they say? what s their response? they they say that there s no national security concern. they ve told us that they have properly vetted the fufu corporation and they see no problem with it, which just simply isn t true. well, just two months ago, we again sounded the alarm after the committee on foreign investment said it didn t have jurisdiction to block this mill s construction. let me put this very bluntly. the committee that congress mandated and gave the authority to protect america s national security is allowing a chinese business with ties to beijing. that means the ccp to operate mere miles from an american military installation. was general austin. how about meely? well, tonight, after months of pressure, the ap is reporting just hours ago that the u.s. air force has now told north dakota leaders that full fang s plans do pose a significant threat to national security, prompting city officials to say they ll move to stop the project once and for all. we re
undertaken herat has be. what a wanee.tran we ve been very transparent, countless hours, thousands off hours. trs is theansp kinarencyd of transparency they re talking about. what is the currenthe numbe r of documents bearing classified the prgs that have been foundd n at the president sesident resif and offices? i would refe yr yoouu to the whe house counsel s office. just declined to commentd to on that description. let them know the answer. thousands of pages. joining us now, attorney davidee under represented former president trump during a second impeachment. nt secondavid , he just says ts of pages, but how unusual is this that the feds ares to bs allowing biden s attorneys to basically run the whole show here? well, running the whole show i is very unusual. think,f couri think as a matter, there should be a cooperative l relationship betweenriking i the lawyers and the justice department. but what s most striking is the point. you made the contrast to the way how this w