it may now show that it can work with iran as well. all this pushback that america is telling the world that it doesn t live up to its commitments, one administration to the next. the response from supporters of this move say, while the president obama could have made it a treaty. while he knew this deal wouldn t pass the senate. they probably couldn t haven t even gotten the majority of the senate, which is because the deal is problematic from the jump. bret: and democrats spoke out against him. a lot of democrats spoke out against it and a lot of them are now counting about what he is doing, or complaining about the deal back then. so there is a lot of shoe on the other foot stuff going on here which is a disease in washington that affects both parties. [laughs] bret: quickly that gina haspell testimony and hearing, she has a lot of support inside the intelligence community clearly but there is a slip
or not here. i think we re at the point where, because of the federal investigation, the sort of the people that i would like to hear from and probably we would like to hear from, aren t going to be able to appear before that committee that the new jersey legislature has right now. so we re getting to some i don t want to demean pat schuber, but we re getting a b-list of witnesses right now, because all the a-list people are with the feds in newark. what we re learning is that the control of the port authority was tightly held. it s not an effective the board isn t really providing effective oversight. so it s back to the executive director and the chairman and bill barony and david wilestein, the people around chris christie and andrew cuomo, and what we know is they re in regular contract with chris christie s office, with the governor and the governor s top staff. in some ways, we didn t learn a
one of the kourn command guys. these guys were pretty high ranking. my question to you is why did they want him back so much. in 12 years, we can never charge these guys. the taliban, clearly, they were affiliated with the taliban. it would make sense they would ask for them back. our legal basis to detain them is going to run out at the end of the with the close of the afghanistan war. get a soldier back with five people we couldn t haven t charged in 12 years. why are they no longer a danger to the united states in terms of that war front. and by the way, by your logic he could have led the general free in vietnam. he was certainly a threat to our allies and certainly a threat to our interests. we had no evidence these guys are an enemy of the united states. are they not? if we had any evidence they had committed any offense, we would have preferred charges against them.
my question to you is why did they want him back so much. in 12 years, we can never charge these guys. the taliban, clearly, they were affiliated with the taliban. it would make sense they would ask for them back. our legal basis to detain them is going to run out at the end of the with the close of the afghanistan war. get a soldier back with five people we couldn t haven t charged in 12 years. why are they no longer a danger to the united states in terms of that war front. and by the way, by your logic he could have led the general free in vietnam. he was certainly a threat to our allies and certainly a threat to our interests. we had no evidence these guys are an enemy of the united states. are they not? if we had any evidence they had committed any offense, we would have preferred charges against them. and in 12 years we couldn t do them. that s why we keep them in