On Location at Business Insider’s GOP Primary Debate | The Daily Show


A lot of people think that impeaching Trump
will be totally partisan. Democrats will support it, while Republicans
will write it off like it was Jussie Smollett
on Empire. But it turns out
there are actually Republicans who want Trump gone, too. In fact, several GOP candidates have officially launched
primary challenges against him. And, last night, they held
a Republican primary debate right here in New York City. So we sent our very own
Roy Wood Jr. to check it out. WOOD: It’s the first
Republican debate. And being a veteran
of the spin room, I knew it was gonna be
jam-packed with excitement and covered by the who’s who of the nation’s
most elite journalists. And I just happened to score
an exclusive pass to this amazing… What the hell is this? When do we head downstairs
to the actual debate? Can’t go down there. Not allowed in the debate
at the debate? -No.
-I get it, I get it. Security risk.
Trump is down there. Trump’s not here. That’s cool.
We got three candidates. Got three solid candidates. Two candidates. Two candidates. Still okay. It’s okay. This debate will be covered
by all the national networks. Which-which channel
is the debate? Business Insider’s
Facebook page. MAN (on TV):…the president’s
dreams coming true. He knows exactly what… WOOD: So we watched
this historical debate on Facebook Live
with about 900 other people in the entire country,
15 of which were in this room. And it seemed like
the hottest topic was how much Trump sucked. The president is a sick man. Donald Trump is
a horrible human being. He’s a malignant narcissist. He’s a dictator. WOOD: And Just when
it was getting juicy… (loud beep) Ugh. And that concludes
Business Insider’s 2020 Republican
Presidential Primary Debate. WOOD:
I knew from past experience, when that debate ends,
you’ve got to rush to get a VIP spot in the spin room. (laughter) As the candidates came
into the room, the reporters
were becoming animalistic, anxious to get answers. And after ten minutes
of being patient, finally, my turn
to ask the perfect question. Thanks, y’all. -Have a good night, everybody.
Thank you. -Thank you. WOOD:
Oh, damn. (applause and cheering) Wait, Roy. Wait. …didn’t work, Trevor. Wait. So you didn’t ask the
candidates a single question? I was still eating cheese,
and… (laughter) My mouth was full, man,
but don’t worry. I managed
to get a one-on-one interview -with Governor Bill Weld.
-Oh. Is-Is he the candidate that
Trump should be worried about? (laughter) I don’t know if he’s a candidate
to worry about, but as a man, we should all
be worried about him. You, Walsh, Sanford. Trump has called
all of you “The Three Stooges.” Now in no way do I want to
validate this childish bullying, insulting game
that the president is playing… but which
of The Three Stooges are you? I’d be the…
the guy you can’t see, holding the strings,
moving ’em. That’s some Illuminati shit
right there. Yeah, I changed the goalpost
on you. Damn. The fourth stooge, pulling the strings
the whole time. You’re the architect
from The Matrix. (laughter) What? You’ll never know, Roy,
that I was cutting your throat until you turn to laugh at me,
and your head falls off. (laughter, gasping) Well, it was good meeting you. -My pleasure, Roy.
-I’m gone. Not getting my throat cut. (applause,
audience clamoring) You… you won’t even know your throat is cut until you turn your head
and it falls? What does that even mean? (laughter) I don’t know what it means, but I haven’t turned my head
since. Roy Wood Jr., everyone.

‘Treason Pure And Simple’: Weld, Sanford, Walsh React To Trump Call | Morning Joe | MSNBC


THEY JOIN>>>WELCOME BACK.>>>WELCOME BACK. PRESIDENT TRUMP’S APPROVAL PRESIDENT TRUMP’S APPROVAL RATING IS AT OR BELOW 45% IN 10 RATING IS AT OR BELOW 45% IN 10 OF THE STATES HE WON IN 2016. OF THE STATES HE WON IN 2016. THAT’S ACCORDING TO GALLOP. THAT’S ACCORDING TO GALLOP. THOSE STATES INCLUDE TEXAS, THOSE STATES INCLUDE TEXAS, IOWA, GEORGIA, FLORIDA, OHIO AND IOWA, GEORGIA, FLORIDA, OHIO AND ARIZONA. ARIZONA. ARIZONA IS AMONG A HANDFUL OF ARIZONA IS AMONG A HANDFUL OF STATES THAT HAS SCRAPPED ITS STATES THAT HAS SCRAPPED ITS 2020 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL 2020 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY. PRIMARY. OVER THE WEEKEND, ALASKA BECAME OVER THE WEEKEND, ALASKA BECAME THE LATEST TO JOIN THAT GROUP THE LATEST TO JOIN THAT GROUP WHEN THAT STATE’S REPUBLICAN WHEN THAT STATE’S REPUBLICAN PARTY PASSED A RULE STATING A PARTY PASSED A RULE STATING A PRIMARY WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PRIMARY WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP IS PURPOSE BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP IS PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT. THE THREE REPUBLICAN CHALLENGERS THE THREE REPUBLICAN CHALLENGERS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP RECENTLY TO PRESIDENT TRUMP RECENTLY BANDED TOGETHER TO WRITE AN BANDED TOGETHER TO WRITE AN OP-ED FOR THE WASHINGTON POST OP-ED FOR THE WASHINGTON POST WARNING WHY CANCELING JOP WARNING WHY CANCELING JOP PRIMARIES IS A CRITICAL MISTAKE, PRIMARIES IS A CRITICAL MISTAKE, AND THE THREE CANDIDATES JOIN US AND THE THREE CANDIDATES JOIN US NOW. NOW. FORMER CONGRESSMAN JOE WALSH OF FORMER CONGRESSMAN JOE WALSH OF ILLINOIS. ILLINOIS. MARK SANFORD OF SOUTH CAROLINA MARK SANFORD OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND FORMER GOVERNOR BILL WELD OF AND FORMER GOVERNOR BILL WELD OF MASSACHUSETTS. MASSACHUSETTS.>>GOVERNOR, LET’S BEGIN WITH>>GOVERNOR, LET’S BEGIN WITH YOU. YOU. IT’S RICH, IS IT NOT THAT DONALD IT’S RICH, IS IT NOT THAT DONALD TRUMP SPENT THE ENTIRE 2016 TRUMP SPENT THE ENTIRE 2016 CAMPAIGN CAN FIRST WHINING ABOUT CAMPAIGN CAN FIRST WHINING ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES BEING THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES BEING RIGGED AGAINST HIM BY INSIDERS. RIGGED AGAINST HIM BY INSIDERS. AND THEN COMPLAINING THAT AND THEN COMPLAINING THAT HILLARY CLINTON’S DEMOCRATIC HILLARY CLINTON’S DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY WAS RIGGED AGAINST PRIMARY WAS RIGGED AGAINST BERNIE SANDERS. BERNIE SANDERS. AND YET HERE HE IS WORKING AND YET HERE HE IS WORKING FURIOUSLY, GOVERNOR WELD, FURIOUSLY, GOVERNOR WELD, WORKING FURIOUSLY TO ACTUALLY WORKING FURIOUSLY TO ACTUALLY HAVE PRIMARY ELECTIONS CANCELLED HAVE PRIMARY ELECTIONS CANCELLED AND WIPED OFF THE BOOK AND HIM AND WIPED OFF THE BOOK AND HIM BEING DECLARED THE WINNER BEING DECLARED THE WINNER WITHOUT ONE PERSON BEING ABLE TO WITHOUT ONE PERSON BEING ABLE TO VOTE IN THOSE STATES. VOTE IN THOSE STATES.>>WELL, OBVIOUSLY, CANCELING>>WELL, OBVIOUSLY, CANCELING PRIMARIES UNDER MINES DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES UNDER MINES DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS, BUT THAT’S FAR FROM ELECTIONS, BUT THAT’S FAR FROM THE DEEPEST DIVE CRIME THAT THE THE DEEPEST DIVE CRIME THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED HERE. PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED HERE. HE HAS NOW ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IN HE HAS NOW ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IN A SINGLE PHONE CALL RIGHT AFTER A SINGLE PHONE CALL RIGHT AFTER HE SUSPENDED $250 MILLION OF HE SUSPENDED $250 MILLION OF MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE, HE MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE, HE CALLED UP THE PRESIDENT OF CALLED UP THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND PRESSED HIM EIGHT UKRAINE AND PRESSED HIM EIGHT TIMES TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN TIMES TO INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN WHO THE PRESIDENT THINKS IS WHO THE PRESIDENT THINKS IS GOING TO BE RUNNING AGAINST HIM. GOING TO BE RUNNING AGAINST HIM. TALK ABOUT PRESSURING A FOREIGN TALK ABOUT PRESSURING A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO INTERFERE WITH AND COUNTRY TO INTERFERE WITH AND CONTROL A U.S. ELECTION. CONTROL A U.S. ELECTION. IT COULDN’T BE CLEARER. IT COULDN’T BE CLEARER. AND THAT’S NOT JUST UNDERMINING AND THAT’S NOT JUST UNDERMINING DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS. DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS. THAT IS TREASON. THAT IS TREASON. IT’S TREASON PURE AND SIMPLE. IT’S TREASON PURE AND SIMPLE. AND THE PENALTY FOR TREASON AND THE PENALTY FOR TREASON UNDER THE U.S. CODE IS DEATH. UNDER THE U.S. CODE IS DEATH. THAT’S THE ONLY PENALTY. THAT’S THE ONLY PENALTY. THE PENALTY ON THE CONSTITUTION THE PENALTY ON THE CONSTITUTION IS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. IS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. AND THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE A AND THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE A PRETTY GOOD ALTERNATIVE TO THE PRETTY GOOD ALTERNATIVE TO THE PRESIDENT IF HE CAN WORK OUT A PRESIDENT IF HE CAN WORK OUT A PLEA DEAL. PLEA DEAL.>>CONGRESSMAN JOE WALSH.>>CONGRESSMAN JOE WALSH. DO YOU AGREE? DO YOU AGREE?>>THIS ISN’T COMPLICATED.>>THIS ISN’T COMPLICATED. I BEGIN WHERE YOU ENDED. I BEGIN WHERE YOU ENDED. DONALD TRUMP NEEDS TO BE DONALD TRUMP NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED, PERIOD. IMPEACHED, PERIOD. AS BILL WELD JUST SAID, HE TOLD AS BILL WELD JUST SAID, HE TOLD A FOREIGN LEADER TWO MONTHS AGO A FOREIGN LEADER TWO MONTHS AGO TO INTERFERE IN OUR 2020 TO INTERFERE IN OUR 2020 ELECTION. ELECTION. HE NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED. HE NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED. HE HAS OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. HE HAS OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. IN 2016 HE ENCOURAGED AND IN 2016 HE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN WELCOMED RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION. OUR ELECTION. HE IS A KING. HE IS A KING. HE IS A WOULD-BE DICTATOR. HE IS A WOULD-BE DICTATOR. THIS ISN’T COMPLICATED. THIS ISN’T COMPLICATED. 2020 IS A REFERENDUM ON TRUMP. 2020 IS A REFERENDUM ON TRUMP. IT’S NOT ABOUT ANY ISSUE. IT’S NOT ABOUT ANY ISSUE. IT’S NOT ABOUT THE DEBT. IT’S NOT ABOUT THE DEBT. IT’S NOT ABOUT TARIFFS. IT’S NOT ABOUT TARIFFS. IT’S ABOUT THIS MAN WHO IS IT’S ABOUT THIS MAN WHO IS UNFIT, THIS MAN WHO IS A CLEAR UNFIT, THIS MAN WHO IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THIS AND PRESENT DANGER TO THIS COUNTRY F. MY COUNTRY F. MY COUNTRY. COUNTRY. IF MY PARTY CONTINUES THE IF MY PARTY CONTINUES THE SILENCE THE PARTY WILL BE DEAD SILENCE THE PARTY WILL BE DEAD AFTER 2020. AFTER 2020.>>GOVERNOR SANFORD, YOU HAVE>>GOVERNOR SANFORD, YOU HAVE JUST HEARD GOVERNOR WELD JUST HEARD GOVERNOR WELD INDICATE THAT HE FEELS IT IS INDICATE THAT HE FEELS IT IS TREASON. TREASON. YOU HEARD JOE TALK ABOUT THE YOU HEARD JOE TALK ABOUT THE MISGIVINGS ABOUT WHAT HE IS MISGIVINGS ABOUT WHAT HE IS DOING EVERY DAY AS PRESIDENT. DOING EVERY DAY AS PRESIDENT. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WHY SO SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WHY SO MANY OF YOUR FORMER COLLEAGUES MANY OF YOUR FORMER COLLEAGUES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND GOVERNORS AROUND THE COUNTRY AND GOVERNORS AROUND THE COUNTRY WHO YOU KNOW, REPUBLICANS WHO WHO YOU KNOW, REPUBLICANS WHO YOU KNOW, WHY DO THEY SELL THEIR YOU KNOW, WHY DO THEY SELL THEIR SOULS TO SILENCE RATHER THAN SOULS TO SILENCE RATHER THAN STANDING UP FOR THE UNITED STANDING UP FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? STATES OF AMERICA?>>WELL, THE OBVIOUS, THE NAME>>WELL, THE OBVIOUS, THE NAME OF THE GAME IS STAYING IN THE OF THE GAME IS STAYING IN THE GAME FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE IN GAME FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE IN POLITICS. POLITICS. EVERYBODY IS DRAWING THEIR OWN EVERYBODY IS DRAWING THEIR OWN LINE IN TERMS OF WHERE THEY ARE LINE IN TERMS OF WHERE THEY ARE ON THAT PARTICULAR DEBATE. ON THAT PARTICULAR DEBATE. I THINK YOU KNOW WHERE THE THREE I THINK YOU KNOW WHERE THE THREE OF US ARE. OF US ARE. I WOULD GO BACK SIMPLY TO THE I WOULD GO BACK SIMPLY TO THE OP-ED WHICH IS AT THE END OF THE OP-ED WHICH IS AT THE END OF THE DAY, HOLDING ELECTIONS — DAY, HOLDING ELECTIONS — HOLDING OR NOT HOLDING ELECTIONS HOLDING OR NOT HOLDING ELECTIONS IS THE KEY TO MAKING A DEMOCRACY IS THE KEY TO MAKING A DEMOCRACY IN A REPUBLIC WORK. IN A REPUBLIC WORK. THE IDEA OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THE IDEA OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BEING THE PARTY ABOUT BEING THE PARTY ABOUT DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN TERMS OF DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN TERMS OF VOTER INVOLVEMENT I THINK IS A VOTER INVOLVEMENT I THINK IS A REALLY BAD SIGNAL TO BE SENDING. REALLY BAD SIGNAL TO BE SENDING. I THINK THIS IDEA OF DISBANDING I THINK THIS IDEA OF DISBANDING ELECTIONS IS ALSO BAD JUST ON ELECTIONS IS ALSO BAD JUST ON THE STANDPOINT OF PRODUCING THE STANDPOINT OF PRODUCING BETTER CANDIDATES. BETTER CANDIDATES. THE IDEA OF FOOTBALL TEAMS THE IDEA OF FOOTBALL TEAMS SAYING WE WILL NOT PRACTICE THIS SAYING WE WILL NOT PRACTICE THIS WEEK. WEEK. WE’RE JUST GOING TO SAVE OUR WE’RE JUST GOING TO SAVE OUR ENERGY FOR THE GAME ON FRIDAY ENERGY FOR THE GAME ON FRIDAY NIGHT WOULD BE VIEWED AS CRAZY NIGHT WOULD BE VIEWED AS CRAZY BY A COACH. BY A COACH. YET THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THE YET THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS DOING IN REPUBLICAN PARTY IS DOING IN SOUTH CAROLINA WHERE THEY SAID SOUTH CAROLINA WHERE THEY SAID WE ARE JUST GOING TO HOLD ON TO WE ARE JUST GOING TO HOLD ON TO EVERYTHING AND JUST WAIT UNTIL EVERYTHING AND JUST WAIT UNTIL NEXT NOVEMBER. NEXT NOVEMBER. YOU HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF YOU HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF CANDIDATES ON THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE SCRIMMAGEING AND PLAYING SIDE SCRIMMAGEING AND PLAYING AWFULLY HARD GETTING READY FOR AWFULLY HARD GETTING READY FOR THAT GAME COME NOVEMBER NEXT. THAT GAME COME NOVEMBER NEXT.>>MICHAEL STEEL HERE.>>MICHAEL STEEL HERE. GOOD TO SEE ALL OF YOUR GOOD TO SEE ALL OF YOUR GENTLEMEN. GENTLEMEN. I WANT TO THROW IT ON THE TABLE I WANT TO THROW IT ON THE TABLE STARTING WITH GOVERNOR SANFORD. STARTING WITH GOVERNOR SANFORD. THE RNC COUPLED WITH THE VARIOUS THE RNC COUPLED WITH THE VARIOUS STATES TO THE POINT YOU WERE STATES TO THE POINT YOU WERE JUST MAKING DECIDED TO START TO JUST MAKING DECIDED TO START TO SHUT DOWN THE PRIMARY PROCESS. SHUT DOWN THE PRIMARY PROCESS. ARE YOU OR ALL THREE OF YOU ARE YOU OR ALL THREE OF YOU PREPARED TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION, PREPARED TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION, BRING SOME LEGAL RECOURSE TO THE BRING SOME LEGAL RECOURSE TO THE CONVERSATION ON BEHALF OF CONVERSATION ON BEHALF OF YOURSELVES AND THE PRIMARY YOURSELVES AND THE PRIMARY PROCESS? PROCESS? HOW CITIZENS ARE BEING HOW CITIZENS ARE BEING DISENFRANCHISED FROM THE PROCESS DISENFRANCHISED FROM THE PROCESS ON A LARGER SCALE BY BEGINNING ON A LARGER SCALE BY BEGINNING TO SHUT DOWN THE EFFORT TO GO TO SHUT DOWN THE EFFORT TO GO OUT AND VOTE FOR A ANYONE OF OUT AND VOTE FOR A ANYONE OF YOU. YOU. IT’S A COMPETITIVE PROCESS. IT’S A COMPETITIVE PROCESS.>>SURE.>>SURE. I ACTUALLY HELD A SERIES OF I ACTUALLY HELD A SERIES OF PRESS CONFERENCES ACROSS SOUTH PRESS CONFERENCES ACROSS SOUTH CAROLINA LAST MONDAY. CAROLINA LAST MONDAY. I TALKED ABOUT WAIT A MINUTE, I TALKED ABOUT WAIT A MINUTE, NOT ONLY IS IT ABOUT NOT ONLY IS IT ABOUT DISENFRANCHISEMENT, THIS IS DISENFRANCHISEMENT, THIS IS ABOUT SOMETHING A WHOLE LOT ABOUT SOMETHING A WHOLE LOT SIMPLER WHICH IS IT DOESN’T MAKE SIMPLER WHICH IS IT DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE. ANY SENSE. THE WORLD OF POLITICS, IF YOU THE WORLD OF POLITICS, IF YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO PICK UP AN HAVE A CHANCE TO PICK UP AN ALLEGED 80% OR 90% WIN WHICH IS ALLEGED 80% OR 90% WIN WHICH IS WHAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN SUGGESTS WHAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN SUGGESTS THEY HAVE, YOU TAKE IT. THEY HAVE, YOU TAKE IT. PARTICULARLY IF IT IS THE FIRST PARTICULARLY IF IT IS THE FIRST IN THE SOUTH PRIMARY. IN THE SOUTH PRIMARY. IT SAYS TO A LOT OF FOLKS THAT IT SAYS TO A LOT OF FOLKS THAT TRUMP SUPPORTERS ARE A MILE WIDE TRUMP SUPPORTERS ARE A MILE WIDE AND AN INCH DEEP. AND AN INCH DEEP.>>TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES,>>TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, WE ARE GOING TO FIGHT THIS WITH WE ARE GOING TO FIGHT THIS WITH EVERYTHING WE’VE GOT. EVERYTHING WE’VE GOT. THIS IS ABOUT THIS IS ABOUT DISENFRANCHISEMENT. DISENFRANCHISEMENT. THIS ISN’T RUSSIA. THIS ISN’T RUSSIA. THIS ISN’T CHINA. THIS ISN’T CHINA. YOU JUST CAN’T CANCEL ELECTIONS YOU JUST CAN’T CANCEL ELECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THAT’S WHAT DONALD TRUMP IS THAT’S WHAT DONALD TRUMP IS DOING. DOING. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, THIS MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, THIS IS DONALD TRUMP TELLING THE IS DONALD TRUMP TELLING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BOSSES WHAT REPUBLICAN PARTY BOSSES WHAT FOODO, BECAUSE THE REPUBLICAN FOODO, BECAUSE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BOSSES, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BOSSES, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ESTABLISHMENT, ALL THEY PARTY ESTABLISHMENT, ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS WASH THEIR WANT TO DO IS WASH THEIR DICTATOR’S FEET EVERY DAY Y. GO DICTATOR’S FEET EVERY DAY Y. GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID BEFORE. BACK TO WHAT I SAID BEFORE. THIS PRESIDENT NEEDS TO BE THIS PRESIDENT NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED. IMPEACHED. THAT’S ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW. THAT’S ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NEEDS TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NEEDS TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO DO WHAT’S HAVE THE COURAGE TO DO WHAT’S RIGHT. RIGHT.>>GOVERNOR WELD, YOU WENT A>>GOVERNOR WELD, YOU WENT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER THAN JUST LITTLE BIT FURTHER THAN JUST IMPEACHMENT IN YOUR PRIOR IMPEACHMENT IN YOUR PRIOR COMMENTS. COMMENTS. AND I JUST WANT TO CONTINUE WITH AND I JUST WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THAT A BIT. THAT A BIT. YOU SAID THAT DONALD TRUMP HAS YOU SAID THAT DONALD TRUMP HAS COMMITTED TREASON AND THE COMMITTED TREASON AND THE PENALTY FOR TREASON UNDER PENALTY FOR TREASON UNDER AMERICAN LAW IS DEATH. AMERICAN LAW IS DEATH. WHAT’S THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK HERE? WHAT’S THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK HERE? HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO THIS? HAVE YOU LOOKED INTO THIS? HOW DO YOU SEE THIS PROCEEDING? HOW DO YOU SEE THIS PROCEEDING?>>THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IS UNDER>>THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IS UNDER THE U.S. CODE. THE U.S. CODE. THE ONLY PENALTY FOR TREASON IS THE ONLY PENALTY FOR TREASON IS DEATH. DEATH. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF OFFICE, GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF OFFICE, IMPEACHMENT ARE TREASON, BRIBERY IMPEACHMENT ARE TREASON, BRIBERY OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND OR OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. MISDEMEANORS. WE DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WE DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BRIBERY ANYMORE. BRIBERY ANYMORE. WE DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WE DON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS ALTHOUGH I THINK HE MISDEMEANORS ALTHOUGH I THINK HE COMMITTED MANY. COMMITTED MANY. WE HAVE TREASON. WE HAVE TREASON. WE CAN GO RIGHT FOR THE HOOP. WE CAN GO RIGHT FOR THE HOOP. THIS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN TRYING THIS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN TRYING TO CANCEL THIS ELECTION FOR TO CANCEL THIS ELECTION FOR MONTHS. MONTHS. HE TRIED TO CANCEL THE NEW HE TRIED TO CANCEL THE NEW HAMPSHIRE FIRST IN THE NATION HAMPSHIRE FIRST IN THE NATION PRIMARY. PRIMARY. THAT WENT OVER LIKE A LEAD THAT WENT OVER LIKE A LEAD BALLOON IN NEW HAMPSHIRE BECAUSE BALLOON IN NEW HAMPSHIRE BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT STUPID. THEY’RE NOT STUPID. THE PEOPLE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE WERE THE PEOPLE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE WERE THE FIRST ONES TO STAND UP TO THE FIRST ONES TO STAND UP TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THIS YEAR. PRESIDENT TRUMP THIS YEAR. IT’S WELL PAST TIME FOR THIS IT’S WELL PAST TIME FOR THIS GUY, IN MY OPINION, TO BE CARTED GUY, IN MY OPINION, TO BE CARTED OFF TO SAVE US ALL. OFF TO SAVE US ALL. HE’S DARING US ALL TO LET HIM BE HE’S DARING US ALL TO LET HIM BE TOTALLY LAWLESS. TOTALLY LAWLESS. HE HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW. HE HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW. HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE BASE UNDER HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE BASE UNDER ANY ISSUES. ANY ISSUES. WHY DO WE WANT THIS MAN AS WHY DO WE WANT THIS MAN AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? I DON’T GET IT. I DON’T GET IT. NOW THE PATH IS CLEAR. NOW THE PATH IS CLEAR. IT’S A WHOLE NEW LEVEL, AND WE IT’S A WHOLE NEW LEVEL, AND WE HAVE TO COUNT NOSES AMONG THE HAVE TO COUNT NOSES AMONG THE REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE. REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE. IF THEY WON’T SAPE THIS IS A IF THEY WON’T SAPE THIS IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR FOR US, THEN THEY BRIDGE TOO FAR FOR US, THEN THEY REALLY HAVE NO CHANCE AT THE REALLY HAVE NO CHANCE AT THE BALLOT BOX NEXT YEAR, NOT JUST BALLOT BOX NEXT YEAR, NOT JUST PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT THOSE PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT THOSE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.>>ALL RIGHT.>>ALL RIGHT. MARK SANFORD, WILLIAM WELD AND MARK SANFORD, WILLIAM WELD AND JOE WALSH. JOE WALSH. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR BEING THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR BEING WITH US. WITH US.>>I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS>>I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS JOINT INTERVIEW. JOINT INTERVIEW.>>>UP NEXT, JUDGING BY THE>>>UP NEXT, JUDGING BY THE PRINCIPLES HELD UP BY MIKE PENCE PRINCIPLES HELD UP BY MIKE PENCE OVER DECADES. OVER DECADES. HE WOULDN’T BE STANDING FOR ANY HE WOULDN’T BE STANDING FOR ANY OF THIS. OF THIS. HOW DOES THE VICE PRESIDENT HOW DOES THE VICE PRESIDENT RATIONALIZE HIS SERVICE TO RATIONALIZE HIS SERVICE TO DONALD TRUMP? DONALD TRUMP? WE’LL TALK TO THE AUTHOR OF THE

Republican presidential candidate Bill Weld campaigns in Manchester


BUT HE WARNED AGAINST
UNREALISTIC PROMISES HE
SAYS áTHIS UNION MADE
TO EMPLOYEES. MONICA? REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
BILL WELD WAS ALSO IN
NEW HAMPSHIRE TODAY. WE CAUGHT UP WITH HIM AT
HIS CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS
IN MANCHESTER. THAT’S WHERE HE SAID HE
LOVES CAMPAIGNING AND CAN
FEEL MOMENTUM
GROWING AMONG VOTERS HERE. WELD CALLS HIMSELF AN
ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVE
INTERESTED IN CONSERVING
THE ENVIRONMENT.

Trump’s challengers accuse GOP of rigging election efforts


♪ ♪>>Lisa: WELCOME BACK TO “OUTNUMBERED.” G.O.P. CHALLENGERS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP ARE CRYING FOUL OVER REPORTS THAT FOUR STATES — SOUTH CAROLINA, NEVADA, ARIZONA, AND KANSAS — ARE POISED TO CANCEL THEIR 2020 PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES. THAT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY END OR EVEN A LONG SHOT AGAINST TRUMP FOR THE G.O.P. NOMINATION, AND ONE OF THOSE CHALLENGERS, JOE WALSH, IS TWEETING, “LIKE A MOB BOSS, DONALD TRUMP ORDERS THE ELIMINATION OF PRIMARIES. THIS IS WRONG, THIS IS UNDEMOCRATIC, THIS IS WHAT A POLITICAL PARTY DOES WHEN IT SERVES A KING.” ANOTHER CANDIDATE, THE BILL WELD, ALSO TREATING COME “BY TURNS, ARROGANT AND PARANOID, DONALD TRUMP HAS MADE NO SECRET OF THE FACT HE WANTS TO BE CROWNED A PRESIDENT RATHER THAN ELECTED. THAT MIGHT BE FIND IN A BUT WE OVERTHREW HOURS TO CENTURIES AGO. CLOSELY MEETINGS THIS WEEKEND, ALSO WORTH NOTING, BOTH PARTIES HAVE CANCELED PRIMARIES IN THE STATES GOING BACK TO 1984. I’M GOING TO START WITH YOU. IS IT SMART OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO TRY AND AVOID THIS CONTESTED REPUBLICAN PRIMARY, LIKE US OUT WITH GERALD FORD, JIMMY CARTER, GEORGE W. BUSH?>>Brian: I DON’T THINK IT REALLY MATTERS THAT MUCH. THE ONLY REASON WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS BECAUSE PRIMARY CHALLENGERS WHO DON’T HAVE A CHANCE ARE LOOKING FOR SOME WAY TO BOOST JUST A LITTLE BIT. SO THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT THIS. BUT THIS HAS BEEN DONE BY BOTH PARTIES FOR VERY LONG TIME. ARE WE REALLY TALKING ABOUT A SERIOUS PRIMARY CHALLENGER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP? WHY BUT THE PRESIDENT WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY AND TIME DEALING WITH THAT? WE DON’T HAVE A SERIOUS PRIMARY –>>Lisa: TO THAT POINT, WHY IS IT GETTING SO MUCH ATTENTION? WE SAW IN 2012 WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA, ALSO WITH GEORGE W. BUSH, STATES CANCELING THEIR PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES SIMILARLY.>>Jessica: EXCEPT THERE WAS NOT A PRIMARY CHALLENGER. THAT’S A KEY COMPONENT THAT’S DIFFERENT. YOU CAN SAY IT’S NOT SERIOUS, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT BILL WELD AND JOE WALSH THINK IT’S SERIOUS. WE ARE FAR OUT. I UNDERSTANDS LONG SHOT BUT THEY HAVE A CASE TO MEET CARE. SAYING THAT BOTH SIDES HAVE DONE IT WITH HER WAS NO COMPETITION, IT’S NOT A FAIR COMPARISON. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID THESE GUYS ARE JOKERS AND HE DOESN’T FEAR THEM PARTS OF THE SO LET THEM BE ON THE BALLOT. HE’S IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY RIGHT NOW. HE COULD TELL THEM, “MAKE SURE THEY ARE ON THE BALLOT AND PART OF THE PRIMARY.” IF YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO WIN, FACE THE COMPETITION.>>Lisa: BUT IF YOU HAVE AN INCUMBENT PRESIDENT, THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY THAT OF THE PARTY. SO WOULD YOU MAKE OF WHAT JESSICA JUST SAID?>>Melissa: THEY ARE THAT OF THE PARTY, BUT I THINK ALL DEBATE AND CONVERSATION SHOULD BE WELCOMED AND ENCOURAGED. THAT’S WHAT DEMOCRACY IS ABOUT. HE HAS A RIGHT TO TRY AND PUSH THEM OUT OF THE RACE AS A CANDIDATE, YOU WOULD EXPECT THEM TO DO THAT. HE WOULD EXPECT THEM TO REALLY FIGHT TO THE DEATH FOR SOMETHING THAT HE REALLY WANTS TO DO. SO, I DON’T KNOW. I CAN SEE BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE. I THINK THINK YOU SHOULD N I THINK THINK YOU SHOULD D I THINK THINK YOU SHOULD S I THINK THINK YOU SHOULD O I THINK THINK YOU SHOULD E THEM OUT AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE WELCOME.>>Lisa: HARRIS?>>Harris: IT’S NOT THAT ANYBODY ON THAT SCREEN WOULD BE ABLE TO BEAT DONALD TRUMP. [LAUGHS] NOT AT THIS POINT, ANYWAY. SO, WHAT HARM WOULD IT DO TO HAVE THE PROCESS FOLLOW THROUGH? I WILL SAY THIS — THINGS HAPPEN. AS WE SAW WITH HILLARY CLINTON AND BARACK OBAMA A FEW YEARS AGO, REMEMBER WHEN THEY WERE STILL BATTLING IT OUT? AND THEN CAME OUT THE REVEREND WRIGHT TAPE, THINGS CAN HAPPEN. WHAT I WOULD HOPE FOR ANY PARTY, BUT IN THIS CASE REPUBLICANS, WHAT IF PRESIDENT TRUMP — I DON’T KNOW, WHAT IF HE HAS A MIND CHANGE? WHAT IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN BEFORE THAT ELECTION POINT? THERE IS NO WAY HE WOULD BEAT THE DEMOCRAT BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE UP WITH ANYONE HAS LOOKED AT. NONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAS THAT MUCH NAME RECOGNITION, DO THEY? AND LOOKING BIG PICTURE, FAR OUT. MAYBE THAT’S TOO MUCH FANTASY, BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS NOTHING TO LOSE. IT TAKES A LOT TO CHALLENGE AN INCUMBENT WITH A GOOD ECONOMY. YOU SEE THE JOBS NUMBERS?>>Lisa: BRIAN?>>Brian: EVEN IF WE GO THIS ROUTE, EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE THE PRIMARIES, IF THIS IS A BAD DECISION AND REPUBLICAN VOTERS DON’T LIKE IT, THEY WON’T SHOW UP AT THE POLLS. THIS IS NOT — THEY THOUGHT ABOUT THIS. I THINK IT COMES THE CONCLUSION,

Keller @ Large: Former Gov. Bill Weld On Running As Republican Despite Past Conflict With Party


WELCOME BACK TO OUR CONVERSATION WITH REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BILL WELD. TO THE EXTENT THAT CHOOSING A PARTY NOMINEE IS A PARTY PROCESS, ALTHOUGH INDEPENDENTS CAN VOTE, DOES IT MATTER YOU HAVE FAILED TO HIDE YOUR DISTAIN OVER THE YEARS? YOU WON IN 1990 DESPITE BEING REJECTED BY THE MASS CONVENTION, EVEN THOUGH YOU WON THE PRIMARY GOING AWAY, OSTRACIZED IN THE 1990s, BLOCKED FROM THE AMBASSADORSHIP TO MEXICO, AND YOU DID LITTLE TO BUILD THE STATE AS GOVERNOR 3 YEARS AGO. I CALL THEM LIKE I SEE THEM, AND I COULDN’T PREVENT JESSE HELMS FROM ACTING UNREASONABLY, BUT THIS YEAR’S ELECTION, PEOPLE SAY THE STATE PARTIES F TRUMP ALL THE WAY, 100-0, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO TURN THEM AROUND? THE ANSWER IS NOTHING. I’M NOT GOING TO WOO THE STATE PARTIES. THEY ARE THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION IN EACH OF THE 50 STATES. WHAT I’M GOING TO DO IS ENLARGE THE ELECTORATE THAT WILL VOTE IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES, AND BRING IN THE MILLENNIALS, NOW THE LARGEST VOTING GROUP IN THE COUNTRY WHO WILL BE KILLED BY HIS TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS AND HIS DENIAL OF CLIMATE CHANGE, AND IT’S THE MILLENNIALS THAT WILL HAVE THE WHIRLWIND THERE, NEVER SEEING THE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS, AND THEIR PROPERTIES WILL BE UNDER WATER, AND THEY KNOW THAT. THEY ARE THE YOUNG PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT STUPID, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, AS NEAR AS I CAN SEE HAS DECLARED WAR ON ALL WOMEN WITH THE STATUTES SAYING IF YOU GET RAPED SWEET HEART, YOU TO BRING THE BABY TO TERM AND BRING IT UP AND THINK OF THE RAPIST EVERY DAY. THAT’S THE LAW. THAT’S UNCONSCIONABLE, AND IT’S NOT JUST SUBURBAN WOMEN, ALL WOMEN WHO SHOULD BE JUST DISGUSTED WITH WHAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS DOING. I THINK I CAN ENLARGE THE ELECTORATE TO THE POINT WHERE 70% OF MILLENNIALS VOTED INSTEAD OF 49% LIKE LAST TIME. MR.TRUMP WILL NOT WIN A SINGLE PRIMARY IF THAT HAPPENS. I WANT TO GO OFF THE TOPIC. GRATEFUL DEAD, PERHAPS? I WISH. YOU’RE THE FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR MASSACHUSETTS, AND I WONDER IF YOU AGREE WITH THE BOSTON CITY COUNCILORS, WHO THIS WEEK, OR THIS PAST WEEK, DENOUNCED THE PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION OF TWO CITY HALL AIDES FOR PRESSURING — I’M SURE YOU’RE FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE. I DON’T AGREE. WITH THE COUNCILORS? THAT’S CORRECT. WE HAD 110 CONVICTIONS IN PUBLIC CORRUPTION CASES, AND WE HAD A MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AGAINST US ON THE MATTER IT’S LOCAL CONCERN, AND IT’S NOT BUSINESS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IF SOME STATE OR CITY OFFICIAL WANTS TO TAKE A BRIBE, WELL THEY ALL LOST, BUT IT SHOWS HOW DEEP OUR WAY, THE ONLY WAY, RUNS. THEY DIDN’T TAKE BRIBES. I UNDERSTAND, BUT IT’S THE SAME SENTIMENT. PEOPLE BRINGING THE CASES ARE TROUBLEMAKERS, THAT’S WHAT PEOPLE SAY ABOUT US, BUT THE FEDERAL JUDGES DID NOT AGREE WITH THEM. IF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT YOUR PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN? WELD2020.ORG. ALWAYS GREAT TO SEE YOU.

Why are some states canceling their GOP primaries and caucuses?


-The three people
are a total joke. They’re a joke. They’re a laughingstock. -Some Republican Party
state officials are canceling GOP primaries and caucuses
for the 2020 election. So far, Nevada, South Carolina,
Arizona, and Kansas have nixed plans
to hold these events. This means that residents
of these states will not have the option
to vote for President Trump’s Republican
primary challengers, Joe Walsh, Mark Sanford,
and Bill Weld. This is especially significant
in South Carolina and Nevada, two of the earliest
voting states in the primary
election cycle. Winning primaries
and caucuses here is key for any candidate seeking
their party’s nomination. -I would say this —
they’re all at less than 1%. I guess it’s a publicity stunt. -While the move clearly benefits
Trump by eliminating his competitors
from these early ballots, canceling primary elections
is actually common. The decision to hold a primary
or caucus is ultimately left up to the
party officials in that state. There are several instances
of state party leadership making the decision to forego
their nominating contests during a sitting
incumbent’s reelection year. This happened in 1992
during President George H. W.
Bush’s reelection bid. Eight states canceled
the Republican primaries and caucuses. His son, who faced
no major challengers, received the same treatment during his reelection
campaign in 2004, when 10 states canceled
their primaries. And it happens on both sides
of the aisle. When President Barack Obama
ran for a second term in 2012, 10 states canceled Democratic
primaries and caucuses. As for the 2020 primary season,
President Trump has said that canceling these elections
will save states money. -And those four states
don’t want to waste their money. Having primary campaigns and having a primary election
is very expensive. -His primary opponents
see it differently. -South Carolina, Arizona,
Nevada, and Kansas. I mean, think about this,
Anderson. They are denying Americans
the right to vote. -The odds of these candidates securing the 2020
Republican nomination are slim, and without primaries
or caucuses in key states, they’re looking at even
more of an uphill battle.

Why This Republican Governor is Running Against President Trump


MICHAEL ISIKOFF: It
was that rare event in Washington, an actual
resignation based on principle. 31 years ago this
month, William Weld was assistant attorney general
in charge of the Justice Department’s criminal division. But then, in a move that
shocked the capital, Weld, along with five Justice
Department colleagues, including the deputy attorney
general, quit in protest. The then-attorney
general, Edwin Meese, was embroiled in controversy,
under investigation by a special prosecutor over
allegations of corruption. Weld and his colleagues
were convinced the swirl of
allegations around Meese were tarnishing the
reputation of the department. “These are truly
resignations of conscience. They simply couldn’t work
for Ed Meese any longer,” one department official
told the New York Times. Weld’s resignation was only one
of a series of pivotal events in a lengthy career that
has included serving on the staff of the House
impeachment Committee that investigated Richard
Nixon, serving as US attorney in Boston, where he
prosecuted mobsters and big financial
institutions, and being elected twice in the 1990s
as governor of Massachusetts. He got some bit of
attention three years ago when he bolted the
Republican Party to run for vise president on
the Libertarian Party ticket. But now, he could get
a lot more attention. He’s recently announced he’s
set up an exploratory committee to test the waters for
a primary challenge to Donald Trump, who he
recently said is, quote, “simply too unstable to carry
out the duties of the highest executive office.” How serious is Weld? Does he have a chance? And how is a one-time
top prosecutor? Does he assess the
president’s legal troubles? We’ll talk to him about that,
and lots more on this episode of “Skullduggery.” RICHARD NIXON: Because people
have got to know whether or not their president’s a crook. Well, I’m not a crook. RONALD REAGAN: I told
the American people, I did not trade
arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions
still tell me that’s true. But the facts and the
evidence tell me it is not. BILL CLINTON: I did not
have sexual relations with that woman. DONALD TRUMP: There
will be no lies. We will honor the American
people with the truth and nothing else. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
I’m Michael Isikoff, chief investigative
correspondent for Yahoo News. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: And
I’m Dan Klaidman, editor in chief of Yahoo News. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: You know, it
is so interesting to look back at that moment at the end of
the Reagan administration, when people at the
Justice Department actually quit on an issue
of conscience and principle. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Yeah. I started covering Justice
just a few years after that. And I remember that
that event kind of hung over the department. It was this kind
of dramatic thing. And what it said was that if
you politicize the Justice Department, or if you acted
as attorney general in a way without integrity, there
were consequences for that, you know? People would
actually take action. And you sort of wonder, like,
man, have times changed? Because there was always this
question in the first couple of years of the
Trump administration, all the crazy things that
were happening at Justice, and this president
attacking the Justice Department, and Sessions. And meanwhile, Rod Rosenstein– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Right,
right, you know– DANIEL KLAIDMAN: He didn’t quit! Right? He would have had reasons to
quit in an act of conscience. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: He got used
by the president to fire Comey. He had serious questions about
the president’s stability, based on all the
reports we’ve gotten, and actually even raising
the issue of 25th Amendment. And he watched the president
attack the special counsel, Robert Mueller,
who he, Rosenstein, selected, and was overseeing. And yet, rod, just
continued into– I guess he’s stepping
down in the next few days. But, man, it would be
interesting to hear his perspective– DANIEL KLAIDMAN: With a
whimper, not with a bang. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Yeah. But hear his perspective on
what Bill Weld did 30 years ago. DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
And that’s why I’m really excited to interview Weld
on this episode of the show. He is such an
interesting character. And look, I mean, right now,
does he have any chance? Do we think he has any
chance of defeating Donald Trump in his primary challenge? Probably not. Certainly, a real
kind of long shot. but he’s going to be
a really interesting candidate out there. And it’s funny, I was thinking
that maybe within a few weeks, Trump won’t have Robert
Mueller to contend with. Because his report will be out. And Mueller will shut down. But he may have Bill Weld
out there, a former head of the Criminal
Division, US attorney, mob-busting, corruption-busting,
gun-slinging prosecutor. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Right. A guy who knows how to make
criminal cases, RICO cases, to put pieces of
evidence together to build the grounds
for making a crime, for charging somebody
with a crime. So it’ll be really interesting
to hear how he assesses Trump’s legal vulnerability. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: And the
other thing I’d say about Weld is, I’ve always thought that
whoever challenges Donald Trump, to be successful,
either on the Democratic side or in a primary challenge,
you’ve got to be, in some ways, kind of a
larger-than-life character to deal with Donald Trump’s
oversized personality. And I think that is Bill Weld. I mean, a lot of
people may remember this really amazing moment
when he was governor, governor of Massachusetts. He was touting his
environmental record, having cleaned another Charles River. And he was giving a press
conference right there on the Charles River. And at the end of
it, what did he do, in is Brooks Brothers suit? He just turned around and
he dove into the river. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Yeah. Well, actually my favorite
anecdote from those days is, Weld is a true Brahman. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Blue blood. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
One of his ancestors was among the earliest students,
class of 1650, at Harvard. And then 18 more
Welds went to Harvard. Two buildings are named
for the family when the then-Massachusetts Senate
president Billy Bulger teased him about his
all-American heritage, and Weld pointing out
that his ancestors had come over on the
Mayflower, Weld corrected him. Actually, they weren’t
on the Mayflower. They sent the servants over
first to get the cottage ready, which I thought was
a pretty good line. Anyway, on that note, why
don’t we bring in Bill Weld. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Excellent. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: OK. We are now joined
by Governor Bill Weld, who recently launched his
exploratory bid for president. And, Governor, welcome
to “Skulduggery.” BILL WELD: Great to be here. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: So
when you announced, you called the president
a schoolyard bully. And you said,
Washington Republicans were exhibiting all the
symptoms of Stockholm syndrome. How do you break somebody
of Stockholm syndrome? BILL WELD: Stockholm
syndrome, just for the record, is when you are captured
by somebody, or some group, and you identify
with your captor. You kind of give up. And you throw in with them. And I get a little bit of that
sense of Washington these days, that that’s what has happened in
some of the halls of Congress. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: And to
what do you attribute that? BILL WELD: I don’t know. I find it hard to follow. I mean, I have long said
that the two-party system in Washington has gotten
inefficient, to put it mildly. Because all they really care
about is getting re-elected. And that means demonizing
the other party, so you can motivate your base
to give you a lot of money, so you will have the
funds to pay for ads, so you can get re-elected. It’s kind of a vicious circle. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Yeah. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Well,
I guess, Governor, you were talking about
Republicans in Washington, elected officials. But, I mean, all
the latest polls show that 90% of Republicans
around the country support Donald Trump. Are they experiencing
Stockholm syndrome? BILL WELD: What I say to that
is that six months is forever in politics, as we all know. Which means two years
is four times forever. And don’t tell me nothing’s
going to change between now and election day of 2020. Matter of fact, it could come
sooner rather than later. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: And, plus, they
haven’t had a choice, right? Because there’s no one. And now, they might. Because you may– BILL WELD: Yeah. I mean, the reason I spoke
up and raised my hand is we know a lot more
about Donald J. Trump, and what his style of
governing, and the substance of his decisions in government,
than we did two years ago. I wouldn’t have raise
my hand and say, we have to throw this guy out
the day after he was elected. He won the election, after all. But now, we got a track record. And I think it
leaves a great deal to be desired, both domestically
and internationally. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Well,
what disturbs you the most about the president’s conduct? BILL WELD: I think his meanness. I mean, he says he’s
a counter-puncher. Baloney. That’s vindictiveness. And it’s often directed
at little people. Instincts, very bad. And it’s no secret that
his stock and trade is divisiveness, and trying
to stir up the pot, and pitch groups against each other. And as long as everyone’s
teeth are on edge, he’s happy. He thinks that’s good
for his politics. And that’s Steve Bannon
and Breitbart politics. And it’s something new
in the United States. And it’s nasty. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: But you
said something else about it. And let me read this quote. “Our president is
simply too unstable to carry out the
duties of the highest executive office in the land.” The Constitution, under
the 25th Amendment, contemplates a
scenario in which, if the president is
unstable, and can’t carry out his or her official
duties, they can be removed. Would you support the
cabinet and vise president invoking the 25th Amendment? BILL WELD: No, I don’t
think we’re quite there. But, apparently, there were some
such conversations very early in the administration, which got
the president’s full attention when he learned of it! MICHAEL ISIKOFF: At
the Justice Department! DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
And maybe there’s some people out there
who think you wouldn’t have to elaborate on this. But what do you
mean by “unstable”? BILL WELD: I remember
saying this in 2016. I said, the president’s
too unstable to lead the United States. If one of our children,
aged 10, acted that way at the dinner table,
we would require him to leave the dinner table. And that’s a 10-year-old child. So it’s just corking
off in all directions constantly, taking everything
personally, making himself the center of everything
that has to be considered. They call it narcissism. There’s a form of narcissism
called malignant narcissism, where an additional
wrinkle is you’re not happy unless other people are losing. And that has characterized the
president’s business career. Every time he went bankrupt in
Atlantic City, first of all, he would tell the banks,
unless you give me a lot more money than I had before
I declared bankruptcy, I’m walking, and
you’ll lose everything. You’ll lose all your collateral. So the banks went along and
gave him a lot of money. But my current point is, he made
certain that the little people didn’t get paid, the vendors
who had worked for him there, maybe $0.5, $0.10
on the dollar, maybe for great big ones who sued
him maybe, $0.30 on the dollar. But nobody got paid except him. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: So we’re
not quite at 25th Amendment territory, in your view. What about impeachment? BILL WELD: Well, I mean,
I think I’ve said often that the president is way beyond
anything Richard Nixon ever did in terms of fomenting
disrespect for the rule of law, trying to keep the Justice
Department from doing its constitutional duty of doing
justice without fear or favor– that’s kind of the
motto of the Justice. On the walls of the
Justice Department building in Washington, at
10th and Constitution, it says “a government of
laws, and not of men.” That, obviously, means nothing
to the current president of the United States. And that’s a sad state of
affairs, beyond sad, actually. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: All right. Well, you can speak with
some authority on this. Because you were on the staff
of the House Judiciary Committee during Richard
Nixon’s impeachment. DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
In fact, you were hired to research the legal
grounds for impeachment, right? BILL WELD: Yeah. No, that’s right. I worked on that
memo for five months. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
So are you saying that the president’s conduct– that’s already been made public,
that we know about, right now– is grounds to impeach him? BILL WELD: Well, impeachment
would lie, put it that way. But it’s a political remedy. And I understand that Speaker
Pelosi doesn’t want to go there if she feels that there are
never going to be the votes in the Senate to convict. So she’s fast forwarding
to the 2020 election. And I’ve come
around to that view. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: You think
that’s the right judgment? BILL WELD: I do. I do. I knew so much about the
grounds for impeachment that, months ago,
I was thinking, oh, boy, that’s what’s coming. But I now think, because of the
essentially political nature of the impeachment process,
that discretion may be the better part of valor. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Are you saying
that, even if the Democrats had the votes in the Senate, that
because the process would be perceived as being so
political, that impeachment shouldn’t be an option? BILL WELD: Oh, no. If the Democrats had
the votes in the Senate, this thing would go through
like suet through a goose. Are you kidding me? DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Right. And under that scenario,
would you be in favor of pursuing impeachment? I know you’re not a Democrat. BILL WELD: Well, it’s
not my yob, as they say. I don’t think all the
facts are out there. But I do think that the
facts that are public put this president well beyond
what President Nixon did. And if memory serves, there were
three articles of impeachment that were voted through– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Well beyond
what Richard Nixon did. BILL WELD: That’s my view. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Give me
the particulars that– give me the particulars. BILL WELD: Well, where to start? Expressing disrespect
for the rule of law; telling the head of the
FBI that his job was to be loyal to the president,
that everyone had to be a respecter of persons, and,
in particular, one person, and that’s how the world works. Well, that’s not
how the world works when the constitutional
scheme is being carried out. And that’s the ultimate
grounds for impeachment, of removal of an
officer, is interference with the constitutional scheme. And this president has done
almost nothing except that, hollowing out the
State Department, hollowing out the
Justice Department, and telling the Justice
Department that its job, essentially, is to
be loyal to him, and protect his
political skirts. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: So, if you– BILL WELD: That’s not their job. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: If you
had your old job of being on the staff of the
Judiciary Committee, and you were drafting
articles, how would they read? How many articles
would there be? And would you– BILL WELD: Well, I was about
to say that the article that got the most votes in
the Nixon impeachment in the House Judiciary
Committee was Article II, called agency abuse. And it was misuse of
the FBI and the CIA by trying to direct
them not to pursue the Watergate
inquiry on the ground that it involved
national security. That was the offense. Now, we’ve seen more than
that from this president. It doesn’t have the
additional characteristic of being in
Technicolor and lurid detail in terms of the
tapes that Mr. Nixon kept. But, essentially– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Which was
helpful to making the case. In fact, that’s
what pushed it over. It was the tapes. BILL WELD: Yeah. I’m not sure, if
those tapes hadn’t existed, that things would have
panned out the way they did. But since the tapes were there,
it was possible to conclude that Mr. Nixon had been
lying to the American people on television for months, and
months, and months, saying, I am not a crook when he had
directed Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman to go do this and
try and get the investigation quashed on the
ground that it was trenching on national security. That was nothing but a lie. And I think we’ve seen– I do think it’s fair to say that
the president is a loose man with the truth, this president. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
[LAUGH] You think? BILL WELD: And we’ve
seen a lot of stuff, daily basis, come out
of the president’s mouth that is not true. And one of the things that
galls me is the president is the worst possible role
model for our children and grandchildren. They’re going to
grow up thinking this is how the occupant of
the highest office in the land acts. That’s got to be
terrible for kids. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Mm-hm. You were a US attorney. You were in the
Justice Department. You were head of the
Criminal Division of the Justice Department. BILL WELD: Right. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
And you resigned as a matter of conscience, so
it was reported at the time, because the then-attorney
general, Ed Meese, was under investigation
at the time. Talk to us about that. And is that a role
model for people who are in the
Justice Department today, your resignation? BILL WELD: Well, the same
issue was at play, namely, politicization of the
Justice Department. And I spent five years
as a US attorney, and two years as head
of the Criminal Division in Main Justice trying
to keep the politics out of law enforcement. And I’d made a big change in the
US attorney’s office in Boston. When I came in, I didn’t ask
anybody whether they were a Republican or a Democrat. And that was a change. The office had been, with
some exceptions, largely, a patronage office before
then, political spoils, and both parties, Republicans
as well as Democrats. Although there were
a lot more Democrats in power in that state. So that was an article
of faith for me. And I let nothing
interfere with that. And when I get to Washington,
and I see the department being politicized– and it was. Our morning meeting
around the AG’s table was as much about politics as
it was about law enforcement. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: How so? BILL WELD: There was
just a lot of discussion. There were a lot of
movement conservatives around that table. And there were some naive,
libertarian-oriented people, like me! But I was not alone. There was, maybe,
30% were libertarians and small government people. And we would joke about
that and then go out and get the boss’s work done. And when I say the boss,
I mean Ronald Reagan. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
Well let me ask you. Because the Justice
Department, there’s the investigative and
prosecutorial mission. But there’s also a
policy mission, as well. And when you’re
talking about policy, there is a place for politics
in discussions of policy. Are you saying
that, at the time, politics actually
infected the law enforcement mission,
the investigations, and prosecutions, as well? BILL WELD: Well, it
was more of the tone that was set from the top. And let me say, by the
way, Ed Meese, personally, is one of the greatest
guys I’ve ever met. If little things mean a
lot, Ed Meese is a saint. And that is important. But I think what befell
Ed was he had been counselor to the
president in the West Wing before he came over to be AG. And I think he had
a hard time ever taking off his White House hat. And his White House hat meant
his loyalty to Ronald Reagan. But that’s not supposed
to be top of mind if you’re attorney general
of the United States, some other job, perhaps. I suggested three years ago
that, perhaps, Mr. Trump could get some other job, the laundry
business, maybe, any job, but not president of
the United States. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: In fact,
before we went on the show, you told us a little
vignette about loyalty. Because I think you were called
up to Congress to testify about your resignation. So tell that story. BILL WELD: Yeah. No, Deputy Attorney
General Arnie Burns, and I, and four other people resigned. And we were asked to come up and
testify before Senate Judiciary about why we resigned. And Arnie said his piece,
that the department was like “Alice
in Wonderland,” up was down, and south was north. Because it was just
immobilized by the attorney general’s difficulties. And Ed had been on
the receiving end of a couple of special
prosecutor investigations. And I said, well, I
thought, beyond that, there were legal issues
that were troubling. And I didn’t want
to send a message by continuing in that office,
that everything was just fine. Because I didn’t
think it was fine. And one of the senators
asked me, Mr. Weld, how could you possibly have
done this thing? Ed Meese brought
you to Washington. And if nothing else, I
would think the demands, the strictures of loyalty
would prevent you from even considering such such a move. And I said what I
always say, Senator, I think that, too often,
particularly in this town– referring to Washington DC– loyalty is simply an excuse
for doing the wrong thing. Well, you could have heard a
pin drop in the hearing room. And it was a cavernous room. No one in Washington
wanted to hear that. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
The interesting, given that it was– as you pointed out– President Trump’s
request of Comey that he give him loyalty, that
was your sort of exhibit A– BILL WELD: It sounded more like
an order than a request to me. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Yeah. Right. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: By the way,
one of your colleagues as US attorney when you were
serving in Massachusetts, he was the US attorney for the
Southern District of New York, was Rudy Giuliani– BILL WELD: Oh, Rudy
taught me a lot. He and I did all the
mob cases together. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: So Giuliani
has been one of the president’s most aggressive– MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
He’s his lawyer! DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
He’s his lawyer. [INTERPOSING VOICES] DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
Yeah, he’s his lawyer. He’s on cable TV. He’s gotten a lot of
criticism for how he’s handled this particular representation. What do you think of how
Rudy Giuliani has done, going from being the mob-busting
US attorney back in the days when you guys were
working together, and how he’s handled himself
with Donald Trump today? BILL WELD: I have
such a long and close relationship with Rudy, it’s
hard for me to be objective. I campaigned for him as mayor. He campaigned for
me as governor. But beyond that, in
the Justice Department, and when we were
fellow US attorneys, we were the Bobbsey Twins. I had 109 convictions and 111
public corruption prosecutions. Rudy and I actually
worked together developing the PC, the probable cause,
for the wiretap that would lead to making the Commission case,
the existence of the Commission with the heads of the
five organized crime families getting together. Until then, it had
always been the received idea in Washington that the
existence of the Commission was a myth. J. Edgar Hoover always
said it was a myth. Well, it wasn’t a myth at all. They would get together
with Meyer Lansky in Miami and decide what was
going to be done. And Rudy and I both read
Joe Bonanno’s autobiography called “A Man of Honor.” And there were some things in
there that set us to thinking. And he all but adverts to the
existence of the Commission. And one thing led to another. And a little bit
of wiretap evidence leads to something else. And next thing you know, Rudy
brought the Commission case, and brought the whole
house crumbling down. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: I just
have to say, as an aside– because it’s one of
my favorite books. I actually read that book,
but also Gay Talese’s book about Joe Bonanno, I think
was called “Honor Thy Father,” is a brilliant book. He lived with Joe Bananas, as
they called him, for a year. It was “The Sopranos” before
“The Sopranos” existed. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: So
you and you and Rudy were the Bobbsey Twins. You were tight. I mean, do you guys still talk? BILL WELD: Yeah. I’ve kept up with Rudy. I went to his wedding to Judith. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: So if
you become president, you’re appointing
the attorney general? BILL WELD: Well,
two people that I’ve had long and close
relationships with are Rudy Giuliani
and Newt Gingrich. And we did a lot of
business together. When Newt got in ’95, he had
three Republican governors, myself, and John
Engler of Michigan, and Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin,
come down to talk to his troops and say, look, we took tough
stands in our first term. We cut taxes. And we cut spending. And we did real,
small-government conservative stuff
in our states, which were basically blue states. We were hung in effigy
for two and a half years. And then we were re-elected
with over 70% of the vote. So you, too, can
take tough votes. And Newt wanted his
members to hear that. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: All right. So have you talked to
Rudy since you announced your exploratory campaign? BILL WELD: Oh, no. When we’ve been
thrown together– we used to see each other out
in East Hampton, Long Island, socially, in recent years. Other than that, it
hasn’t been professional– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Look,
his position on Trump is that the president has every
right to hire and fire whoever he wants in the
executive branch, including in law
enforcement, the Justice Department, and the FBI. And so, therefore, accusing him
of abuse of power for firing the FBI director for whatever
purpose he wanted is fine. BILL WELD: Well, I think that’s
too absolutist a position. I think if you can prove
motivation, you’re entitled to. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: By the
way– oh, I’m sorry. Did you want to
follow up on that? MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Yeah. Well, OK, and the motivation
here would be to shut down the Russia investigation. That’s– BILL WELD: Well, I mean, I’m
not saying that’s the case. But motivation can be proved
by extrinsic evidence. A lot of people,
lay people, think, oh, you can’t prove
anything against me unless you got it in writing. That’s not true. Circumstantial
evidence is often more damning than direct evidence. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: So in
your years as a US attorney and as head of the
Criminal Division, did the name Donald Trump
ever come across your radar? BILL WELD: No. No. I knew him in the
decade of the aughts when my wife and I lived
in New York, a little bit. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Oh, really? How so? BILL WELD: Ah, just
socially, cocktail parties. That’s how I know
he and I are not the same height, for example. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Well,
actually, he claimed, according to his latest– the White House latest
medical report that he’s 6’3″. How tall are you? BILL WELD: 6’3″. And we’re not the same height. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: You’re taller. BILL WELD: That’s correct. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: So
one question that we ask all the smart lawyers
and former Justice Department officials who come
on our show is a legal question. Can a sitting
president be indicted? And I guess it can
be a legal question. It can be a policy question. What is your view on that? BILL WELD: Well, if you look
at article 1, section three of the Constitution, it
says that the punishment on conviction, impeachment
and conviction, is nothing more than removal
from office and inability to hold any office
of trust and honor under the laws of the
United States, thereafter, forever, a lifetime ban. And it goes on to say, but
the president shall remain– or whoever, any in civil
officer of the United States, including the president– shall remain liable
to indictment, conviction, and punishment
in the ordinary course. Now, I draw a couple of
conclusions from that. One, obviously, that means
that after he leaves office, he can be indicted,
convicted, and punished. Two, it must mean that
the president could be subject to some form
of charge, an indictment, a sealed indictment,
or an indictment that then stayed, by order the
court, while he is president. What I think is not
good policy is the idea that the president can be
hauled into criminal court to answer for a garden
variety criminal case while he is president. Because we have to
run a world out there. And if you take the president
off the field of battle onto the sidelines of a criminal
court while he’s in office, you can’t run a world that way. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Well,
don’t you take him off the field of
battle if you initiate impeachment proceedings? BILL WELD: You do. No, not if you initiate them. Only if you convict
him with a 2/3 vote– DANIEL KLAIDMAN: You’re saying
going through an impeachment– MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
Is a distraction. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: You think
that’s less of a distraction than the criminal process? BILL WELD: I do. The criminal process in a
Article III Judicial Court is really a full-time
operation, take my word for it. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: So of the
various crimes Donald Trump has been accused of, the one
that seems the most serious, because it’s been sort of
endorsed by the Southern District in Manhattan, are the
campaign finance violations, the payments of hush money. And we have sort of new details
on that showing those checks that were personally written by
the president while in office to Michael Cohen reimbursing
him for the hush money to Stormy Daniels. Is that, in your view,
a prosecutable crime? And is it an impeachable crime? BILL WELD: Well, I don’t think
of the most serious offenses as being campaign finance. I think of them as being
obstruction of justice and undermining the rule of law. And, technically, if there
are false statements made in connection with a
mailing of any kind, or even a telephone call, that’s
mail fraud and wire fraud. Those are predicate offenses
for the racketeering animal that came in and
was used so often by Rudy Giuliani and myself. And there are many
theories you could pursue. I’m somewhat taken by what
I call Dangle-gate, which is the dangling of
pardons in front of people who used
to work for you, and seem to have
turned against you. And now you want them
to either shut up, or go pretend to work
with the prosecutors and get information that way. Just in theory, if a president
were to dangle a pardon– which is an official act– in front of someone in order
to induce them to go pretend to cooperate with
the prosecution, but then report back
to the president, why, then, the president would
be receiving a thing of value in return for an official act. That’s not obstruction
of justice. But it is bribery
under 18 USC 212. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: All that
depends on the nature of the dangle, right? I mean, how was communicated? BILL WELD: That’s right. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: And by whom? BILL WELD: And I dare say, if
this stuff all moves forward, we’re going to hear
a lot of, I was just kidding, from the president. But I think the 2016 campaign
waged by the president was a series of dog
whistles to people whom he hoped would be supporting him. And the fact that
only dogs can hear it doesn’t mean you didn’t whistle. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: All right. Let’s talk politics for now. Yeah. You’ve announced
this exploratory bid. How’s it going? Are you getting any traction? Are you getting any money? BILL WELD: Everybody says,
good on you, this is great, somebody’s got to do it. It’s a disgrace to the country
that other people haven’t, or that no one’s
pointing out the emperor doesn’t have new clothes on. DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
But are you doing it to win and become president? Or are you doing it
to hurt Donald Trump’s chances of getting re-elected? BILL WELD: I think
the only reason to do something like this is to
do it with the purpose in mind of winning. And those who know me
well would tell you that I’ve thought for
well over a decade now that I could start Monday as
President of the United States just by virtue of the
experience that I’ve had, both a two-term governor
and having worked in both the House and the
Senate, and been head of the Criminal Division
of the Justice Department. And I’m no spring chicken. I’m 10 months older
than the president. But there is an upside to that. In a way, you do get
wiser as you get older. And I’ve seen a lot. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
There are number of septuagenarians in the
race at the moment, right? BILL WELD: There are.
There are. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: A new one
just announced and seems to be getting a lot of traction. But, look, Politico
just had a piece saying you had your
exploratory bid last month. Then, they write, you went dark
“aside from a few television hits and public appearances, the
former Massachusetts governor has done little to suggest
his primary election challenge to Trump is
something the president needs to worry about.” BILL WELD: Well,
first of all, I’m going to make this
decision on my timetable, not somebody else’s timetable. I have been in New Hampshire
every week since my February 15th speech in
Bedford, New Hampshire, and doing town halls, and
getting a good reaction there. But beyond that,
the stuff I’ve been doing outside New
Hampshire has received unanimous encouragement. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Let me
ask you this, Governor. The last time you
ran, that was 2016. You ran as a Libertarian. BILL WELD: Right. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: This time,
you’re running as a Republican. But you seem to be
fundamentally out of step with the current Republican
Party and electorate. I mean, you’re pro-choice,
you’re pro-LGBT. You believe in climate change. I think you’re pretty
liberal on immigration, correct me if I’m wrong. Why do you think that
that, with those policies, that you’re going to be
able to bring the Republican Party along with you? BILL WELD: Well, I think
those are the right policies. And I would say, I’m
totally the same person I was when I ran as a
Libertarian three years ago. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: It’s not you.
You haven’t changed. But the Republican
Party has changed. BILL WELD: Well,
that’s my point. And when the Whig
party broke into two in the 1850s on the
issue of slavery, the southern half became
the Know Nothing Party. Because they would say, I
know nothing, when asked about their secret meetings. And they were characterized by
violent, anti-immigrant fervor. They hated Catholics. They hated the immigrants coming
in from Germany and Italy, and also violent rallies,
and also devotion to conspiracy theories. Well, that sounds
awfully familiar to me. That’s the Trump
campaign of 2016. Now, the other
wing of the party, the antislavery northern wing,
went over and got together with John C. Fremont Free
Soil Party and elected Abraham Lincoln as President of the
United States four years later. So I’m rejoining, not
the Know Nothing Party. I’m rejoining what I hope
will be the party of Lincoln. And that’s the whole point. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: OK. So where is that
going at this point? Do you have endorsements? Are you getting any– how
much money have you raised? BILL WELD: Well, you can’t
raise money when you’re in the– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Well, for your
exploratory committee, you can. BILL WELD: I don’t think you
can ask people to raise money for a Super PAC or a campaign. I haven’t needed to raise money
for the exploratory committee. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Are you
self-financing the campaign? BILL WELD: I did. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: How much
money are you putting in? BILL WELD: Mm, I’ll
tell you later. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: All right. Well, presumably,
you’re for transparency. Anyway, but,
endorsements, I mean, you are running as a Republican. BILL WELD: Well, no, I could
be asking all my old friends, and former governors, and
former senators, and even some current ones, endorse
me, endorse me, endorse me, I need to get momentum. No, I’m not going to do that. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Well,
what are you going to to? BILL WELD: Well,
I don’t ask people to do something that may not
be in their immediate interest. I’d rather go out and prove
that I’ve got something going, and that the message, that we
need to have someone standing as a Republican who’s
not acting the way the current occupant
of the White House is, I think that’s
a powerful message. Nobody would say
to Tom Paine, well, we’re not going to pay
attention to you unless you issue 160 more broadsides. It was where he stood in the
political scheme of things. And I think that’s important. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: But you
need a finely-honed message. And I guess I’m not
really hearing what that is other than the president’s
a schoolyard bully and too unstable. But, I mean, is there
a three-point Weld program at this
point, or a message that you have for voters. BILL WELD: Sure MICHAEL ISIKOFF: What is it? BILL WELD: Cut spending,
worry about the debt. We’re putting all that
$22 trillion of debt on our children
and grandchildren. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Were
you against the tax cut? BILL WELD: No, no, I
was for the tax cut. I’m assuming– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Isn’t that
what’s fueled the deficit? BILL WELD: No, no. No, no, no. To get to $22 trillion, and to
have $1 trillion every year, and the president only now
considering his first veto, means he didn’t veto one cent
of that trillion dollars. And I did cut spending
in real dollars, year over year, when I was governor. And I was voted most fiscally
conservative governor in the United States–
and that was as the new governor of Massachusetts– by “The Wall Street
Journal” and Cato Institute. We also cut taxes 21 times. I’m not sure I’ve ever met
a tax cut I didn’t like. So cutting taxes and
cutting spending. And there’s some huge issues,
like climate change, which the president says is
a hoax, so he won’t have to do anything about it. We’re going to have the
polar ice cap melt if we don’t do anything about that. And everyone’s coastline
is going to be rearranged. So there’s going to be a lot of
shore-front property that’s not shore-front property– DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
What are you going to do about climate change? BILL WELD: Rejoin
the Paris Accords and have the United
States adopt 2050 targets that are consonant
with those of other countries. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: What do you
think the Green New Deal? BILL WELD: As
currently sketched, it looks too expensive. But I’ve been an
environmentalist my whole life. And I don’t care who knows it. So I would be in that
one up to my elbows. I also think, internationally,
the president’s shown very bad judgment. And this is my way of
telling you what I would do, not just that he’s a bad guy. But I thought that not joining
the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a terrible blunder. And the president’s stated
reason for being against it in the 2016 campaign, when
he first came out against it, was that it would be
dominated by China. He hadn’t taken the trouble
to find out that China was not a member of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, and that the whole
argument for it was to establish a
powerful beachhead in Asia, with Asian
countries, without China being at the table. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: What
about Russia, just to get back to the one of the
major themes of this podcast? What do you make of Trump’s
cozying up to Putin, the– where was it? Helsinki? MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Helsinki,
where he accepted Putin’s word that the didn’t interfere
in just election over the findings of
the US intelligence and law enforcement community. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: What
do you make of all that? Why do you think he does this? BILL WELD: What Andrew
McCabe said is probably true. He may or may not
be a Russian asset. But he might as well be. And his devotion
to Putin is part of a pattern of praising
and emulating dictators and autocrats around the world. It’s not just Mr. Putin,
who may or may not have a hold over our president. But it’s President
Kim of South Korea. And the president, early
on, said, what a strong kid, what a tough kid. Imagine, he offed his own uncle. And he even iced his brother. That’s a strong kid. And he expressed
great admiration for President Duterte
of the Philippines, who actually holds the
gun while he shoots people suspected of narcotics– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: So you don’t
find these good role models for an American president?
BILL WELD: No, I don’t. I don’t. And I think Viktor
Orban in Hungary is trying to move them
out of the Western Bloc towards the
Soviet Bloc, just as Paul Manafort maneuvered to
have the president of Ukraine do. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: So he admires– he seems to admire dictators. But have you seen– BILL WELD: And our
enemies, and our enemies. And when he met with Sergey
Lavrov, the foreign minister of Russia, and Ambassador
Kislyak, in the Oval Office, he kicked out all
the American press and had the meeting monitored
only by TASS, which is the Russian state press organ. What’s that about? That’s crazy! DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
At some level, do you think that he’s traitorous? I mean, he’s a traitor? BILL WELD: Now, that’s
a pretty strong word. You need you need two witnesses
to an overt act to prove that. DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
It is a legal term. BILL WELD: But he does
seem to have been going against the direct interests
of the United States, saying NATO is a complete
mess, we don’t like NATO. Well, NATO is our alliance. It’s not Russia’s alliance. Russia would like nothing
better than to see NATO sink into the sea. And that’s the direction that
Mr. Trump, at least initially, took with respect to NATO. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
Right, right, right. Well, of course, what
he would say is that– BILL WELD: He’d say,
I was just kidding, and I backed off a little. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Well, I think
he was saying that NATO members need to be paying more
of their fair share for our common defense. BILL WELD: No, that’s OK. But I believe he went
on to say NATO’s a joke. This is not a good purpose. We should be going in
the other direction. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: All right. Let’s get back to
politics for a moment. Because you are running
as a Republican, even though you were
a Libertarian two years ago, or two and a half
years ago, when you ran. Some people have
speculated you’re a stalking horse for Mitt
Romney, or Larry Hogan, or somebody else
getting in the race. BILL WELD: No, I’m
not a stalking horse. And I don’t care what
anybody says about me. Once you’ve been head
of the Criminal Division in the Justice Department,
you really don’t care what anyone says about you. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Right. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Would like to
see, say, John Kasich, or Larry Hogan, or Mitt Romney
[INAUDIBLE] get into the race and also challenge? BILL WELD: I wouldn’t mind. I mean, it’s no
secret that I’m quite close with Governor Kasich. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: A lot of people
thought he was going to get in. I mean, he seems to have
taken another route, to be a CNN contributor. BILL WELD: Yeah. Well, I just– I don’t know. But I do think he knows
a lot about the budget. He knows a lot about armed
services and military matters. So I don’t think it
would hurt the country. I’m far from saying
I’m bestriding the earth like a colossus. And I have this ground. And no one else come near. No. No. I got things that I
want to do in office. And they are the
opposite of things that the current incumbent
of the presidency is doing and has done. And I have a different
way of approaching things. And that’s enough for me. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: What are
some of the first things that you would do in office? Sometimes, presidents want
to take actions that are symbolic, to send a message. BILL WELD: Oh, I
agree with that. And I’d go one step further. I think you should
have a short priority list for an office like this. And if you don’t get done at
least a majority of the things you want to do in your
first six months in office, then you’ve been a failure. Because you’ve squandered
the immense amount of political capital
that you have, by definition, from having
won that particular office. I would rejoin the Paris
Accords very quickly. I would apply to join
the Trans-Pacific Partnership very quickly. I would let it be known
that my foreign policy consisted of more than tariffs
and sanctions, which are what– President Trump says, I’m a
tariff guy, first and always. Well, I’m not a tariff
guy, first and always. And you can prove that
free trade has always been good for the United States. Because we have the
greatest productivity per worker of any
country in the world, including China, by a mile. There’s no one even close to us. So we’re always going to get
the high-wage jobs as a result of unfettered free trade. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
But, look, everything you’re saying about President
Trump has been well known to Republican voters
since they elected him and his entire time in office. So I come back to
my first question, referencing your Stockholm
syndrome comment, how do you persuade your
fellow Republicans to bolt from this president when your
entire critique is something they know all too well? BILL WELD: Well, you’ve got to
meet the voters one at a time, I suppose, at the
end of the day. You certainly have to meet them
one at a time in New Hampshire. And there are 20 states
where un-enrolled voters, independents, can take
a Republican ballot in the primary. They happen to be
concentrated in the early part of the voting. New Hampshire is not the
only state in the country. I would expect to make a good
showing in the left coast, so to speak, California,
Oregon, and Washington. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Right. So the Weld strategy, here, is
you do well in New Hampshire. And then you get the momentum. And where’s next? BILL WELD: Well, it’s true. If you do well in New
Hampshire, you do get momentum. But I certainly am not a
stranger in any of the six New England states,
nor in California, nor in the mid-Atlantic states. And I’d go to those places,
the inter-mountain west, which I got to know in the
last campaign quite a lot. And then the toughest nuts
would be the Rust Belt. And I do give the president
political credit for having seen that his only
path to victory lay through the Rust Belt.
He said that as early as April of the election year. And no one took it seriously. Because they didn’t
think he had a shot. But the tide has turned
against the Republicans in those states. So who knows how
solid they are now. But I’m talking
about Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Let me ask a
couple of policy questions, one domestic, the other foreign. Health care has
dominated our politics for a couple of
decades, now, including this last midterm election. Would you repeal Obamacare? Or do you support Obamacare? BILL WELD: Well, how about how
about neither of the above? Is that OK? I do think we’re– MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
Medicare for all? BILL WELD: No. We’re really wasting a
lot of time in Washington by spending so much time
in Congress on, let’s repeal it, let’s reaffirm it. We do not have a
consensus in Congress about the Affordable Care Act. So I don’t see that there’s
a lot of blood that should be shed over that right now. There are things
that can be done. Prescription drugs are
entirely too expensive now. So let people buy them
across state lines, and buy them in other
countries abroad. If they want to buy
they’re from Canada, let them buy them from Canada. Don’t tell them,
we’re the nanny state, we’re going to tell
you that Canada’s drugs are no damn good, if
people do want to buy them. Let people have health
savings accounts. I mean, I’m in favor– across the board, not
just health care– of putting as much
power as possible in the hands of the individual. So let individuals have
health savings accounts. And they can sock away money
to provide for the kind of health care that they want. They may not want the
Cadillac that the Affordable Care Act gives them. And one demerit of the
Affordable Care Act is that it virtually
insists that everyone’s got to have the Cadillac. Well, maybe a lot of people
would rather have a Chevrolet. And that should be up to them. And it’s nanny-state-ism
to tell people they can’t have the Chevrolet. I feel a little bit the same
way about Social Security, let people have individual
retirement accounts so they can salt away money against their
golden years to the extent they want to do so. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: So people
hearing you say that will say, Weld wants to abolish
Social Security. BILL WELD: No. I want an addition
to Social Security, have people be able to put away,
in a tax-advantaged manner, funds against their retirement. Right now, it’s, the
government’s got to do it. And, the government’s got to
do it, never sounds good to me. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: By
the way– and then I want to get to the
foreign policy question. But do you think, as Donald
Trump said at the CPAC Conference, and a
lot of Republicans have been saying it,
that the Democratic Party is moving towards socialism? BILL WELD: Well, some
of the recent proposals are avowedly socialistic. I don’t think
that’s a good thing. I hope the Dems can come
up with centrist candidates for the 2020 election. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Maintaining
your Libertarian roots, I noted that you have joined
the advisory board of a company Acreage Holdings,
which cultivates, processes, and dispenses
cannabis in 11 states. BILL WELD: I’ve thought
that since 1991. I said in 1991, my first
year in office, hey, they say that marijuana is
good for glaucoma and nausea from chemotherapy. Why not let people use
it for those two things? MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
Well, that’s medical. What about full-scale
legalization? BILL WELD: I think it
should be a states’ rights issue, state by state. Things have changed since 1991. I was way out there
by myself on that, and on gay and lesbian rights,
and that sort of thing. And nobody else was
around for 15 years or so. Now, the American people,
state by state, blue states and red states, have decided– and I think the
figure is something like 94% are in favor
of medicinal marijuana and 64% in favor of
full adult legal– DANIEL KLAIDMAN: So you’d
be in favor of allowing states to pass laws allowing– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Well, they are.
They are passing laws. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Yeah. But the federal government
still has a federal law, OK? And this Justice Department
says it’s going to prosecute those cases, right? MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
That’s what Barr said. But do you– BILL WELD: No, he said
he’s not going to prosecute if it’s legal in that state. He did not have– AG Barr does not have the same
position that AG Sessions had. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: But
President Weld push for repeal of the federal law? BILL WELD: Day one, day one. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Day one? BILL WELD: De-scheduling,
absolutely. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: De-scheduling,
full-scale legalization. BILL WELD: No, that’s
not the same thing. It takes it off the schedule– DANIEL KLAIDMAN: DA list. BILL WELD: DA and National
Institute of Drug Abuse– DANIEL KLAIDMAN:
But if a state wants to pass recreational drug– [INTERPOSING VOICES] DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Right. But that’s fine with you. MICHAEL ISIKOFF: But what’s the
difference between full-scale legalization and what you’re– BILL WELD: The sword
in the bed is the fact that cannabis is
listed by the FDA as a Schedule I
narcotic, which means it has absolutely no medicinal
value, which is a complete lie. The FDA has even licensed an
anti-childhood-epilepsy drug, its called Epidiolex. And they said, this is good. And their excuse for doing it
in the face of schedule one, is, oh they’re manufactured
in Great Britain. More recently, it’s
been illegal to study marijuana or cannabis– MICHAEL ISIKOFF: I get that. But– BILL WELD: So, recently, the
federal government has said, well, actually you can
study in California. You can do this. But you’ve got to import
the marijuana from Canada. I mean, what– those
two things show the hypocrisy of the
technical position of the federal government. And Candidate Trump, in 2016– I think this story may
have a happy ending. Because there’s a lot of
oomph behind the states act that Senator Cory
Gardner of Colorado and Senator Elizabeth Warren
of Massachusetts are behind. And the house is all for that. And that’s off to a good
start in the Senate. And most observers
of the industry think that that will become
law by the third quarter of this year, end of problem. MICHAEL ISIKOFF:
Just to be clear, you want to get rid of the
scheduling of marijuana as a dangerous drug. Then, OK, but how is that
different than just lifting all restrictions on
smoking or partaking in marijuana, legalization,
full-scale legalization? BILL WELD: You can’t have
full legalization as long as that Schedule I is there. So you remove that. And my position
is not, let’s have full-scale, federal
legalization. It’s let’s let the
states do what they want. If Alabama wants to never
have adult legal rec– and I suspect that
might be the case– we shouldn’t be telling
them that they should do so. And that’s the
position that Donald Trump took during the campaign. And I agree with it. And so does my
colleague on that board, John Boehner, who
used to be implacably opposed to the legalization. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: We’re going
to wrap up in a second. But I did have one foreign
policy question for you, which is, we still have many thousands
of Americans in harm’s way, including more than 10,000
American troops in Afghanistan. What would you do
about Afghanistan? Would you pull out the troops– BILL WELD: I would. I would. I think the president got
it right the first time. We’ve been there a long time. What is it, 17, 18 years? And I’ve heard from
intelligence folks the story of, when we were first
going into Afghanistan, the president had a
senior CIA person call up his Russian counterpart
and say, we’re thinking of going into Afghanistan. We don’t want to start
World War III over this. Because we know it’s
right on your border. So tell us how
upset you would be. The guy died laughing. The Russian guy
just died laughing. He said, I want to encourage
you to go in there with as big a force as you can
and enjoy all the success that the British
enjoyed in Afghanistan, and that the Soviet Union
enjoyed in Afghanistan, and have a nice day. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: All right. Well, Governor Bill Weld,
thanks for joining us on “Skullduggery.” And good luck. And be happy on
the campaign trail. BILL WELD: Thanks, Dan.
Thanks, Mike. Always a pleasure. DANIEL KLAIDMAN: Thanks
to presidential hopeful Bill Weld for joining us on
this episode of “Skullduggery.” Don’t forget to subscribe
to “Skullduggery” on Apple Podcasts or wherever
you listen to your podcasts. And tell us what you think. Leave a review. The latest episode is also
on Sirius XM on the weekend. Check it out on POTUS Channel
124 on Saturdays at 3:00 PM Eastern Time, with replays on
Sundays at 1:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Be sure to follow us on social
media at “Skullduggery” Pod. And now, you can watch the
podcast on yahoonews.com YouTube, and Roku,
Saturdays and Mondays at 8:00 PM Eastern Time. Talk to you soon.

The Republican Party Is Dead


Ladies and Gentlemen, the Republican Party
is dead. I’m actually pretty sad about that. I feel like I should explain why. Now, I’ve never voted Republican, and for over
a decade now I’ve been pretty consistently pissed off at them. The Republicans make me deeply angry, because
I believe in many of the things that they’ve always claimed to believe in. Things like good and limited government. Things like an intelligent and strong defense
policy. Things like capitalism and an even playing
field. Their failure to live up to these ideals has
made me hate the modern Republican party. But that doesn’t mean I’m happy to see
it die. And That’s what’s happening this election
cycle. Since the Cold War the Republican party has
been an uneasy coalition. It’s been an alliance between the pro-business,
small government types that provided the money, and the much more numerous socially conservative
types, who got out the vote thanks to a number of culture war issues like Abortion and respect
for Christianity. Call it the Mitt Romney wing, and the Ted
Cruz wing. Folks like me, who take small government and
“fiscally conservative” issues seriously, would sort of hold their nose and nod along
with the rest of the party. “JESUS
JESUS JESUS” “Sure Buddy, but how about we go out and
win some elections.” I could never bear to make that compromise,
so I never voted Republican. But I kind of liked the idea that half the country really seemed to want a more limited government and seemed really worried about the power of Washington, DC. This election has shown that that simply isn’t
true. The majority of Republicans that voted for
Donald Trump don’t want a limited government. They’re happy to vote for a guy who has
openly threatened the bill of rights. And they’re certainly not voting along Christian
lines either. Trump’s true appeal is clear. He uses a lot of code words, but Trump’s
Republican party is pretty clearly the Angry White Racist’s party. Conservative intellectuals, and fiscal conservatives
across the country have no interest in being associated with that. Those folks have to face the fact that all
the worst things the Democrats said about the Republicans are true. The Republican party as we know it is dead. It could resurrect itself. The Democrats were a racist party for over
a century, but they got over it. If you’re somebody who cares about the Republican
party, and wants a better one, you actually have a great option. I’m governor Gary Johnson I’m Governor Bill Weld I’m running for President. I’m running with him. This year, the Libertarian party is running
two very successful pro-business, socially liberal Republican Governors. They’re not going to win. But that’s not the point. Voting for them is the only way to save the
Republican party. You don’t change the two party system for
the better by voting for it, you change it by creating a competitor that the main parties
can steal ideas from. If you’re interested in this approach, I’ve
written a short essay laying it out. I’ve left a link in the description. The Republican party as we knew it is dead. But a new and better one can rise from the
ashes. Who knows, maybe even as a party I could bring myself to vote for… Thanks for watching, please subscribe, and
if you’d like to help me make more videos like this one, please click on the Patreon
link here to check out my crowd-funding thing. Thanks.

States CANCELLING Republican Primaries to Protect Trump


every time we’ve talked about primary challenges
to Donald Trump in 2020 I’ve been super clear that those challenges are not going to succeed
in the sense of Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee unless he bails out. But I have said that the primary challenges
could still damage Trump and even a point or two taken from Trump in some states is
all it would take for an independent, uh, a Republican primary challenger who chooses
to run as an independent in November of 2020 to take a state or two from Donald Trump and
push it towards the Democratic challenger. And that could actually turn the election. Now, clearly the democratic, I’m sorry, the
Republican Party is worried about this because they’ve now started canceling primaries and
caucuses to protect Donald Trump and to prevent anyone from getting any attention or momentum. Now, Trump loyalists have gotten into the
system in South Carolina and Nevada, Arizona and Kansas at minimum. And they are moving forward on canceling primaries
altogether, which is not very democratic. Wouldn’t the right thing to do be to let the
primaries happen. Let Republican voters confirm that they want
Trump to be their nominee. Trump says he is 94% support from the Republicans. That’s not true. It’s more like 80% but 80% is still more than
enough to win primaries except that that other 20% might be invigorated by those primaries
and vote for those primary challengers in November if they run as independent or as
right in candidates in a way that it could threaten Donald Trump in the general. Now the Trump team is saying this is totally
normal. This is fine. There are many other examples in history when
primaries have been canceled, when there been an incumbent president up for reelection,
but that is extremely deceptive because the primaries that were previously canceled were
almost exclusively canceled because there were no challengers, so there was no point
in having the primary when only the incumbent is interested in running. This is a very different situation where you
have multiple primary challengers, Joe Walsh, William Weld. There’s a third one that now I’m forgetting. Uh, and one fifth of Republican’s disapprove
of Donald Trump. So this is a very different scenario. Now a somewhat asked Donald Trump on Monday,
would he participate in debates against these challengers? And he said, quote, I don’t know them. I would say this, they are all at less than
1% I guess it’s a publicity stunt. We just got a little while ago a poll showing
94% popularity or approval within the Republican Party. So to be honest, I’m not looking to get them
any credibility. They have no credibility. Now again, Trump’s wrong. It’s about 80% of Republicans that approve
of the job he’s doing, not 94%, but this is how they win. They cancel primaries, they Gerrymander, they
suppress votes by closing down polling places and purging voter rolls. They have no interest in genuinely protecting
our election systems from foreign interference. And they even welcome it. And then they blame Democrats of doing all
the same things and they spend millions on real witch hunts, like the election integrity
commission or whatever it was that it was called, which found nothing. They’ve been cheating to win for years. It is not going to stop for sure unless Donald
Trump has removed because we’ll have a census in 2020, which will then be used by these
same republicans to make it even worse and then it’ll get even uglier. And I forgot to mention, by the way, gaslighting
constantly by demonizing those evil undocumented immigrants too, it’s important not to forget
that since that’s a key part of their strategy, they say that they’re all for freedom and
democracy as long as it’s their candidate in the way that they want it and the people
voting that they want to see voting period. Otherwise Freedom and democracy always take
a back seat to morality or simplicity or expediency or whatever they can site at the time to justify
their behavior. And we are seeing it again as the primaries
that Republicans should be holding are getting canceled, uh, in growing numbers, which we
will continue to track. Not Surprising, not surprising, but important
to understand that this is happening.

Bill Weld launches Trump’s first Republican 2020 challenge


[BELLS PEALING]>>I THINK IT’S ONE VOTER AT A TIME, AND IF HE GETS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY TO HAVE SOMEBODY PUT THE PRESIDENT TO HIS PROOFS, AS IT WERE. YOU ASK HIM SOME “WHY” QUESTIONS. “WHY DO YOU THINK IT’S GOOD TO INSULT OUR MILITARY ALLIES? WHY DO YOU PRAISE DICTATORS? IS IT BECAUSE YOU WISH THE UNITED STATES WAS MORE DICTATE ORIOLE?” I’M AFRAID THAT I BE THE CASE>>Melissa: FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR BILL WELDON LAUNCHING HIS BID AGAINST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT TRUMP, BEING THE FIRST REPUBLICAN TO CHALLENGE THE PRESIDENT IN THE 2020 RACE. HE REGIONALLY RETURNED TO THE PARTY AFTER SERVING AS THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY NOMINEE FOR VICE PRESIDENT IN 2016. HIS ANNOUNCEMENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, HE CALLED TRUMP COMPULSIVE AND IRRATIONAL, ARGUING, “WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHOSE PRIORITIES ARE SKEWED TOWARDS PROMOTING HIMSELF RATHER THAN TOWARD THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY. HE ALSO LAMENTED THE STATE OF THE G.O.P. COINING THAT TRUMP HAS CAPTURED THE PARTY. SHE ALWAYS SEEMS TO ENJOY IT MORE WHEN HE HAS A FOIL. IT GIVES THEM SOMEONE TO TARGET.>>Brian: THIS IS JUST END, THE PRESIDENT HAS STOPPED DOING EVERYTHING UNTIL HE CAN GET THIS WELD STORM UNDER CONTROL. [LAUGHTER] HE MIGHT EVEN RECONSIDER RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT HIMSELF. OF COURSE, THIS DOESN’T EVEN MATTER. HE IS TOO BORING EVEN TO BE THE TOP OF A BAD TICKET LAST TIME. BILL WELD WILL RUN, IT WON’T TAKE AN EFFORT. IF GOVERNOR CASEY GETS IN, IF SENATOR JEFF FLAKE GETS IN, THERE’S SOMETHING INTERESTING TO DEBATE. THIS IS SOMEBODY LOOKING FOR ATTENTION HIMSELF.>>Harris: AND CONFUSE, I THOUGHT IT WAS LIBERTARIAN.>>Brian: WHO ASKED HIM TO RUN?>>Lisa: BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, WHO CARES ABOUT BILL WELD? HE’S A NONFACTOR, NOBODY CARES ABOUT HIM. HE’S IRRELEVANT TO 2020 BRIT ALMOST 90% OF REPUBLICANS ARE BEHIND PRESIDENT TRUMP. HE WILL BE THE NOMINEE. REPUBLICANS NEED TO GET BEHIND HIM OR THEY WILL END UP WITH SOMEONE LIKE BERNIE SANDERS. GOING BACK TO 2016, I CAN’T PICK UP A SINGLE CANDIDATE THAT RAN THAT COULD HAVE PULLED TOGETHER A COALITION THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID.>>Jessica: I DON’T THINK IT WILL MAKE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF THE RACE PAID WHAT HE’S TRYING TO DO IS SAY TO DISAFFECTED REPUBLICANS, MODERATES, INDEPENDENTS, SOME OF THEM TO HAVE A FAR-LEFT-LEANING CANDIDATE. THERE’S A PLACE FOR YOU. I DON’T THINK THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THE RIGHT MAN