think broadly read the language inadequate domestic supply and read it in what i would consider a fairley twisted way, you should look to the legislative history. that's what lawyers do. that's what judges do. they look what was the intent of congress? and when congress repealed the language or rejected the language in their final analysis, distribution capacity, what does that mean? what does that rejection mean? >> to me, it means that there was discussion and there was interest in this issue specifically from at least some members and that that language did not end up in the statute. >> and what does it mean for lawyers when there's language that is proposed in one spot, you go to conference and you eliminate or take out language? it means that is not the intent of congress to use that for waver. you cannot bootstrap the domestic supply language to deal with refueling infrastructure. now, i'm not unsympathetic to the challenges you have in implementing this, but let's mott pretend legally that you have a very good legal argument here for the waiver that you've done. that's the frustrat

and i can tell you that there's been a report that i think it's fairley credible and, you know, so --know and it doesn't matter at the end of the day. because i think, look, this is an election that is going to be won by somebody who spends a lot of money. whether it's putting people in an audience or buying tv time, it works. maybe that's the way he'll defeat isis. >> so let's look at the end. can we roll over the entrance? there he is. he starts. he rides an escalator of glory down. this has been a perennial thing with donald trump, right? he never does it. kay coppins wrote this great buzz field file about his perennial testing the waters and then he doesn't do it. why is this happening? >> i have to say, in the spirit of donald trump running, i have to say, i told you so. because i mean, here it is, the bottom line is sort of, look, his celebrity career is a little bit on the wing and he has a situation now where there's 15 or people there. >> i love this part. >> i am officially running for president of the united states and we are going to make our country great again. >> is thi

to adjudicate cases involving national security terrorism, sensitive information and still do so fairley. it's one of the strength of our criminal justice system. i think about the context of kwan tan mow where the courts in d.c. have certainly shown themselves fully capable of adjudicating those important habeas cases. i'll put aside for now the d.c. circuit decisions in which review has been circumscribed to i think the detriment of our system. but i do think and perhaps, judge robertson, you're being modest, but i do think that the courts are very well able to address issues of classifications, indeed they do so all the time and every day. i think the concerns arise when, for example, the executive branch makes extreme claims with respect to classification. it did so recently in a case that is currently before the d.c. circuit with respect to videotapes at guantanamo where the government said the video taims tapes were classified and the judge had no authority to order their disclosure applying the first amendment rights of judicial access. there are certainly arguments to be made, bu

office against for clarification on who it was that approached him and they once again have been fairleyd have not responded. >> and i'm sensitive here that you have a source here that you need to protect. so tell me if you can't answer. but is it your impression that this was an attempted -- an attempt to blow the whistle, an attempt to get denny hastert in trouble, an effort to start some sort of investigation or at least the make it publicly known? >> i'm going to do something rare. i'm going to say i just don't know. i don't know at this point and i need to do more digging on that ground. the person who came to me was sort of echoing a conversation that took place a long time ago. and so to say that i have any direct understanding of why the first outreach was made would be to essentially lie to you. i can't answer that question. >> do we know of any direct connection between denny hastert and mel watt at the aside from the fact that they were both in congress? >> no. what i've been told is that the reason mel watt was chosen was not because of any connection to dennis hastert, but b

it has a way of driving consensus fairley quickly, even though consensus is still needed. and over time, i think we may see them move in a more positive direction. right now the direction of china with regard to multi nationals is more negative, even hostile to what it was five years ago. >> a lot of democrats and a lot of unions say this is a job killer. this is just one more open door for job out migration from the united states. if we're thinking about wage stagnation in the united states over the last 15, 20 years, this kind of agreement is what has facilitated that kind of wage stagnation it's going to create more wage stagnation and job loss. what do you answer? >> we're already competing as an open economy and a globe economy. we know every $1 billion of additional exports supports somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 jobs and that those jobs pay up to 18% more on average than noengs port related jobs in the same sector. firms that export tend to invest more in their r&d their productivity. so we view this as a way of creating more jobs and creating better jobs. higher

and we do have to remember this is an energy area that is fairley young compared to other types of energysources that we've had here in the united states. and we have seen support of those industries for over a hundred years. so, again, relatively young, developing source of energy as well as clean burning, i would say, and very supportive of our economy here in iowa which is why even though it wasn't expressly written in the law that we use domestic sources of fuel, i would encourage that in the future as something that we take into consideration rather than utilizing some of these biofuels from other countries, as well so that might be something that we need to look at in the future. i think that would help increase our production, obviously, here in the united states, but pro promote the infrastructure, promote the development and for the technology enhancements. >> i just have a final comment. and it's probably not exactly on target here. but we've been talking a lot about advanced agricultural manufacturing. meaning let's use products that are renewable, let's use green products. i d