the blood of america s patriots. in afghan, we have 56% of the afghan districts neil: so i wasn t clear. but what is different here? what changes here? the timeline, how quickly has to check with you guys? no, the extend to which the president would keep us in a war beyond what is authorized by current law. as ro said, we would be authorized to take action for 60 days. i don t think the american people think it s too unreasonable that if we re in a conflict with another country for longer than a few months, we ought to take a vote in the congress as to whether or not we re willing to have that as a priority of our nation. if the people that fight these wars are brave enough to go down range, i think the politicians ought to be brave enough to vote for or against them is. one of the things is, we view china as our longest competitor. they haven t been in a war since
information about hillary clinton. there bye, underscores why the president said that because maybe he s trying to protect his son. that s a possibility. but the idea that he s saying it s still an option is what should frighten us for 2020. mueller decided not to indict anybody over this. at the same day his son was back on the hill testifying. he we don t know what he said. but first they took the position that it didn t happen in 2016. that they talked about just adoptions. then they said that it did happen but it was not illegal. mueller said that the reason, one of the reason he wasn t going indict anybody for this is because he believed or he didn t think there was sufficient evidence that they knew what the law was. now they ve been told over and over what the law is and continue to say well we can look at the evidence and it s a case by case decision. one thing to say look in 2016 the law wasn t clear. we fought the law. we now one it would never do it.
contributor. larry, thanks so much for being with us. so the president said if a foreign government comes to him to offer dirt on a political opponent he would listen first and then if it s bad he would call the fbi or the attorney general. can you clarify if that is a legal or ethical option? that should not be an option. it is not an option. the correct answer would be i would reject the offer and i would call the fbi. that s the only answer he should have given. this idea he would look at the information and decide whether it was bad or good means he s willing to accept certain types of information from a foreign government. as the chairwoman of the fcc said the law is clear. you can accept anything of value from a foreign national and that includes a foreign government. why he can t get this is mind-boggling. it s not a hypothetical when he said it won t happen. it did happen in 2016. russia went to donald trump jr. and jared kushner and manafort and went to a meeting to receive
information on your opponent, oh, i think i would want to hear it. you want that kind of interference in our collections? elections. it s not interference. then the president offered clarification as to what he meant exactly. i don t think anybody would present me with anything because they know how much i love this country. nobody is going present me with anything. number two, if i was, of course, you have to look at it because if you don t look at it you won t. know it s bad. how would you know it s bad. the helped of the federal election commission is blasting the president s willingness to listen to or even receive foreign dirt on opponents. the law is completely clear that it is absolutely illegal for anyone in the united states to solicit, accept or receive anything of value from a foreign source in connection with an election. all right. larry noble is a information general counsel for the federal election commission and a cnn
protection, it has the support of oversight, where do you think this is going? i think it s going to the courts. you have to be clear about this. the opinion says this. the law says that they have to turn over the tax returns if they get a request from the house ways and means committee. they got the request. what they added to that is the executive branch or irs has a right to decide whether it s a legitimate legislative purpose for the request. they say the right comes from basically constitutional authority and they ve look at the request, they ve looked at statements made by virus democrats. they say we don t think this is a legitimate request. that s not for them to decide. the court has been very clear in the past once a request is made and we have to make a justification for it, you make a justification. it s not up to the courts to look behind that justification. the second part is they go on to say they have a right to make