This is an agreement that asks Ukraine to put its security. Wait, what agree, are you talking about the agreement that you read last week? The Russian agreement? Are you talking about where they are right now? The original agreement I was talking about, but, okay, let's talk about the original agreement, then we'll talk about where we are. But we're already passed the original agreement. Well, we're not, we're not in a couple important way. Okay. The fact that you had the original agreement,

and then you have the president posting the original agreement. Well, we're not. We're not in a couple important ways. One is the fact that

you had the original agreement and then you have the president posting what he did yesterday about

Ukraine being ungrateful in the rest. What that says, Joe, is there's no such thing as a rock

solid American security guarantee. This is an administration that tariffs at France,

you've seen aid cutoffs. It's actually an oxymoron to speak about a rock solid security guarantee from this administration. Well, it doesn't mean you're going to have to take it up in the Senate. There's going to have to be a treaty or something that the Senate is going to have to agree to. So it's not just the president's word? One. Two, you're going to have to change some very big details.

For example, the original agreement precludes any NATO stationing of forces in Ukraine's territory.

The European counterdraft doesn't preclude presence or exercising.

You're going to have to give Ukraine.

There's nothing in any of these agreements, at least finish the sentence. There's nothing in any of the agreements about arms supply

of Ukraine. So you mentioned the Tomahawk thing. What about the flow of arms? I think that's

all a real question for Ukraine, whether they can put their faith in this. Last but not least,

the fact that we're going to end up negotiating agreement ultimately with Ukraine and Europe that they're going to be more comfortable with, I thought the European response was quite ingenious. Yeah, it was great. No way you're going to end up with Russia's going to reject it. We're going to end up with... Exactly....is constitutionally, the commander-in-chief is given... No, there's no butts to it. The commander in chief is given white.

I'm just saying politically it's better to talk about the concern about using the military against your own people.

Because that's what they're calling him out on.

Constitutionally, the president of the United States would not lose a challenge on strikes in Venezuela.

Right.

Not with this Supreme Court, not with any Supreme Court.

No Supreme Court is going to put themselves in the situation room and make a decision for the commander-in-chief, Democratic or Republican.

All right, so let's just pretend this is 2008 or 2038.

This is not going to.

However, if a president of the United States says, I'm going to send the Marines to New Orleans.

...