goes one step shy of killing u.s. participation in it, trying to send the message that i don t like this deal, but we re sort of in there, he says he s leaving it to congress to figure it out. here s the thing, he doesn t like the deal and for whatever reason he made a big deal of it on the campaign trail, as if his base gave a damn about the deal or not. with colorful language about how this is the worst deal the united states is suffering, he s having to pony up to that kind of campaign language. now, this deal, as i have said, envisions under the deal at least a decade and longer of many of the provisions that categorically stop iran from any kind of nuclear weapons program. it has been certified by the iaea, the u.n. nuclear agency as working. i spoke to some really hawkish people about this. for example, israel has never liked the deal.
that has to be a concern for the administration as this case is heard in the high court. it is. i think this is something the president may be in good shape on. how much courts used campaign language in deciding the merits of this case. i have always thought that the trump administration has a better chance of winning in the supreme court than it did in the lower courts. the supreme court has been traditionally very reluctant to use the president s words as opposed to the text or order of the text of a statute in evaluating the constitutionality. this is a president who promised, repeatedly, through tweets and as he spoke, we ll see you in court. now he has his wish granted on that front. that s right. we ll see how it turns out.
senate intelligence committee is going to focus on just the russia part of this, the collusion, potential collusion and not delve into the obstruction of justice. so over to judiciary, i also just observing chuck grassley over the years wonder if this is going to be an opportunity for him to bring up the loretta lynch material that we had learned recently one would think he s going to want to score some political points for his team there if he opens up talking about obstruction of justice, getting on the record with loretta lynch, telling james comey to discuss this as a matter and not an investigation and adopt campaign language, get on bill clinton s plane, that seems like that would be fair game for that oversight as well. it s also significant that the republican national committee for all practical purposes, rebecca, is becoming the war room to deal with all of these allegations against the president and his associates. they ve got a pretty active presence. they re sending out
is he literally laid out as the prosecutor everything that shows that hillary clinton was guilty of this, and then at theha end,e takes the role away from loretta lynch and says that there should be no further prosecution. over stepping his bounds, and saying that there should be intent and that the statuteha tt requires intent is totally erroneous, untrue, and not in the statute. juan: he said there was no evidence, as i remember. kimberly: he listed the whole thing. and said, wow, this is going to happen.ha thatna: i wonder about in some ways, because he knew that loretta lynch had the tendency to pressure to use the campaign language, i wonder if he did that press conference, when he laid out all then terrible things that hillary clinton has done and then doesn t recommend prosecution. remember during that time, the investigator usually just turns over the document and lets the doj decide.. maybe comey was thinking, if i do that this will never see the light of day. he knew they
that s what he said. jesse: would you like to about that? kimberly: i don t know. juan: why don t you interrupt. go ahead. jesse: i will interrupt briefly. he contorted to say there was no intent. he didn t need intent. she violated the law, and if her name wasn t clinton, she would have been behind bars. juan: oh, my gosh, . greg: this is the confirmation bias. you have two perfect examples here. you look at loretta lynch, and you say absolutely there is no there there. you look at trump and say there is no there there. but, at least comey actually said that loretta lynch pressured him to use campaign language to help hillary win. he s actually saying that that happened, and the only reason it is being ignored coat kimberly: and is proof of the! juan: that is not proof.