from two doj sources i talked to today. he defends the origins of the russia investigation by pointing out that every american should be concerned about we ve spent the first 22 minutes of this show talking about the obstruction volume but there s something in here i know a lot of former law enforcement types have seized on, and that is mueller, as john and others have said, makes it clear that the origins of the investigation were to probe russia s attack, which mike hayden called a 9/11 style political attack on our democracy, he goes out of his way to defend the origins and integrity of the russia probe. indeed. the statement i m now recalling is it has to do with the team work-product. he says he s resigning today and the decisions about what of our team work-product are being released are handled outside the team. he s talking about doj and barr. so now barr is the one calling the shots. what gets released as a result
terrific people, and it is totally unfair that they are being made pawns in this. now, yes, they may get their money back later in a lump sum. but, you know, most people live paycheck to paycheck. and it is simply outrageous that these people are hostages to the political game that s going on. and you make an excellent point. i ll put up a graphic and show our viewers some 800,000, if you add the 420,000 working without pay. law enforcement types, border patrol types. 420,000. they will have to work but won t get a paycheck, at least temporarily. and an additional 380,000, they ll be placed on furlough, meaning they re not working at all. they re not going to be getting any paychecks. we re talking about 25% of the federal government. you used to work for the federal government, somaliaamantha. this is a real problem that the lawmakers have to deal with. the president has to deal with tonight. especially on the eve of this christmas season. well, wolf, that s why this whole notion
full border security in this year end funding bill. this is not a dramatic request. this is mainstream common sense. how can you fund the government and not fund border security? you re a close observer to what s going on. he hasn t gotten the $5 billion for the border wall. the democrats are about to become the majority in the house of representatives. are you willing to come up with some sort of compromise right now to prevent 900,000 federal workers including 400,000 or 500,000 law enforcement types, they will no longer get their paychecks as of midnight tomorrow night if there s a government shutdown. i m not going to negotiate on air, but i would answer that simply. if democrats don t want the government to shut down, support border security. it s that simple. i heard earlier you were discussing the steel slat barrier. what that s referring to is the border patrol s preferred method of building a physical impediment to illegal entry which are are you talking to democrats
this. why should american taxpayers have to pay for the wall along the border with mexico? why should almost a million federal workers have to work half a million law enforcement types have to work over the holidays without their paychecks? something trump as a president and candidate promised to the american people that mexico would pay for the wall. why the president said, guaranteed that mexico would pay. mexico the head of the new government said they re not paying. thank you for asking the question. first of all, as the president has said, as we all said, the wall would be paid for through the savings on trade alone. hold on. no. hold on. why do you need $5 billion if mexico is coming up with it some other way? i m glad you re giving me the chance to answer the question. because as you know, wolf, in washington budgeting, an offset
has ever killed, from one of those seven countries has been charged with a terrorist murder of any sort. and so i think given all that, anderson, and then especially given the fact that he so often exaggerates the threats, just as he did yesterday when he said the murder rate was down 45% over the last several years when it s not. i mean, it s gone up 45%. it s gone down. in light of all that, his credibility being in question, i think it s really incumbent on the president and his people to tell us, okay, who urged, who among his advisers actually briefed him and urged him to get this out. who knows a lot about intelligent and the threats themselves and came in and talked to him. it s not clear that anybody d and give us, the united states government ought to provide more information so we know how to judge this properly. david, the president essentially saying law enforcement types that he talked