and i know absolutely nothing about qanon. i think some people. do they re obviously in the media to some degree but i don t follow them at all. i don t have responsibility with that. just like i don t have responsibility to speak on everything that antifa says or any other political point says. but this is what we can agree on. and again, i think you re trying to put some sort of measure on this. i don t know how you would pass that test. i think your former guest made a fair point, what do you do about it? what do you do about anticipated violence? you can t stop it before it happens. you can discourage it but you can t arrest people because you re afraid they may be violent. i agree. and by the way, this isn t just one side. when rand paul was attacked by his neighbor, when it was finally admitted, this is an political attack on a republican baseball field, people were shot. it doesn t matter where the source of the violence.
and i went up. i was sitting in row five and i went up to go to the bathroom. and he was standing there and he said the bathroom s closed to go into the bathroom. and that seemed strange to me but i didn t think much of it so i went to the back. and then, when i went to my seat, there was an off-duty pilot next to me. and he was really concerned with what was happening up front. and then, this gentleman got on, he was wearing a bicycle helmet and a hoodie. so, i wasn t thinking much of it. but then, when this gentleman was expressing concern and he said he wanted to go up there and see what was going on. and i said that i would help him, and just kind of be his backup. and this gentleman, then, got on the the intercom. and started talking about, you know, oxygen masks and, you know, prepare for putting on your oxygen masks. was he drunk? or did he seem, you know, under some type of illness? you know what, chris? i didn t see him, sort of, acting in a way that made me think he was
conversations with him about it. he did speak publicly at some point and said he supported the talking filibuster. it makes sense that those who want to obstruct have to show up and have to be speaking on the floor of the senate to earn that right to a delay. so why don t you do it? i certainly think it is one of our potential pathways. the path way to overcoming this no effort, no show obstruction on something as important as voting rights will be whatever path way 50 senators can agree on in a room. and maybe it s the center conversion. every few days it goes down from 60 to 58. maybe it is the 1973 version where the senate decided it would take the deficit out of the control of the filibuster. aren t voting rights as important you have many different iterations of it. if manchin s version, is i won t vote to get rid of it.
this is going to be the case if the white house continues to stonewall. i asked a member of the judiciary committee this very question. listen to his answer, and i want to get your response. sounds like democrats are still trying to develop a strategy. well, i think we are, and i think the judiciary had the same problem. we were stonewalled. people refused to comply with subpoenas. we ve gone to court on contempt citations. but the courts are still ruling and/or they ve been appealed. but i think all of this does show obstruction of congress and that can be a charge in itself. so they can get evidence of obstruction charge to congress but if they can t explore the central issue here because the white house stonewalls on documents, emails, text messages, et cetera, what do they do? what are the options? i think you see them doing what they have been doing, which is continue to ask for things and then not get them and continue to try to make the case in the court of public opinion