More than that. that just scratches the surface. some of the biggest spenders were saudi arabia, china, they spend this money at this hotel, his golf clubs, chairmen, as we discussed, when this first broke, he reminded me of the we all became experts during this time. this is a clear violation. that is part of the thing. the constitution says the president, or any federal official cannot accept a president which is an officer title, of any kind, or whatever, that is in the constitution, from a prince, a foreign government, without the consent of congress. donald trump came to congress zero times to asked to keep this money. if you look at the history from washington and, barack obama, no one did anything remotely like that. abraham lincoln got these two elephant tests that he loved from the king of silent during the civil war. he went to congress and said,
I would expect the prime minister to make a statement, and we will consider it. make a statement, and we will consider it consider it. some of your colleagues, consider it. some of your colleagues, though, i consider it. some of your colleagues, though, and| consider it. some of your i colleagues, though, and other opposition parties, have said that parliament could have and should have been consulted as a matter of principle, and someone you know rather well used to also believe parliament should always be consulted as a matter of principle. ijust consulted as a matter of principle. i just want to show you something. i would pass legislation that said military action could be taken if first the lawful case for it was made secondly, there was a viable objective and thirdly, you got the consent of the commons. now, it was one of your own solemn promises to your party members that you would make it mandatory under a prevention of military intervention act that there would be the consent of parliament. have you changed your mind? ., , ., of parliament. have you changed your mind? ., , ., ,, mind? no, there s no inconsistency here. mind? no, there s no inconsistency here- really? mind? no, there s no inconsistency here. really? there s mind? no, there s no inconsistency here. really? there s obviously i mind? no, there s no inconsistency here. really? there s obviously a i here. really? there s obviously a hue here. really? there s obviously a huge distinction here. really? there s obviously a huge distinction between i here. really? there s obviously a huge distinction between an i huge distinction between an operation the like of which we have
You would make it mandatory under a prevention of military intervention acts that there would be a consent of parliament. acts that there would be a consent of parliament. ., , ., . . , ., of parliament. have you changed your mind? no, there of parliament. have you changed your mind? no, there no of parliament. have you changed your mind? no, there no inconsistency - mind? no, there no inconsistency here. ., mind? no, there no inconsistency here. . .- there s mind? no, there no inconsistency here. . .- there s obviously | mind? no, there no inconsistency. here. . .- there s obviously a here. really? there s obviously a hue here. really? there s obviously a huge distinction here. really? there s obviously a huge distinction between here. really? there s obviously a huge distinction between an - huge distinction between an operation, the like of what we have seen the last days and military action. a sustained military action campaign involving troops on the ground. thus recognised by everybody. national security must come first, there will always be urgent situations were parliament cannot be consulted beforehand, but the principal that if there is to be a sustained campaign if we are going to deploy your troops on the ground, that parliament should be informed, there should be a debate in the case should be made under should be a vote, i do stand by that in principle, absolutely. but vote, i do stand by that in principle, absolutely. but the small rint was principle, absolutely. but the small print was not principle, absolutely. but the small print was not in principle, absolutely. but the small print was not in your principle, absolutely. but the small print was not in your promise - principle, absolutely. but the small print was not in your promise that l print was not in your promise that you make your party. you didn t say it only in certain kinds of
Allow these attacks to happen, if they escalate, so be it. nobody thinks that so action had to be taken and i was pleased and briefed about it and we supported their action in the prime minster needs to make a statement. if there is to be further action and i don t know because i haven t been briefed on that, i would expect that briefing and expect the prime minister to make a statement and we would consider it on its merits.- make a statement and we would consider it on its merits. some of our consider it on its merits. some of your colleagues consider it on its merits. some of your colleagues and consider it on its merits. some of your colleagues and other - consider it on its merits. some of. your colleagues and other opposition parties have said that parliament could have and should have been consulted as a matter of principle and someone, that you know rather well, used to also believe parliament should also be consulted in a matter of principle. i want to show you something. i in a matter of principle. i want to show you something. in a matter of principle. i want to show you something. i would pass leuislation show you something. i would pass legislation that show you something. i would pass legislation that said show you something. i would pass legislation that said military - legislation that said military action could be taken if first the lawful case was made, secondly there was a viable objective and thirdly you have the consent of the commons. it was one of your own solemn promises to your party members that
The prime minister needs to make a statement. if there is to be further action, and i don t know because i have not been briefed on that, i would expect that briefing, i would expect the prime minister to make a statement, and we will consider it. and we will consider it on its merits. some of your colleagues, though, and other opposition parties, have said that parliament could have and should have been consulted as a matter of principle, and someone you know rather well used to also believe parliament should always be consulted as a matter of principle. i just want to show you something. i would pass legislation that said military action could be taken if first the lawful case for it was made , secondly, there was a viable objective and thirdly, you got the consent of the commons. now, it was one of your own solemn promises to your party members that you would make it mandatory under a prevention of military intervention act that there would be the consent of parliament.
Entirely right. to what you didn t do, entirely right. to what you didn t do. though. entirely right. to what you didn t do. though. is entirely right. to what you didn t do, though, is consult entirely right. to what you didn t| do, though, is consult parliament and it has been reported in the last couple of days that the decision was actually taken on tuesday, is that true? ~ . ., ., ., ., true? well, we have had a range of meetinas true? well, we have had a range of meetings going true? well, we have had a range of meetings going back true? well, we have had a range of meetings going back sometime - true? well, we have had a range of - meetings going back sometime because i soon these attacks started, we with others have been looking at what we can do to try and stop this action in the red sea, how we can keep this vital shipping lane open. it s notjust the goods that come here and the effect on our economy, this is also grey being taken to desperately poor countries. this is about why you desperately poor countries. this is about why you didn t desperately poor countries. this is about why you didn t seek - desperately poor countries. this is about why you didn t seek the - about why you didn t seek the consent? ., , about why you didn t seek the consent? . , ., consent? let me answer that directl . consent? let me answer that directly- so. consent? let me answer that directly. so, we consent? let me answer that directly. so, we have - consent? let me answer that directly. so, we have given i consent? let me answer that| directly. so, we have given all consent? let me answer that - directly. so, we have given all of these warnings, including warnings that have been given in parliament, and in my view the prime minister followed all the correct procedures, assembling ministers, listening to legal advice, consulting with allies, and there will be a statement in parliament on monday. i don t think it would have been right to have a debate and a vote before this sort of action because i think it is important for reasons of operational security to come on this occasion, take the action and then have a statement in parliament afterwards, but as you will hear
For reasons of operational security to, on this occasion, take the action and then have a statement in parliament afterwards. the man who wants to be prime minister is backing the government, for now at least. we ll look at the case the government puts forward. you re right, they did brief me, a secure briefing, in relation to this, shortly before the operation, and that s as it should be. we support the action that s been taken. but on a different sunday, four years ago, a slightly fresher faced, then labour leadership contender, adamant that mps should always be asked first. i would pass legislation that said military action could be taken if, first the lawful case was made, secondly, there was a viable objective, and thirdly, you got consent of the commons. fast forward to now, and he s ok with the fact the air strikes happened without parliament s approval. so has he changed his mind? no, there was no inconsistency here. . there is obviously a huge distinction between an operation the like of which we ve seen in the last few days, and military action, a sustained campaign, military action, usually involving troops on the ground. tomorrow, this place will get its first chance to debate the air strikes.
Latter is very close to the town of grindavik and that is the concern that it could go out of the town of. but on a different sunday, four years ago, a slightly fresher four years ago, a slightly fresher faced, then labour leadership contender, adamant that mps should always be asked first. i would pass legislation that said military action could be taken if, first the lawful case was made, secondly, there was a viable objective, and thirdly, you got consent of the commons. fast forward to now, and he s ok with the fact the air strikes happened without parliament s approval. so has he changed his mind? no, there was no inconsistency here. really?! there is obviously a huge distinction between an operation the like of which we ve seen in the last few days, and military action, a sustained campaign, military action, usually involving troops on the ground.
you are the epitome of white privilege, coming into this oversight committing ignoring a congressional subpoena that we dispose. what are you afraid of? you have no to come up here mister chairman? if she wants to hear from hunter bilin right now we can hear from right now? hold on, order. hunter biden should be arrested right here right now. go straight to jail. mister chairman, i ask you an unanimous consent to enter information for the record. what is the information? i reserve the right to object. the minority is not provided a copy of the material for, and the path she s displayed pornography. it s not allowed to be this blade in this committee. room it s not progressive.