jillian: nsa hopes to use the or i don t know it s being developed from lockheed martin. one of many companies from the 50 states hosting made in america. steve: i hoped this trucked it in and didn t fly it in. you never know. thanks, jillian. coming up on this tuesday, president trump s supreme court nominee bret kavanaugh getting one of his biggest endorsements yet 80 former law students praising him. more an this time-out. ainsley: illegal immigrant escaped ice custody at the airport. moments before he was set for deportation. he could face jail time too. we will show you that coming up i m still standing better than i ever did looking like a true survivor feeling like a little kid i m still standing
us. thanks for having me. it s good to be here. ainsley: why do you think this is something the president can do or should do. first of all, there are three ways an individual can lose a security clearance. first, determination of the issuing agency they can revoke it. the second means is by national security interests. and the third, because the president does have final authority on all national security matters and security clearances, he can unilaterally then revoke a security clearance. however, he should be able to identify a specific offense which justifies revoking that, the revocation of that clearance. steve: sure, greg, this apparently was suggested by rand paul a couple of days ago because mr. brennan referred to the president s conduct in helsinki as treasotrefnnews. given what you have seen do these officials deserve to have the security clearance, yanked. again having a security clearance is not a right it it s a privilege that
know exactly what happened in great detail, all of it sourced, it s in the book. and it tells you what is still going on as we saw over the weekend with the release of the fisa documents. you know, i actually quote some of the fisa documents in my book. and as one reader said to me looking at the fisa footnote, which was supposed to convey that hillary clinton had paid for it, the person said you would have to be clairvoyant and tell pathic to be able to if i can out that this dossier was paid for by hillary clinton. composed by exbritish spy based on anonymous sources and quadrupled hearsay. the dossier itself was a joke. steve: and the footnote says all it says is that it was funded by somebody who wanted to get dirt about trump that could have an anti-trumper. it could have been a republican. it s not detailed.
steve: okay. so it sounds like a good plan to a lot of people watching right now, if it is indeed based towards the middle class. it s a political thing. the vote is going to come up before the november election. the democrats are being told vote no. which, if it is indeed a tax cut for the middle class, that is a political loser for the democrats. it s a tax trap for the democrats. if they vote no on, this and it will pass the house. i m pretty sure it will pass the house. september, october. okay it, goes through the house. when it gets to the senate. democratic leadership is saying don t vote for, this you can t be in favor of anything to do with the trump tax cuts. have you got to vote no. that would mean that some of those vulnerable democrats, who rupp for re-election in november, will be told to vote no on something that really benefits their constituents middle america. what are they going to do? i don t know what they re going to too. but it is highly unlikely this bill will
and it should never have happened. and if those judges had actually known who composed it, who paid for it. steve: right. they would never have signed off. steve: because the dossier was to this day largely unverified. ainsley made a great point yesterday. she said the whole application was to spy on carter page. so the fbi had the obligation to present things that were known, things that were reliable. so, if that were true, he would have been charged by now. oh, yeah. steve: yet, he has not. when you sign off on a fisa warrant to wiretap you are vouching for the honesty and truthfulness, the veracity of the documents contained therein. and by comey s own admission, it was unverified. the law requires you to corroborate and verify before you ever present it to the court. and on renewals, you have to present new evidence. well, based on what we saw over the weekend, there was no new evidence and rod rosenstein signed off on it,