because two, if not three of the crimes that were charged in the search warrant, parenthetically, they re not limited to charging only those three crimes. they can use the evidence they found to prove any crimes. even if they were only focusing on those three crimes, two out of the three clearly don t require the information to be classified. the third, it is arguable it doesn t, as well, but i do think the espionage act, donald trump has a little bit of a stronger argument. then there is a factual issue which you re raising, jonathan, were they, in fact, declassified? even if this were a legal defense, which it is not. yes, there is a process. so the president, while he was president, certainly not while he was the former president, he can blow through those processes and say, you know, i decided not to follow them.
of her positions, and i have a hard time defending her in general. but on this particular comment, i don t think she stepped over the line. howard: just the other day she said satan controls the catholic church. so marjorie taylor greene says a lot of things. we all recall the horror of watching what happened at the capitol on january 6th of 2021. but is the public as engaged as the anti-press, anti-trump portion of the press is? if axios has a piece saying when the committee finally holds these hearings, so much has already leaked that it ll just seem like old news and drain the drama. well, i think that the democrats make a mistake in obsessing over january 6th. i think they have to stay engaged, and i really do believe that the commission report will be, will be helpful. i just can i just say parenthetically about marjorie taylor greene who i think is nuts most of the time? i agree with jason s interpretation of that text. she was not calling for martial law. and moreover, i thi
parenthetically if you think about it only reason why with the world going around. [laughs] [laughs] harris: parenthetically? [laughs] [laughs] [laughs] greg: that s either the winning lottery number for the combo to the safer they keep his medicine. you ve a 17-month-old, but i mean that as a baby. [laughs] could have a cactus. [laughs] [laughs] [laughs] do you fear for your child with this kind of education system? of course would you consider leaving your children in the woods to better survive.
we got into this hour. so it will be age are really up there. the add-ins parenthetically were raised enough in the city, example of something that they would like to also have on the list. legally talk to me about that. and it went does become discrimination? so harris faulkner and at the 6 4 cute guy that she married, a white guy, walk into the e.r. with biracial children and sometimes it s hard to tell who is white. one gets taken before the other or i get taken, do you think i m going to go ahead of my biracial children to get treatment? the answer is no. where are we going legally with this? tomi: it when you have a law or ordinance or any type of rule that discriminates on the basis of race and that is subject to strict scrutiny which means that entity, the government has to prove that there is a compelling state interest and it must be narrowly tailored, this law, to the state
american people. a growing economy where people have more opportunities, more small businesses opening, and i might add parenthetically there s 30% increase in the application for new small businesses, and gods get to market faster. the economy where we don t just grow the economic pie to make sure people who bake the pie get a fair slice of it as well. for too long the public has thrown around terms like pro growth and supply side economics to drive an economic agenda that didn t deliver enough growth and supplied more wealth to those who are already very well off. from day one my economic agenda has been different. it s been about taking a fundamentally new approach to our economy, one that sees the prosperity of working families as a solution, not the problem.