> necessarily, sir. it was a bit skewed by the federal bureau of annunciation. >> no, it wasn't"> > necessarily, sir. it was a bit skewed by the federal bureau of annunciation. >> no, it wasn't" property="og:description"> > necessarily, sir. it was a bit skewed by the federal bureau of annunciation. >> no, it wasn't">
reelection bid." you would agree that should investigated? >> necessarily, sir. it was a bit skewed by the federal bureau of annunciation. >> no, it wasn't. that affirmative justice concluded that this would not violate the election laws. no one could understand how they could reach that conclusion after the two years we've been through, but nonetheless, they didn't authorize the fbi to investigate it. you would agree someone should investigate this, wouldn't you? >> if i didn't, i would not have referred it to the justice department and to the fbi. >> then i'm glad we are in agreement. the whistle-blower says, "they told me there was already discussion on going with white house lawyers about how to treat the call, because of the likelihood in the officials were telling that they had witnessed the president of uses office for personal gain." you would agree that should be investigated, wouldn't you? >> all i know is that the allegation. >> is credible and therefore