address that. there wasn t crying for the oil guys when they weren t making money. you re picking and choosing your myments. you re saying they re making a lot of money right now. if we had a fossil fuel friendly environmented in washington and not at the expense of solar, wind, you would be in on all of that, aren t you? why target this industry? i am for a moon shot on renewable energy. that s the long-term place neil: explore them all. you re just telling me that they should increase production, that we could look at more fossil fuel activity and by the same token saying, you know, it isn t the future. so what is it? there s the short term, which is that we want to increase production because we have to do everything we can to bring gas prices down. long-term the american people understand the volatility, they understand that this is not sustainable and if you want to defeat russia, iran and saudi
we need new, fresh blood. i m, like, whoa, whoa, if we were to average the median age of congress right now, it s like 103. so why is it okay, then, that we come for nancy pelosi about this? i think, first of all, she s raised $16 million in like the first quarter. right? she is the democrats money woman. she has the cardi b money bag. they should be applauding her, not running from her. it s interesting, michelle, typically when you think about a house speaker, usually it s a combination of seniority, somebody who s raised a lot of money to danielle s point, somebody who knows where the bodies are buried and cajole members to take unpopular vote theys don t wa s they don t want to take. that s what she s done. and she s considered the most productive speaker since like sam rayburn, right? yes. so one wonders what would be
normal time we would have answers to because we would have a president of the united states who abided by the traditions and the norms and the customs that arc crude to the oval office where we would have the documentation to be able to come to some reasonable conclusion. but we don t. e.j., i want to put this chart up one more time. it s not just the amount of money. it s the when. you made the very good point that the vanity fair article from 2017 is referencing an eric trump quote from 2014. look at that spike, e.j. i don t know. it s curious. first of all, i want to get in on jonathan s layaway for billionaire s plan. i m only missing billionaire. thank you, jonathan, for that. again, one of the problems as jonathan and the other panelists have suggested is there are so many holes in our understanding
included questions about the campaign and the inaugural. what do you make of all this as a former prosecutor, paul? i think mueller is interested in barrack for two reasons, one has to do with the trust you talked about, that president trump has in him. defense attorneys always tell their clients don t talk about the case with anybody but me, but if you do, the prosecutor can call you before the grand jury and make you reveal it. president trump doesn t have many close friends. but barrack is one of his dudes. dude has to go to mueller and spill it. i think mueller is interested in everything we heard the questions that mueller wants to ask like why did you fire comey, what were you thinking, what s up with that meeting on air force one? again, if trump is talking to barrack, he probably knows all this and he s got to give it up. follow the money. the golden rule of prosecutors and that brings us to campaign
the president s campaign and the ininauguration. i ll put on my former defense attorney hat. as paul said, if any of these people were my client, i would be very worried that mueller is going to walk into some sort of financial fraud. it s my understanding that mueller is noting looing into the finances of the presidential inauguration committee but is actually looking at the finances of the trump campaign. again, it s follow the money, follow the relationship of the campaign with cambridge analytical. is there financial fraud, bank fraud, potential rico claims? i think they have a lot to be very fearful of because there is mission creep, as paul said. quite frankly, as an arm of the law, if mueller finds evidence of fraud, he has to go there. he has a moral obligation to talk to rosenstein about it or maybe send it to another u.s.