There are people in the ranks right now that are probably wanting to get out of foreign counterintelligence against Russia because they don’t want to be put in this position again,” said Watts. “And then you hear that. This sends downward pressure.”
According to Watts, Attorney General William Barr’s own seeming lack of interest in investigating the matter makes everything that much worse.
“What I’ve not heard from the attorney general — who seems to be very worried that this investigation started for some sort of nefarious reason — [he] has never said when we would actually do counterintelligence to protect in 2020,” said Watts. “I would love to see him show up, provide testimony, and say under the following conditions I have asserted with the entire Department of Justice, this is when we’ll do counterintelligence going into the election of 2020, if we see a foreign entity, a cutout, we see a foreign espionage agent trying to contact.”
“Right now, if I wanted to tie up an FBI agent if I was a foreign adversary, I would send in someone to do a bump meeting at the Mayflower Hotel or Trump Tower like that, and I would tie that FBI agent and his squad in knots,” said Watts ominously.
‘I don’t care’: Watch Kamala Harris shut down Chris Hayes for asking a dumb question about Trump
Sen. Kamala Harris shut down MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes during a post-debate interview on Tuesday evening.
Hayes questioned Harris about her call for Twitter to follow their terms of service and kick President Donald Trump off of the platform.
"Do you think he puts people’s lives in danger when he targets them in tweets?" Hayes asked.
"Absolutely," Harris replied.
"Do you think he knows that?" Hayes asked.
"Does it matter?" Harris replied.
"The fact is he did it. The fact is that he is irresponsible, he is erratic," she explained. "He is like a 2-year-old with a machine gun."
Democrats blast Trump and demand his impeachment at CNN debate
Democratic White House hopefuls united in searing condemnation of Donald Trump during their fourth debate Tuesday, saying the president has broken the law, abused his power, and deserves to be impeached.
From the opening moments, most of the dozen candidates on stage launched fierce broadsides against Trump over the Ukrainian scandal at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.
"The impeachment must go forward," said Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is neck and neck with former vice president Joe Biden at the head of the 2020 nominations race.
"Impeachment is the way that we establish that this man will not be permitted to break the law over and over without consequences," she thundered.
Here are 3 winners and 4 losers from the CNN/NYT Democratic presidential primary debate
Twelve Democrats took to the stage Tuesday night for yet another debate in the party's 2020 president primary hosted by CNN and the New York Times.
After only ten candidates qualified for the previous debate, an additional two — Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and wealthy donor and former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer — made it to the stage this round for an even more crowded event.
The candidates discussed a range of important policy issues, but since the format was a debate, and they're all competing for the same nomination, it is ultimately most critical who won and who lost the night. Here are three winners and four losers — necessarily a subjective assessment, of course — from the debate: