government to put an x on the forehead of a soldier and russian equipment. let me say it differently. our spies and satellites are helping the ukrainians kill russians. so, we have declared war. so, we should be asking, shouldn t we, well what s that war going to look like, to your point? and we should start with the first place of who s putting together our war response? well, we know that the folks of the pentagon are the ones who primarily responsible for that. but actually, wait a second, they just got us out of a 20-year war, or actually they kept us in one and we lost it to goat herders, okay? now we have folks on capitol hill and the white house who were also around for 20 years and they re the ones formulating the policies that also lost that war. so, the people who are now formulating our response to a nuclear-armed russia are the same ones who couldn t figure out how to beat goat herders in afghanistan. that should cause everyone a very real degree of concern. and we should b
yesterday the tories came up with a plan to overhaul the rules that he had been found guilty of, which would have protected him and torn up the rule book, basically. now, that vote squeaked through last night by 18, which, when you ve got a majority of 80, that tells you something s wrong. but there was a furious backlash. lots of tories were outraged. front pages were appalling for the conservatives this morning. it became very clear that the other opposition parties wouldn t work with the government on creating this new system. so they ditched it, screeching u turn, and then owen paterson has now quit. and it is a mess. it backfired spectacularly and it s really raised this issue again of sleaze, and it s also stirred up all those questions about the prime minister s own attitude to following the rules. we should hear, shouldn t we, jacob rees mogg, the leader of the commons, in the chamber this morning, doing the bit that, if you could put a soundtrack to, it s the handbrake being p
if you want to give vaccine hesita hesitancy, it s good to be honest. over 65, without question, the risks from the disease are higher than the vaccine. so 80% of people over 65 have taken it. if i were a doctor giving you persuasive advice, i d say take it if you re over 65. i d say if you re over 40, overweight or maybe over 30 and overweight. weight is big risk factor for this. under 25, it s a little different standard. i think we should study who the vaccine has any side effects in people who have already had the disease. so if you re 12 years old and the chances of you getting sick and hospitalized or dieing from covid is about one in a million, shouldn t we at least ask some questions about what the myocarditis side effect is and whether or not it s highfer you had previous infection? to my knowledge the nih has not released any kind of study based onside effects and whether or
we depend on the fisa court for our national security, to obtain warrants about imminent terrorist threats. if there is a terrorist that our intelligence community may be planning an attack and happening quickly, they go to the fisa court to get a warrant. what the judge said in her order because of the fbi s misconduct. they are now calling into question all of the intelligence that they have information that they have put in, all of their fisa applications. including terrorist case. what they have done essentially in trying to pursue president trump is they have damaged the bond of trust between the government and secret court that we need and that s going to harm our national security. griff: there is a deadline, judge collyer but a january deadline? she wants the fbi to explain how are you going to fix this? and why shouldn t we call into question every order that you have given us? and on top of that, there is another problem, which is that because of the secret court, there is
here and how that will be different, we should expect, shouldn t we, that a number of the questions from some of these republican lawmakers are not going to be about the mueller report. they re going to be about the makeup of the team and the origins of the investigation. right. republicans have been pursuing this line of inquiry for a while, that mueller s team was bias, that mueller s team had people on it that were clearly anti-trump. t the angry democrats line that they were saying before. so they re going to use their time not to try to boltster the report but to undermine the report itself. that s going to create a split on both of the panels that you see. oftentimes in these situations the members end up sparring with each other as much as questioning the witness. i think that there s going to be a lot of focus on mueller, but you might see very dramatic expressions from people on the gop side if they don t get