and don t you think it would be fair, whether you think he s concluded or not, that mueller finally be asked, show us what you got? put up or shut up? he s never denied us that access. i want concludes, he puts out the report, and we see what he has. i ve always seen this a false argument, the idea that he s not showing us what he has. it s not over. it s over enough. what does that mean, over enough ? how much longer are you going to let him do it. he just put out that your campaign chairman was playing with the russians! but we don t that isn t we don t know a special counsel to investigate a campaign chairman. we have them because the president of the united states is involved. you do when the president of the united states seems to be a little hyperactive about the probe and it may not be fair and the guy was the head of the ag at the time was his campaign guy. i think it s the most inappropriate investigation i ve
a conclusion. and don t you think it would be fair, whether you think he s concluded or not, that mueller finally be asked, show us what you got? put up or shut up? he s never denied us that access. i want concludes, he puts out the report, and we see what he has. i ve always seen this a false argument, the idea that he s not showing us what he has. it s not over. it s over enough. what does that mean, over enough ? how much longer are you going to let him do it. he just put out that your campaign chairman was playing with the russians! but we don t that isn t we don t know a special counsel to investigate a campaign chairman. we have them because the president of the united states is involved. you do when the president of the united states seems to be a little hyperactive about the probe and it may not be fair and the guy was the head of the ag at the time was his campaign guy. i think it s the most inappropriate investigation i ve ever seen, conducted on an
unpresidecedented and political motivated. why haven t members of the bush administration been asked to testify? the republicans areige charge. we raise it every meeting. we raise it over and over again. that those that were in charge, the head of the aft, the head of the ag that initiated it under bush, they should come in and typh. if you re going to look at a problem, you have to look at it from the beginning, not just come in at the very end and try to wrap it around the attorney general who knew nothing about it, did not create it, and i think it s outrageous how they are bringing him with a contempt charge. he s done everything he possibly could. he s testified, he testified nine times, he released several thousand pages of documents. he appointed an ig. he s bent over backwards to accompidate their demands.
he appointed an ig. he s bent over backwards to accommodate their demands. who is in charge of the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms division in arizona when the program was started? and why haven t we heard from that person? we raised that today. i in fact put in an amendment that the head should come in and testify. and in internal documents, he did say he knew nothing about, that he knew nothing that holder knew nothing about it and the president knew nothing about it. yet they don t want to lack at anything that happened under the bush administration. this is the fourth program, there were three previous programs under the bush administration, and the contempt charge has nothing to do with fast and furious. it s very narrowly tailored going after internal communications in the justice department, that s where attorney general holder drew the line. the president came forward with his demands.
he appointed an ig. he s bent over backwards to accommodate their demands. who is in charge of the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms division in arizona when the program was started? and why haven t we heard from that person? we raised that today. i in fact put in an amendment that the head should come in and testify. and in internal documents, he did say he knew nothing about, that he knew nothing that holder knew nothing about it and the president knew nothing about it. yet they don t want to lack at anything that happened under the bush administration. this is the fourth program, there were three previous programs under the bush administration, and the contempt charge has nothing to do with fast and furious. it s very narrowly tailored going after internal communications in the justice department, that s where