utah, ch >> you have a republican from utah, chris stewart, and a f democrat from massachusetts, seth moulton, agreeing precise . it's exactly what vladimir putin wants.o hebl wants youam to blame the administration for something he did. >> that's the bipartisan view.ta n vi iand washington, what's interesting is they don't really know thatw th they have o evidence that that's true. briefers from the intel agency has of have, as of this afternoon, told members of indur congress they have no idea who committed industrial terrorism against these pipelines. now, that itself is a lie. of course, the cia has no idea at all.no >> right? they have no ide idea.a. but as far as members of evide congress, chris stewart and seth moulton know, thereeit is no evidence either way. they have no facts that that is a fact. they have no facts.a factua so, again, as a factual matter, neither of those guys nor any member of congress, no matter o what committee they sit on , has any idea who did this. but if you suggest the obvious, russia probably didn't do its nd because why would they do it? it's again

chris stewart, questioning how much financially we should send to ukraine. >> once the battle beginsf help now, and between the partnerships, not only president zelenskyy but the eu, make an agreement on how to achieve this ukraine. stuart: christian widen joins me now. regardless what russian troops are doing conservatives like chris stewart seem to imply they want to stop the aid to ukraine or call it a end to it. what do you say to that? stopping aid. >> you push the ukrainian's to establish the settlement, we should be looking out for ourselves here primarily especially, the threat of russian nuclear war. ukraine turned the tide, great development. and if they add 300,000 troops which is the size of the ukrainian military that could turn the tide against ukraine and it would be best for us and the economy to end the war sooner and get a tough love message to kyiv. stuart: they are on the run. the russians are on the run and there's no way they can retake the territory they 've lost. why shouldn't we now impose our will and win? why not? is that against our interests? >> i would a

here's chris stewart making the very statement point. >> john kirby with the national security councilas on earlier in no uncertain terms said the u.s. was not behind and a proxy of the u.s. was not behind the explosion in the north stream pipeline. from your perspective, both of you, you agree with that? >> absolutely. this is the last thing that we want to raise gas prices further in europe. it's pretty obvious this is a russian sabotage operation. >> and why would russia do that on its own pipeline, what do you say? >> well, then people who are suggesting the u.s., that is exactly what vladimir putin wants. >> it's just so great. i mean, it's perfectly bipartisan. here you have a republican from utah, chris stewart, and a democrat from massachusetts, seth molten agreeing precisely. it's exactly what vladimir putin wants. he wants you to blame the biden administration for something he did. that's the bipartisan view in washington. what's interesting is they don't really know that. they have no evidence that that's true. briefers from the intel agencies have, as of this afternoon, tol

. ♪ >> bret: in tonight's "common ground" segment we welcome utah congressman chris stewart and sethon. thank you both for being here. let's start with ukraine. you both come from a similar point of view on this, congressman moulton, the support given by the u.s. the dollars are ticking up. there are people in the u.s. saying when does that amount stop? are you both on the same page. >> i think we are. we want to see the war stops. ukraine wins republicans and democrats are broadly aligned on that in congress. we do need to make sure that there are checks and balances on how the money is being spent, exactly where it's going and all of that the most important thing right now is to get the troops on the front lines weapons and ammunition that they need to win this war. >> bret: congressman stewart? >> yeah, seth and i have had a chance to talk about this through the past weeks and months. i do think there is broad agreement not only he and myself but among others as well. i think we did the right thing, we did the only thing we could do in february and that was to say we are going to

host: this is a fox news opinion piece by congressman chris stewart of utah, former air force officercongress cannot keep funding ukraine forever without biden telling us his strategy to end the war. that fox news opinion piece, the representative says this, with congress passing an additional $12 million in the ukraine aid, i believe time has come to ask a series of critical questions. what is america's strat ukraine? what is our goal? can we achieve thago not pushing putin to use, in his own all available means at his al? commander-in-chief has to answer these questions. by leave -- i believe it is irresponsible to spend $12 billion, and a cumulative total of at least $54 billion of an effort that has no defined end. that is from congressman chris stewart on an opinion piece on foxnews.com. (202) 748-8000 is the line to call if you feel that more aid is needed. (202) 748-8001 if you say less aid is needed. if you think the amount of aid right now is about right, (202) 748-8002. mike in norwalk, ohio. good morning. caller: so all these people are saying we need more aid, obviously th

evidence that stewart rhodes and other defendants sought to destroy evidence once they realized the fbi was onto them and investigating this alleged enters. that is a powerful part of this case, chris. >> a key question folks have, glen, is when a case comes up around january 6th is weather it could open the door to new evidence about the former president donald trump's potential connection to the rioters. is that something we are likely to see here or no? >> i don't think we're likely to see it in this trial. we will see some cooperating witnesses. that is members of the oath keepers organization that pleaded guilty, flipped and are expected to testify. but i actually think even if the prosecution had evidence that more directly involve the white house or the president, i don't even know they would want to use it in this trial. why? because the president is not charged with a crime. and that could actually distract the jury from the issues they need to resolve, which those issues are that these five defendants commit the felony crimes with which they are charged. so i don't think we're going to hear much about former president trump in this trial. >> glenn kirscher in, ken dilan y