as it is elsewhere, and we re going to talk about that. california, new york, it s popular there. well, okay. the president specifically disputes the idea there was any quid pro quo in miss call with president zelensky, but he did admit to withholding aid. i don t want to relitigate. i just want to know if you think a future united states president of any party should use his office to coerce foreign heads of state to investigate political rivals. s.e. is that appropriate? we intent two years on a russia investigation that came against the democrat party on donald trump. touch bog gus, false i don t know what that has to do with my question. in the future, would you support a president so the president has who investigates corruption like joe biden yes, i would. to coerce foreign heads of
and calls him a loser. does it matter how the president chooses to handle himself? i admire amash s independent mindedness and there s some significance he might lose a primary over this. the underlying wail is the russia conspiracy, russian collusion, it wasn t there. i don t want to relitigate the report but we all know maybe they didn t find conspiracy. it may have risen to the level of what common people call collusion, but there s a legal standard the report the investigation proceeded to its lawful conclusion. he could have invoked executive privilege on all his white house officials and now congress has a report, and this is where i agree with bill, i have a different view of bill on impeachment probably as i am against it. but they have the report. it s there. it s all there.
first of all, did the russians interfere? yes, they did. second of all and most of importantly. did that interference actually affect the outcome of the. i recollection. f the outcome of the election. arthel: i don t want to relitigate why hillary lost. i wanted to throw that fact in there because you made a broad statement that didn t include that. there is a debate going on over the trump children. specifically ivanka and don, jr. if the dragnet sweeps them into the investigation, that they should be off limit. they shouldn t be off limits to the extent they are federal employees. but the democrats will have to tread carefully. you start going after family members and it starts to look
we start off with the premise we want more people to be covered. want to drive down costs and deductibles and the cost of prescription drugs and building on the affordable care act is the best way to do it. bill: the serverability clause is something you have to get around and what john roberts was thinking about a couple of years ago when he ruled on the mandate versus the tax. i don t want to relitigate that now. this is what i hear from doctors. the program set up as a cadillac when you probably don t need a cadillac. maybe a good chevrolet will do so you get the prices down. get rid of the regulations. and you make this more affordable and more flexible. that s what i hear on that. i think we want to drive down the costs but taking away the individual mandates, take the healthy people out of the pool as the republicans did in their tax bill is another way to undermine this. we want to expand coverage. drive down costs.
immediately after, the department of justice, which was at that time he was the fbi director, they ve covered up and stifled the investigation into who was responsible for supporting the hijackers. tucker: why would they do that, do you think? you know, i think there s probably a variety of reasons. maybe everyone has a different reason. and they all came together in a perfect storm for a coverup. i won t know until we see all of the documents that are still being unnecessarily classified. tucker: jim, the suspicion is that the saudi government played some role in the attacks, is long-standing. yes. tucker: i don t want to relitigate. that but i want to get to the nub of mueller s involvement n this. what role did he play? . from the moment of 9/11