well, issues like the 17th amendment, as i said, i ve been to over 800 events in colorado in 20 months. i have talked about the 17th amendment. someone asked me a question. i said the short answer is yes, but and then i gave an explanation of why i thought there were better answers to restoring the balance of power between the states and the federal government than the 17th amendment. senator bennett has played a commercial over and over that misstates, misquotes, misleads on that issue. the next day, i called the person back and said, you know, i thought about it and i don t want to leave you with the impression that the answer is yes. 15 times more with the democrat tracker counter in my face, i explained that i wasn t in favor of repealing the 17th amendment. it is easy when you have a tracker and they have a hundred examples of answers and the questions are coming at you from different angles to use tape that shows of a slight deviation in the answer. it is not fair to say that
well, issues like the 17th amendment, as i said, i ve been to over 800 events in colorado in 20 months. i have talked about the 17th amendment. someone asked me a question. i said the short answer is yes, but and then i gave an explanation of why i thought there were better answers to restoring the balance of power between the states and the federal government than the 17th amendment. senator bennett has played a commercial over and over that misstates, misquotes, misleads on that issue. the next day, i called the person back and said, you know, i thought about it and i don t want to leave you with the impression that the answer is yes. 15 times more with the democrat tracker counter in my face, i explained that i wasn t in favor of repealing the 17th amendment. it is easy when you have a tracker and they have a hundred examples of answers and the questions are coming at you from different angles to use tape that shows of a slight deviation in the answer. it is not fair to say that
senator bennet has played a commercial over and over that misstates, misquotes, misleads on that issue. the next day, i called the person back and said, you know, i thought about it and i don t want to leave you with the impression that the answer is yes. 15 times more with the democrat tracker camera in my face, i explained that i wasn t in favor of repealing the 17th amendment. it is easy when you have a tracker and they have a hundred examples of answers and the questions are coming at you from different angles to use tape that shows of a slight deviation in the answer. it is not fair to say that i have backtracked on those issues. but isn t it also easy to flirt with positionness a primary and then back off and say, well, i m not actual leisure i d vote for that when you get in a general election? isn t that what people actually dislike about politics? they may dislike it but people are sick and tired of politicians not answering questions. it s incumbent on us if we re
have said, no, we can t restrict a woman s right to choose, we re not trying to do it, but just don t ask us to pay for the service that we find reprehensible. megyn: they come back and say their not paying for they re not paying for abortion, i had anthony wiener on my show, and he maintained the senate bill just maintains current law, it maintains the hyde amendment which bans public funding for abortion except for rape or incest, and that s all the public bill does. does he misstate the case? misstates the case. and i don t mean anthony s a friend of mine, and i ve pointed out repeatedly whether it s to leadership or members, here s where it is, it s found on page 237, the refundable tax credit that you use that goes from the federal government to the exchange to pay for your insurance policy that covers abortion, and for the first time ever you go to page 2070, abortion is a recognized benefit in this health care package. those are two of many ways you
david mueller. how realistic is that and where could that end up? it is a gamble for both the white house and for robert mueller. i think less of a gamble for mueller than president trump about whether he sits down or not. bob mueller is clearly going to call the president to voluntarily testify. come in with his lawyers, sit down around the table and go through things. and that way vulnerability for the president, if he forgets or something or misstates something. but if he does not, then the likelihood is very high that mueller will do what he would do in a standard case and that is issue a subpoena and put the president in front of a grand jury. the danger for the president there is he will not have his lawyers by his side to talk to him about the answers before he gives them. he is sort out of there on his own, he s a trapeze artist without a net. and how much could his comments come back to hurt him where he has said publicly, you know, i look forward to sitting down with robe