Be used against fellow americans anymore. Crowd loved it at the debate, but now the president is seizing on that moment from beto orourke, arguing it has thrown a torpedo in his gun reform talks. Quote, dummy beto made it much harder to make a deal, convinced many that dems just want to take your guns away. Will continue forward. Orourke argues the only thing stopping us from ending this epidemic is the president and his, quote, cowardice. He is here exclusively to make the case. Always a pleasure. Thank you, chris, for having me on. Lets state the proposition. Are you, in fact, in favor of gun confiscation . Yes, when it comes to ar15s and ak47s, weapons designed for use on a military battlefield. The high imact, high velocity surround fired from those weapons when it hits your body expends all its Kinetic Energy destroying everything inside. And ive met those who survived fire from ak47. Ive met those who lost a family member. That belongs on the battlefield and does not belong in this country. So when it comes to those weapons, chris, the answer is yes. But when it comes to firearms used for hunting or selfdefense the answer is no. And i dont want you or anyone else to get into the fear mongering that have fallen prey to saying the government is going to come and take all of your guns. What we are talking uabout exclusively are weapons of war and should remain on the batt d battledfield. Well talk law first and then politics. Its not about fear mongering. You said youre going to confiscate guns. I dont think you can do it. The heller case makes it pretty clear theres an individual right to own. And i dont think weve seen the government do a private taking of property like youre suggesting. Im repeating what youre saying. So you listen to a justice like antonen scalia, and even he found that there is no absolute guarantee under the Second Amendment and the government does have the power to regulate those weapons extraordinarily unusual or deadly. And an ar15 or an ak47 like the one used in el paso, and im grateful you came to el paso and some of those victims yourself, in under three minutes 22 people were killed, dozens more grievously injured. Nobody will argue with you with the unique capability of these weapons, what has been experienced in this country is horrible. You and i stood next to each other at one. I have been to dozens so i get you on that. Bebut just to be clear on the law and ill get with you on the politics, but on the law he said, yes, you can have regulations but remember what they struck down. You couldnt even tell people how to store their weapons, disassemble, and he says weapons in common usage get the protection of an individual right. An ar15, good, bad or indifferent is the most commonly owned in the country. Yeah. Chris, im willing to fight that one all the way to the end because it is not common. It is unusual. And no one in this country including owners of ar15s and ak47s think what is happening right now is okay. They also have kids in school who are afraid its not a matter of if but when someone is going to walk into their school with a weapon designed for war and take their lives. We cannot tine to live like this. And those young people, those kids are especially arent standing for it. You listen to march for our lives formed by Stoneman Douglas and they as well are talking about a mandatory buy back, as well as licensing and registration. And youve probably seen this, a majority of americans and thats not democrats, democrats, republicans, independents, our fellow americans want to see this happen. And through the power of law. Not consfisication. By their members in congress ware going to sign this into law. Thats fine, you want to fight it, fight it. You have a more conservative court now than you did back in 2008. But thats the law. Politics. Nobody is asking for confiscation the way you are. In fact, beto, youve never asked for it before like you are now. Are you doing this to make a name for yourself in a very liberal field . Are you saying beto is the farthest left on this issue . All across texas in 2017 and 2018 all of those 258 counties no matter how big or small, how red or blue i was talking about an assault weapons ban and a lot of people said look thats not politically convenient, its not politically smart to do in a gun owning state like ours. But i also know texas is a responsible gun owning state. And after what i witnessed ipel paso, what we saw in midland, odessa, sutherland springs, those are three Mass Shootings of war in just one state. I can no longer state the conclusion if this gun isnt right to sell its also unfit to own. Each and every single one of them is a potential instrument of terror. You saw it in el paso. They walk around they tell me with a target on their back. Knowing there are people who are better armed against them than some folks are on the battlefield on the front line that strikes terror into their hearts. Im with you. People are scared, they want a change. Just to be clear, banning them, an assault weapons ban which supposedly the democrats may be meeting about some time soon is different than confiscating weapons out there already. It certainly sent shock waves through and i want to ask you this, people want more protection. But what you said plays right to the heart of fear of people who dont want to give on any of this. Theyre working a deal hard. Ive been talking to the democrats involved in it. They thought they were getting somewhere. They dont feel you helped because you played into the fear of a slippery slope. Universal background checks, red flag laws, fixing knicks, making it more info shared. They may not get it done if people are worried about confiscation. Listen, if they have made some progress already i might buy that argument, but many of those democrats are complicit in what we see right now. I mean the republicans are the most obstininate and obstructionist. Here we are in 2019 and we still dont have universal background checks or red flag laws or we allow the assault weapons ban to expire even though it did so much good and saved so many lives. This old policy and tactic of relying on polls and allowing the nra to set the debate no longer works for me and our country. Listen to every day americans including gun owners who are approaching me and saying, listen, beto, i own an ar15, i dont need it to hunt, for selfdefense, i would gladly give it up. I have kids and grandkids in school. Im worried about them more than i am about holding onto this weapon of war. The American People are there. That urgency just needs to be reflected in their leadership in congress. It will be reflected when im in the white house. Last question, if you were to get into power whatever the office and someone said ill give universal background checks, even private transfers and well do the red flag law and fix knicks and talk about a next step what we went allow to bhee sold anymore but no confiscation, will you take the deal . Yes, universal background checks absolutely will save lives. Red flag laws will do the same and too end the sale of weapons of war. But lets also be intellectually honest with one another. And if theres harm in selling them, then theres harm in the fact that 15 million of them exist out there and any one of them at any time can be turned against us and this is what i truly fear against our kids. And if were going to acknowledge that then we also have the acknowledge were going to do something about it. Absolutely necessary if were going to save the lives of our fellow americans, and thats what im most toque sfocused on. Look, Everybody Knows the problem. Its all just a search for a solution. Beto orourke, thank you very much for making your case on our show. I appreciate it. Thank you. We have some breaking news on our watch. That big Intel Community whistleblower complaint, we have new information for it right after this break. Lets get down to business. The business of hard work. Hustle. And high fives. Modernized comfort inns and suites have been refreshed because our business is you. Get the lowest price guaranteed on all Choice Hotels when you book direct at choicehotels. Com. Walking a dog can add thousands walking this many . Day. That can be rough on pams feet, knees, and lower back. Thats why she wears dr. Scholls orthotics. They relieve pain and give her the comfort to move more so she can keep up with all of her best friends. Dr. Scholls. Born to move. With advil liquigels, what stiff joints . What bad back . Advil is. Relief thats fast. Strength that lasts. Youll ask. What pain . With advil liquigels. Tell him were flexible. Dont worry. My dutch is ok. Just ok . in dutch tell him we need this merger. in dutch its happening. just ok is not ok. Especially when it comes to your network. At t is americas best Wireless Network according to americas biggest test. Now with 5g evolution. The first step to 5g. More for your thing. Thats our thing. Have you lost weight . Of course i have ever since i started renting from national. Because national lets me lose the wait at the counter. And choose any car in the aisle. And i dont wait when i return, thanks to drop go. At national, i can lose the wait. And keep it off. Looking good, patrick. I know. vo go national. Go like a pro. Bleech aww awww its the easiest because its the cheesiest. Kraft for the win win. So that early retirement we planned. Its going ok . Great. Now im spending more time with the kids. Im introducing them to crab. Crab . They love it. So, you mentioned that that money we set aside. Yeah. The kids and i want to build our own crab shack. Ahhh, youre finally building that outdoor kitchen. Yup with room for the whole gang. See how investing with a j. P. Morgan advisor can help you. Visit your local chase branch. We have breaking news. Lets go through it together. Its coming from the washington post. The headline is that this whistleblower showdown between the president s acting intel chief and congress now has a new twist. A reminder, the acting director of national intelligence, joseph maguire, has refused to hand over the complaint after a subpoena from the House Intel Committee chair adam schiff. Now were learning what that complaint may be about. This comes from the washington post. It includes communication between the president and a foreign leader. The sourcing is two former u. S. Officials familiar with the matter, that this was about a phone call that the president had with a foreign leader im going through it as i tell you about it just to be careful about it. And the process is as we understood it. Somebody who knew about this phone call was concerned enough about the president making what they term a promise that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the u. S. Intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community. So heres where it gets sticky. If the i. G. Heres the law since watergate. If the Inspector General finds something to reach a certain level of what they call urgent concern, they are supposed to turn it over to congressional oversight committees. House intel would be the logical place for something intelligence related, especially in light of the tacit agreement after watergate whereby congress agreed with the Intelligence Community to handle Confidential National security security information in a certain way, hence what you got with the gang of eight, only certain leaders will get certain sensitivities. Lets assume its true with who . Thats not in here. Lets bring in phil mudd. They try to track whom he had spoken with. This complaint was filed with atkinsons office, thats the Inspector General, august 12th. In the preceding weeks they have him talking they have him on a call with Vladimir Putin on july 31st, talking with at least two letter with kim jong un, maybe meeting with the leader of pakistan, netherlands and amir of qatar. Somebody says they heard something as an intel official that troubled them enough to lodge a formal complaint to the i. G. How unusual . Boy, im about ready to blow a gasket. That is extremely unusual and i listened to president ial phone calls under george w. Bush in 2001. Can you explain to me, a, why its the u. S. Intelligence communitys responsibility to listen to the president of the United States speaking to a foreign leader and, b, why did the u. S. Intelligence community under the rules provided by the democrats in congress are responsible to report to the congress what the president of the United States says. Last i checked, chris, when i served, we were responsible for chasing the russians, the chinese, the iranians and terrorists were not responsible for reporting to the congress what the president says. He can say what he wants, chris. So you dont like that somebody snitched on the president. Correct. The question if you have a whistleblower issue in the Intelligence Community might be is somebody misusing funds. For example, is somebody seeing something about covert action overseas, cia operations overseas thats inappropriate. For example, when i was in the business, we ran black sites, secret facilities. About somebody see something that was not only unethical and immoral inhouse policing . Correct. Not what did the president say . Hold on a second. What if he did Say Something to a foreign leader that sounded like a promise that went over the line enough that somebody of good conscience said hes not supposed to say things like this. What the heck is over the line . The president can say what he wants to putin, he can say what he wants to kim jong un. You can say im going to meet you in the demilitarized zone. The president can say what he wants. Its not the responsibility of the intel guys to go police the president and go snitch on him to the congress. Ridiculous. And now i understand. I didnt two hours ago. Now i understand why a former decorated seal maguire, the head of the Intel Committee was reluctant. Why does he have to go report on what the president says . Well, if they have an agreement, a rule structure in place that if a complaint reaches an urgent concern level to the Inspector General that Congress Gets to see it, the obvious mechanism here is checks and balances. I dont agree with that. Somebodys got to check power, right . I dont agree with that. I think inspectors general, by the cia and fbi are excellent, we despise them because theyre so tough. I want to ask why is it the responsibility of the Intelligence Community guys got a complaint of what the president said and we the intel guys have to report to congress on whats going on in the white house. They report on north korea and iran, not if a president wants to make a promise to a foreign leader. I am ticked off. This is completely inappropriate. The congress should not be asking the intel guys to go snitch on the president. No. What is the mechanism for policing the white house . Quit. Can you talk to the media if you want, write a book if you want. If you dont like what the president does, whether youre secretary of defense, National Security adviser, rex tillerson, you go quit. You dont go say well i have a secret avenue to the congress that in my view is inappropriate to explain why the intel guys have to collect intelligence on the president. Exactly, by the way, exactly what the president alleges happened during the campaign. The intel guys are collecting on me, a politician. Thats not what the intel guys do. Unless they have reasonable suspicion. Suspicion of what, chris . Hold on. Remember when trump was talking to medvedev and remember the right was reasonably worried, what the hell does that mean . Whys he saying Something Like that . There was curiosity. What was he planning, what was he thinking . There was a need for checks and balances, oversight. They wanted to dig. Was that wrong . Theres a difference between saying does the congress have the right to ask the white house questions have to right to critique to white house on political issues and engagement between foreign leaders. Theres a difference between that and the Intelligence Oversight Committee saying you have a responsibility to report to us you the intel guys when you think, you think the president does something inappropriate thats not illegal. The president can make promises overseas. Thats not illegal. It might be inappropriate. Good luck to adam schiff and others to go hold the white house to account. Not for the intel guys to report on the white house. But if they dont give read outs of the calls, how else would anyone know whats being said . Why would they give read outs on the calls . The president has a right to talk to foreign leaders without the congress knowing everything he says. Thats different than saying did he do something that broke the law. Thats different. Did he do something that violated regulations on how you conduct intelligence activities . If the president wants to tell kim jongun or president putin here i promise you this and its not illegal, i dont know why the intel guys i hear you and i appreciate the analysis. Im saying i guess the open question for both of us is what did he say . Why did it concern this person enough to lodge the complain, and does it go to what your threshold is it a violation of the law . The question is did the individual heard something he was so offended by he felt he needed to report or did he hear something he thought reached the threshold of illegal. I would still the question why did the intel guys have to report that, why doesnt he report that through another channel . I hear you. Im going to take a deep breath. I thought you were going to pass out. You all know Chelsea Handler. She does not mind testing the edge even if it makes people uncomfortable. In fact, shes hoping to do just that with her brand new project and particularly hopes the president will watch. The comedian, activist, new documentary maker here next. tennis ball hit tennis ball hit tennis ball hit tennis ball hit tennis ball hit crowd cheering tennis ball hit tennis ball hit tennis ball hit thanks to priceline working with top airlines to turn the