Nothing to do with his qualifications. They are opposed to donald trump pointing anyone to the Supreme Court. Kneneil gorsuch a good man. Its the democrats who are breaking the rules, what theyre doing is changing the 200 year status quo. The ironny is that you could have said the exact same things, regarding judge garland. That, of course, was president s garlands dom knee to fill the same vacancy who republicans refused to hold a single confirmation hearing, much less a vote. It was an unprecedented feet of obstruction. Which Mitch Mcconnell on the Campaign Trail later, one of my proudest moments. The Garland Affairs seem to have taught democrats a lesson about the up sides of obstructionism and now with engaged based marching the streets and turning up the town hall showing to posed any kind of cooperation whatsoever with this president ,
theres new in washington. Just four Democratic Senators came out against a gorsuch fill buster, facing tough reelection battles. Theyve vowed to c
does the republican leadership go when it has really become a insurrection adjacent party with a level of minimumization. ted cruz having to grovel at that same show i just broadcast a clip from, tucker carlson, when he accurately said last week that this was terrorism and then had to walk it back. that s the state of some republican leaders, bill. oh, it s awful in my view. just to build on joyce s point, when were they there at the capitol? this wasn t trump saying congress is horrible, they should be denounced and a few hundred people gathered destroying the capitol and maybe trump is responsible, maybe he s not but it was a weird they decided to do it on a certain day. it was january 6. why were they there january 6? to overturn the election results and stop the counting of the ballots. was trump encouraging that? yes. was trump trying to get his justice department to work with outside people to get the fake electoral slates into play and
other topics, the fbi agents monitoring the phone calls are supposed to not listen and not record. that s called minimumization. now the question would be if the fbi agents were listening and manafort and trump if he s speaking to trump were talking, the question would be were they discussing something that was within the ambit of the investigation where it would be proper to record it or were they talking about unrelated political matters, do you think hillary clinton did well in the deba debate, something not jermaine to the investigation. but if it s something questionable? my experience is fbi agents tend to air on the side of listen and record it. if the you minimize and don t hear it it s gone forever. a lot of defense lawyers are skeptical about the whole process of it and they think it s bogus it doesn t remove anything. but that means you can t have a
being mr. manafort. he would have had to convince a judge he needed permission for the no knock for fear manafort destroyed evidence or harmed himself or somebody else, destroyed evidence, hit the button on the computer, whatever it was. they must have had some indication they picked up on the wiretap. on the wiretap, here s the key question, in the time he was wiretapped he was talking to donald trump. we don t know yet, it s not clear whether or not donald trump was picked up on the wiretap. if he had, can bob mueller use that? probably but it s not certain. i mean this is where the law gets somewhat complicated. there s a rule called minimumization where if you have a wiretap on person x you are only allowed to listen to conversations about the subject that is mentioned in the warrant. like ukraine. like ukraine or russia. but if they are talking about
animosity was as high as it was from the obama to trump and vice versa, and with susan rice s old history on benghazi. the fact that she wassen going to get confirmed. she was never going to be confirmed. that s why they put her at the national security council. all of this adds up to an murky scenario. we need to know more information. i don t think it stops at susan rice. focusing on rice may be the wrong path way. sean: but standard operating procedure according to every single intel source i have would require that if it was incidental that minimumization occur. they don t reveal the name of the american. they don t unmask the american. certainly you don t leak the name, leak the intelligence which, by the way, is raw intelligence, otherwise you are violating any sense of privacy. you used the term early on. that would make america a policed state. correct? that s a felony. there is a written record.