it would be believed some of that money was put together for this dossier or report. the dnc and hillary clinton campaign had such sanctimonious denial about this for all this time, if it was leaked or known that they funded this report in any way, that would go against their entire narrative of saying trump colluded with the russians and that s how he won. why? it was research. for me the bigger question is if there was really good dirt in the dossier, why wasn t it a tv commercial? but it wasn t colluding, it was research. if somebody is working in another country, and you wanted to find out that donald trump
it is known for a long time. narrative is crafted to overplay or overcome the actual crime. the actual crime is the unmasking by the obama administration officials, think about it. general flynn reauthorized by the obama administration last year, security clearance reauthorize, then russia on a trip, if they had concerns about him, where were those concerns then, were they incompetent then. the unmasking is a felony, someone has to go to jail. that person won t be a trump official. trump wasn t in the office then. it would be an obama admin official. heather: that s a good point. why wasn t it a concern then? obama administration actually got rid of general flynn and as no, they didn t. they reauthorized security clearance. they took him off that team and general michael flynn under
i think if this is fully litigated, and it were to go to the supreme court, the supreme court would say wait a minute, we ve spent more than 100 years of saying the president and congress have plenary power, complete power to regulate immigration, congress passed a law in 1952 that says if the president views a country or a class of aliens as a threat, he can ban them completely. he has unfettered discretion to do it, in the high court has even said judicial courts don t even have the right to review that. jon: wasn t it a judge in seattle who said he essentially mr. president, you don t have the authority to do what you just did? speak i think he cut it completely wrong in his analysis which was five or six pages, completely devoid of legal analysis. he said the state of washington had standing in the suit, no, they don t because no one in washington has been harmed by this so far. second of all, he did not even
looking for bank statements. i think she was just reaching for evidence. wasn t it a crime scene? no, it was not deemed a crime scene, because there was no sign of forced entry. there was no signs of foul play at the house. michael says investigators gave them the okay to remove some items from the home. with their permission, i grabbed his computer, what would be joey s computer, and the sd card. i got the pictures off, i got that download. then i had to put that back prior to them issuing the warrant. back in texas, patrick could hardly believe what s going on. the first time i m thinking is, you re going to destroy evidence. i was just stunned. certain items that might have been really key to the big mystery of why they left that house are gone.
to complete a search of the home. but during those four days, the mcstay s home remained unsealed. which allowed joseph s mother, brother, and friend access in and out of the house. i wouldn t go in there unless i called the sheriff s department and they said i could. i had permission. i cleaned up the kitchen because it was disgusting and the trash can from diapers sitting there all that time, you know. it was terrible, terrible smells. she was cleaning and we were looking for bank statements. i think she was just reaching for evidence. wasn t it a crime scene? no, it was not deemed a crime scene, because there was no sign of forced entry. there was no signs of foul play at the house. michael says investigators gave them the okay to remove some items from the home.