but also about brett kavanaugh, now justice kavanaugh.aying kavanaugh and others had gang raped teenaged girls in high school, but somehow no one had ever heard about this. now he's not just a charlatan, he's a criminal, and he stole money from his client stormy daniels. while he was telling her he wasn't getting paid, he was taking the money from her. dan: if you have that stuff sitting in your closet, why would you go out in front of the media knowing this closet door was going to open. thanks a lot. really appreciate you. coming up on "unfiltered." celebrities have a long history of putting their feet in their mouths. your eyes. beautiful on the outside, but if you have diabetes, there can be some not-so-pretty stuff going on inside. it's true, if you have diabetes, you know high blood sugar is the root of the problem. but that excess sugar can cause the blood vessels to be seriously damaged. and when that happens, this could happen: vision loss or even blindness. that's right, diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of blindness for a

. >> let me ask you about justice brett kavanaugh who wrote the decision -- like i said, he backed upthe purcel principle. the federal court should not change rules so close to the election of the 2022 midterms. what do you make of that argument? >> justice kavanaugh and justice alito and their opinion essentially said that it's too close to the election for us to get any sort of relief for our clients in this case, but here we have an instance in which the election is not until the primary is not until may 24th and the general election is not until november. it was past november and almost immediately there after, we sued trying to get the court to institute new maps and it took the court only two months for them to rule which is astounding speed that courts don't usually move at and when we're ten months out from the general election, justice alito and justice kavanaugh said it is simply too late. this flies in the face of instances in the last five years and the supreme court has aloud allowed to be instituted in the part of the last year and we were frankly, surprised that the cou

vetted and questioned that unlike the mudslinging that we saw during the confirmation with justice kavanaugh expect the process to be fair and dignified. we must be careful and thorough and comprehensive. because the american people and the institution of the supreme court deserve nothing less. on journal" continues. host: paul kane is not only the senior congressional reporter for the washington host: serves as a columnist for the call on —- pointing viewers to a story with that e-word and what it means for

>> yes, justice kavanaugh.nother one is that these flag raisings were generally accompanied by a flag raising ceremony at the base and often by an associated event in city hall. this court, one of the several cases, mentioned that separation from a traditional public forum could help make you think that it's government speech, as opposed to to a forum itself. it's the same application form that people use, and i think boston says that they process application ts same. if you go to the website today that lists the new 2018 policy, it directs you to exactly the same application you would fill out if you wanted to host an event on a concededly designated public forum. and of course boston's own desires for the program itself, which is celebrate diversity and foster connections among boston's many communities. >> that makes the doctrine, though, seem quite circular in the sense that it is a public forum because of what they've done, and it would be easy, presumably, and tell me what you think boston would need to d

we liked beer. >> jason, my question to you, does justice kavanaugh like beer, you think?i had to rewind several times, did he like beer. was squeeze there, was toby there when we drank beer. >> we were on the set talking about this several years ago, i remember my students at morgan state, people were riveted by what happened with kavanaugh, and actually in many respects is the beginning of a diminishment of respect that a lot of people have for the supreme court because they saw someone who didn't just appear to be unfit in presentation for the court but had a lot of legitimate questions about his background, where he got certain money, how he paid off certain bills, things he did in previous administrations, information that republicans refused to release. what i see now is you can't bring up the kind of pushback against biden's nominee that you have with kavanaugh because she's clean. objectively speaking you're not going to get this far as an african-american woman in this country if you don't have a better record than almost anybody else. >> or live your life as you

specifically about judge bret calf now, now justice brett kavanaugh when he said kavanaugh and on thers gang raped teenaged girls in high school, but somehow no one ever heard about this. it was an absurd story. now we know he's not just a charlatan web's a criminal. he stole money from his client stormyen daniels. while was telling here she wasn't getting paid, he was taking the money from her. dan: why would you go out in front of the media and make yourself this big public figure. he had all these appearanced in front of the media knowing the closet door was going to open. thanks a lot. really appreciate you. celebrities have a long history of putting their feet in their mouth.h. wait until you hear the latest from susan sarandon. dan: welcome back to "unfiltered." time for hot takes. outrageous stories you may have missed this week. joining us, fox news contributor lisa boothe. actresse. susan sarandon. haven't seen her since bull durham. she is being slammed after posting a disgraceful tweet comparing the officers at jason ramirez' funeral to fascists. thisf is just part of the cul

specifically about judge bret calf now, now justice brett kavanaugh when he said kavanaugh and on thersed girls in high school, but somehow no one ever heard about this. it was an absurd story. now we know he's not just a charlatan web's a criminal. heri stole money from his client stormy daniels. while was telling here she wasn't getting paid, he was taking the money from her. dan: why would you go out in front of the media and make yourself this big public figure. he hadro all these appearanced n front of the media knowing the closet door was going to open. thanks a lot. really appreciate you. celebrities have a long history of putting their feet in their mouth.h. wait until you hear the latest from susan sarandon. meet ron. that man is always on. and he's on it with jardiance for type 2 diabetes. his underhand sky serve? on fire. his grilling game? on point. and his a1c? ron is on it. with the once-daily pill, jardiance. jardiance not only lowers a1c... it goes beyond to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease. and jardiance may

and the same thing happened, you might remember when supreme court justice kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, he worked at the white house and the counsel's office, national archive said to pull people from other places to just rapidly search for those records so i mean it's an, it is related but it's, they're under-funded and under-staffed and have been for a very long time. >> washington post reports that the tale of these 15 boxes and material contained within underscores how defiantly and indiscriminately trump defiled the law, related to a president's official duty and see turning over to the national archive, instead, starting in his presidency and continuing in post-presidency, treating as mundane with the same disregard and chaos that characterized his term in office. can someone be held accountable for this and if so, how? >> well, i'm just going to, let me read you something really quickly. this is a letter that we sent to harry reed, mitch mcconnell, john baner, it says unfortunately while the presidential act requires record it fails to have requirement, we feel it must be streng

unlike some of the mud slinging that we saw during the confirmation of justice kavanaugh, i expect this process to be fair and dignified. we must be careful, thorough and comprehensive because, madam president, the american people and the institution of the supreme court deserve nothing less. >> west virginia senator joe manchin said he agreed with president biden that the next u.s. supreme court justice should be a black woman. and he says the women being discussed as potential nominees are all extremely qualified. >>

>> because of gorsuch and kavanaugh and coney barrett, three justices president trump put on the courtike he said he would when he ran for the job and we elected him. i think we will get the right decision but we will see. when we do, be ready for it. the democrats will then go full tilt on trying to pack the court and we will have to deal with that. they have introduced legislation. we will see how it plays out. i hope the supreme court will uphold that. >> we have this question of packing the court, breaking the norms coming from this new democratic party embracing the softer term of socialism. i saw in our merchandise store, "we say socialism is just communism for slow learners." you should get the shirt. it is all on the same spectrum. one thing the people here are most concerned about is they keep giving the party power, and this is not aimed at you, although you have been there a while, and we'll get some real seniority if we get this majority back. if we give them that power, do they finally get the fact that we have to push for these things? >> the way i see it, if we win, we h

but unlike some of the mudslinging that we saw during the confirmation of justice kavanaugh, i expected this process to be fair and dignified. we must be careful, thorough, and comprehensive because, madam president, the american people in the institution of the supreme court deserve nothing less. cooksey spent washington journal everyday were taking your calls live on the air, on the news of the day and will discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning the democracy initiative chairman discusses russia and ukraine. then american action for regulatory policy director dan bosch talks about the biden administration's agenda. watch a washington journal live at seven eastern tuesday morning on c-span or on c-span now, our new mobile app. join our discussion with your phone call, facebook, facebook message and tweet. ♪ ♪ >> reports defense once the senior pentagon correspondent here to talk about activities involving russia and ukraine particularly means for the u.s. on this call, thank you for joining us this morning for a quick thank you for having the progress we heard

have you had caution since justice kavanaugh was infected even though we have been vaccinated were you still eating together keeping your masks up? or do you doing think differently since you found out about that? >> i don't think so because we are tested continuously. it's the home test once a week there is a more lengthy test, we had lunch together. i actually have the last question i never get to go. so many justice said you don't talk about the case in thing about sports, music, grandchildren stuff like that. the wealth of proper names of the football teams in this area. [laughter] >> you do get a little political? >> i don't know if that is political. i was amazed of the breadth of knowledge of the weird nicknames of football teams across the united states of america. it's an extensive conversation. one of the biggest football pants was justice thomas i am sure. wondering is always been the most silent justice during oral arguments. during teleconferences he did right in the sequence he would come second period many were wondering if he would speak from the bench, what did you thi

justice kavanaugh? justice kavanaugh: one question -- you mentioned the statute is designed or has the effect of incumbency protection, and i just wanted you to connect the dots and spell out why you say that. >> your honor, the millionaires amendment, of which this was a part, and which this court struck down the other part obviously in the davis case, was enacted by congress with explicit references to the fact that well-financed challengers to incumbents represented a threat and that the then incumbents in congress wanted to make sure there was a level playing field. the ability of a candidate to loan without repayment limits such as section 304 places on the candidate, to loan money to his campaign to advocate his own election is a threat to incumbents, your honor, just as much as the ability to contribute or to make expenditures on behalf of the challenger's campaign. >> thank you, counsel. mr. cooper: thank you, justice. chief justice roberts: mr. stewart, rebuttal? mr. stewart: thank you, chief j

where justice kavanaugh is now. there was stuart and john holland and douglas was at the end where justice barrett is now. goldberg would send me down to talk to somebody in his office when something unpleasant was going on because he did not want to face it. and on the others was byron white. brock was in the other corner. it was a great court. i think that was the difference. in 1954 the court decided brown and we know what happened in 1955, nothing. and 1956 and 1957 it gradually started with the freedom writers -- riders and then there was martin luther king and things gradually started to change, but the key is gradually. when you saw al jim crow and segregation was involved in the law, it was not just one law, it was an incredibly complicated set of interrelated laws that establish the system, and the court was met with one thing after another, and a lot of places in the south primarily did not want to do it, and then they did not. president eisenhower will have to deal with that. the court had one challenge a

u.s., and the freedom convoy has been suffocating the supply chains across the border, and lucy kavanaugh is there on the border. what are you seeing there? >> we have been seeing the cars and trucks disrupting this critical trade route between canada and ta u.s. cleared off. and the ambassador is behind me, and they are now camped out here for the sixth is day, and there was a court order served by a canadian judge which gave more ability for the way to be cleared for the demonstrators around and the crowd is here despite the freezing temperatures, and seeing people strolling back and forth between the cutoff point there, and the police line that way, and shouts of freedom, and the folks are honking the air horns, and kind of festive here. kids are here, and folks are picking up trash. so it is a fairly calm situation, but in terms of clearing the crowds, the crowds are burning. the ma jor of windsor ontario threatening to tow the cars away, and one was towed and one left voluntarily, and there was a state of emergency threatened to prepare for consequences, and some of the consequences

remember, when i was a long -- law clerk, there was an office next to ours with goldberg or justice kavanaugh is now. and douglas was at the end. they would send me down to talk if something unpleasant was going on. on the others was byron white. black was in the other corner. it was a great court. that, i think was the difference. in 54, the court decided brown. we all know what happened in 55, nothing. in 56 and 57. then eventually something started. then there was martin luther king. then things gradually began to change. the keyword is gradually. when you say jim crow, and segregation was involved in the law there, it was not one law, it was an incredibly complicated set of interrelated laws that established the system and the court was met with one thing after another. a lot of places in the south primarily, did not want to do it. and and they did not. and then, how will we get them to do it? and then eisenhower had a lot to do with that. the court had one challenge after another. it was a court that was trying to work out and no one was hoping it. congress did not pass anything. i think

they, if you look at kavanaugh, all the confirmation hearings from conservative republicans where democratsarrassment and wrongdoing, the media was all over that, but when democrats do it or fellow colleagues in the media do it they try to cover it up. it's a state of hypocrisy here. it is another reason why more and more americans don't trust the media. elizabeth: yeah, i mean the credibility crisis hits the media, white house, congress, nih, cdc the media personally attacking john durham. they failed to report the bombshell allegations hillary clinton paid computer research to data mine computers in the trump's new york apartment building to spy on trump. instead going full on about other topics. it feels like the viewer out there is not getting the information they should on things like the origins of the pandemic, how crime has blown up in this country because ever defund the police, because you know, bernie sanders, aoc, cori bush, rashida tlaib, katie porter, ayanna pressley said defund the police, it goes on and on and on. media is not covering hunter biden sell being access and his

responsible, fair way, and we're not going to get down in the gutter like the democrats did with kavanaugh. neil: senator, three of your republican colleagues did vote for her in that appellate court judgeship, lindsey graham and susan collins and lisa murkowski, i believe, was the third. do you envision -- your views notwithstanding -- that she could garner some republican votes? >> well, i think you've got to wait until it's over, and you've got to take into consideration those votes were for her to be on the circuit court of appeals, and it's a whole different thing being on the u.s. supreme court. all you've got to do is look at bork got on the d.c. circuit court of appeals -- neil: right. >> -- unanimously, and he was slaughtered when he was nominated for the supreme court. neil: do you think, senator -- switching gears to this ongoing story in ukraine and how it's bearing -- do you know of any reports, you don't have to spill secrets, sir, but that vladimir putin is frustrated with the pace of how it's going and increasingly alienated? in russia? there were protests yesterday, 1800 t

will brett kavanaugh be like justice thomas? is neil gorsuch going to be like justice thomas and justice scalia? i think that is the most significant influence they've had. >> something about these issues, i want to go back to the pressing question for you. his limitation on where the president doesn't doesn't go in is demonstrably wrong. i hear echoes of chevron. what if the historical record is ambiguous or there is conflicting evidence? what do you do then? that is the more interesting thing of dealing with the precedent that you are not going to put your foot down and say it's really wrong. maybe there is a palpable argument one way or the other. and what he tried to do is steer it back as best he could to something closer to what the right answer was, even if it wasn't the definitive absolute answer. that was equally good methodology for dealing with those spaces in between. get back to the logic in the sense of the overall structure even if you can't say for sure. >> the alternative is the supreme court's current doctrine

but have you increased any of the precautions since judge kavanaugh found out that he was infected, even though he had been vaccinated. tell me if you did anything differently once you found out about that. >> i don't think so, because we're tested continuously. you have the home test that just take the result in 15 minutes, and maybe once a week we'll have a more lengthy test where you get the results several hours later. so i don't think there was anything different that i could think of. we have lunch together. >> and just one last question on lunch and then a question on -- we never get to see behind the curtain. >> lunch? >> yeah, i never get to go. but so many justices have said you don't talk about the case and you try not to talk anything but like sports and music and grandchildren, things like that. what were the general topics today? >> movies is one. what the proper name for one of the football teams in this area ought to be. >> so you do get a little political? >> i don't know if that was political, because i was amazed at the breadth of knowledge of the sort of weird nicknam

graduate of harvard law school, she clerked for stephen breyer on the supreme court, like brett kavanaughennedy, whom he replaced on the supreme court. she was a private lawyer in a law firm, but also a criminal defense lawyer, a public defender, which is something that many people think the court has needed for many years, someone with that experience. she was appointed by barack obama to the district court in washington, served for several years, and just last year just president biden appointed her to the d.c. circuit, which is the traditional last step for many justices who wind up on the supreme court, chief justice roberts, clarence thomas, antonin scalia, ruth ginsburg, brett kavanaugh all served on the d.c. circuit before they were on the supreme court. she's been on the court for a brief period of time, she's expected to vote very similarly to stephen breyer. she will be part of the liberal wing of the court, which is only three justices. so the court is not expected to change in its results very much, but it is a big deal. it is a big deal. only been 115 justices in the history

the kavanaugh protesters got a 35 dollar fine. but, if he's talking about everybody getting an automatic pardon, i think that is -- that would be very troubling. again, it's not always clear what trump is saying. and i think he probably wants it that way. >> your clients planned for something, which is part of what they were seditious conspiracy charges. stewart rhodes, according to the indictment, this was new information, cashed weapons. right? he bought a lot of weapons. and the oath keepers cashed weapons in virginia with a quick reaction force so that they could respond. and all of this was in the words of the oath keepers what they had planned for. a civil war is what stewart rhodes said he was planning for. that's not nothing, john. >> well, i'm not saying it was nothing, but that's what's alleged. and i believe that will not be proven true at trial. and it is interesting because the one thing that stewart rhodes is very public about is that he thought that -- in terms of your previous story, that president trump would decl

that's what brett kavanaugh did. that's what neil gorsuch did and the other rest of the five of them. and don't give any credit to your boy john roberts. >> nope. >> because he made it pretty clear when it comes up on the merits, he is also going to allow the racist alabama maps to go through. i can't help you if you don't -- black people can't help you. black people can't save this country from the trumpers if you don't let us. and the only way you can let us is by stopping conservative control of the supreme court. >> and let me go back to you, mr. ross. you're the one in the middle of doing these cases. this is what associate justice henry billings brown, this was his logic for separate versus equal back in the plessy decision. he said the most common instance of this separate being fine is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and colored children which have been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power, even for the courts of states where the political rights of the color rac

look, we saw this, obviously, brett kavanaugh hearings., but their base didn't need to be motivated. they were primed up and ready to go, turn out and vote in 2018. it was republicans who were most motivated by those hearings. they thought that democrats were overstretching, were overreaching, were attacking brett kavanaugh personally. we saw it in the hearings for clarence thomas with anita hill. so there are plenty of examples where that kind of approach has gone to backfire, and, look, those members who sit on judiciary committee. they are positioning themselves, many of them, for a 2024 run. they need to keep their own owners and their own base motivated. but for the folks who are running for the senate and, remember, john, i know you talk about this all the time, but this senate map not only is it better for democrats this year but it's one of the best maps that any party has had going into midterm year because democrats aren't defending any red states. they don't have to defend any state that donald trump won. so this then, you know,

this really does go back to justice kavanaugh. the reason i say why wasn't this settled is because my guess is the same as his. this all came about because of a mistake by mr. roorooney. it's an understandable mistake. we have a line in one of our opinions that says a city thatten can't have a cross on the roof. so somebody looks at this and says, isn't this kind of the same thing and prohibits it. the fact it's not the same thing. because it's in the flag pole coming up and going down. and expressing a wide variety of views. so this was a mistake. why have people not been able to correct this mistake? >> the city would be happy to discuss settlement. i was not part of those discussions. i just know they happened. the flags raisings in connection with something that is a public holiday or something where the city is passed a resolution stating our support. we would be happy to clarify. what the city can't afford that the flag pole has become a place to use your swastika flag, the confederate flag, isis, al qaeda, all of these coul

we are not going to gone it gutter like the democrats did with brett kavanaugh. on the nominee's record, and what kind of justice she would make. bill: i hear a window of consideration. we'll see where that goes. and tell your dog we are almost done here. you are in texas. and the texas primary hits in 10 days. it's the first major vote ahead of the mid terms. you endorsed many candidates in many states. you have not endorsed a candidate for attorney general in texas. one of those candidates, a republican, is under investigation. will you weigh in before that vote the first of march? >> they have been strong supporters of mine, and that's a race i'm staying out of. i'll trust the voters of texas to make a determination. there are many people running for that race who are strong conservatives and people i respect. bill: no endorsement today. >> that's right. i'm staying out of that race. bill: in texas, ted cruz. back to your dog. thank you, sir, for coming on. in a moment we'll bring in our sunday group on the last-minute talks to stop a potential war, an invasio

the chairman of the board, doctor jim kavanaugh who -- thank you for being here jim.ounder and former chairman and president and chairman of genesis and namesake of the gavin herbert you see i institute. marine, a passionate advocate for education and volunteer for a television host who served on our board for very long time. where is maureen. thank you for being here. charlie jiang, a serial entrepreneur and russell restaurateur who donations made everything possible, let's ecological innovations in this room. thank you, charlie. mike ellzey, the director of nixon ivory from the national archives who i believe is with us somewhere. to introduce our conference chairmen and set up our first nobel laureates it's very much my pressure to introduce more lean more like who helped immensely to bring this conference and the special exhibition that i hope you will have a chance to see to fruition. she received the presidential appointed for president george h.w. bush to the national cancer advisory board for which he served six years. and cofounded friends of cancer research

mark: during the kavanaugh hearings, capitol building was breached by individuals who went to senateiciary committee hearing, on many occasions and disrupted the senate confirmation hearings, they got support from they would be in the elevates and intimidate the senators. do you remember them round z up as a group before they could have a trial, i don't remember that. >> tony i don't know remember that either or when wisconsin state house was taken over, or using the same language when 100 days straight there was a season on federal court building in port landing, oregon. there is always a double standard. the american people see it for what it is, i really do believe, i am not over confident, but i real think that we'll take back the house this november. i think the american people have had it with everything about the biden administration. everything they have touched has been wrong. they have done is wrong, and every policy is wrong. and all of the strange things happen when they attack our liberties. >> 1954, there were 4 puerto rican separatist in house gallery and shot 5 member

many senators trying to justify their own racism and sexism when they seamlessly voted for brett kavanaughbarrassing to a certain extent why they should be on the supreme court. i think we need to just hold tight for the type of attacks that we'll see on this very qualified black woman. >> christina, i burst out laughing over your cvs receipt comment because it's threw. her qualifications are huge. and, two, on the "washington post" editorial page today, the cartoon that we have there today shows exactly what you're talking about with judge jackson pushing all of her qualifications on that trolley with justice kavanaugh behind her saying, what, no beer? >>> tim, what's the real -- what's the republicans' real fear with president biden's selection of judge jackson to the supreme court? >> well, to be honest, their own voters, jonathan, is the answer to that question. what's their real fear. i think that ten, 15, 20 years ago you would have had republican outliers making coded racist or sexist remarks or whatever. i think you would have seen an overwhelming confirmation of justice jackson. s

contributions funded political campaign ads against merrick garland and four -- and for gorsuch, kavanaugh, and barrett. those are the facts. the road on to the supreme court for those three justices was paved with dark money. and, by the way, the checks were big. four of the checks to judicial crisis network were for $15 million or more. that's a big check. because we don't know who those donors are or who that donor is, it could all be one donor, we don't know what business they had before the court or why it was so worth it to them or him to spend $60 million to influence the makeup of the court. this new judicial crisis network ad, the squid ink ad, is designed to confused those rather conspicuous facts. they can't hide who funded them but they can't hide what they did. so squid ink, distraction, misdirection. their accusations of dark money corruption are a projection of the very scheme that they themselves hatched and executed. as i've discussed previously in these speeches, this is a classic propaganda technique. you accuse your adversary of what you yourself have been doing. yes, i

serve on a high-profile appeals court for current justices john roberts, clarence thomas, and bret kavanaugh once served. jackson ordered then white house console don mccann to appear before congress despite president trump pressed it off -- effort to block testimony. a at trial judge shoup was a finalist for supreme court vacancy by justice scalia sudden depth. daughter urged her to apply for the job and penned a hand written letter to president obama politely asking her mother be considered. >> dear mr. president, she can demonstrate commitment and disloyal and never breaks. i think she would make a great supreme court justice. >> jackson said she and her husband had to explain. >> getting to be on the supreme court is in the kind of job that you apply for. you just have to be lucky enough to have the president find you among the thousands of people who might want to do that job. >> shannon: doesn't anything mistake. we had to go back up these justices out of order. michelle childs is the one who is a federal judge in south carolina. their arrest throughout the packages. about these potent

justices kavanaugh and alito are ordering that it came too close to the 2022 election cycle. too close? how absurd. i mean, the idea of not correcting the area in the issue prior to elections, well, elena kagan, who argues there's plenty of time, is reiterating that stance. the primary in alabama, it's not tomorrow or next week or even next month. it's not until late may. in her dissent, she argued that the court's decision does a disservice to the district court which meticulously applied the longstanding voting rights precedent. and most of you will, it does a disservice to black alabamians. the justice said the court shouldn't even be issuing such an order on the shadow document, an emergency document that doesn't have the benefit of getting full briefing and oral arguments. so since the merits of this case won't be taken up until now later this year, that means the midterm elections in alabama, they'll be held on maps that could ultimately be ruled illegal. after the voting has already been done. and what is the expectation, that they'll somehow reverse the election based

it will be respectful unlike the democrats when kavanaugh was being processed by the senate. we're going to look at the temperament, the judicial qualifications and frankly judicial philosophy. i think those are the issues that will determine the outcome where republicans are with respect to the potential nominee. >> charles: so the senate working on a bipartisan russia sanctions bill. we're told a lot of this would happen after an invasion. not before. do you agree with this? >> anything you want to do, you want to do preemptively. the whole objective of these things is to deter bad behavior. we had an opportunity. we had a vote a few weeks acc to sanction the putin pipeline. the administration lobbied ferociously to keep democrats in line. they defeated it. we could have done something meaningful on energy, which is something that of course is very critical to russia's economy. it would have sent a powerful message to putin and his allies and also to our allies and ukraine. unfortunately democrats took it down. so thinking that you can wait until he goes in and then will po