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.

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.

Who Are Trump’s Republican Challengers?


“The lights are on
in the White House, but no one’s at home.” “This guy is destroying
the country.” “Put the Twitter away.” President Trump is facing
Republican challengers to his re-election campaign. Joe Walsh, Bill Weld
and Mark Sanford. They don’t have much
of a chance at securing their party’s nomination, but primary challenges
can lead to problems for the incumbent. So who’s trying
to take Trump on? First up: Joe Walsh. “These are not
conventional times. These are urgent times. Let’s be real: These are scary times.” A one-term
Tea Party congressman who represented a Chicago
suburb from 2011 to 2013. “Pisses me off!” His style? It’s aggressive. Even with his
constituents. “Quiet for a minute! Or I’m going to
ask you to leave.” He is also known for
his offensive tweets. “I wouldn’t call
myself a racist, but I would say, John,
I’ve said racist things on Twitter.” He’s shared his
far-right views on his nationally
syndicated radio show. “When he was elected
to Congress, he showed up in Washington
and refused to play by their rules.” In a recent program, he slammed President Trump
for his handling of immigration. “Donald Trump has royally
screwed this thing up.” His show is going off
the air due to FCC rules on airtime rights for
presidential candidates. So why is he running? “All Trump cares
about is himself.” “He’s a horrible human being.” “He’s nuts, he’s erratic, he’s incompetent!” Critics have said the
same about him. Next: Bill Weld. He was the first
to announce his run against President Trump. “I would be
ashamed of myself if I didn’t raise
my hand and run.” Weld is a lawyer and former
Justice Department official. He was the governor of
Massachusetts during the ’90s, and has switched party
loyalties a few times, endorsing Barack Obama
for president in 2008 over John McCain,
and then supporting Mitt Romney in 2012. He ran as a libertarian
vice presidential candidate in 2016. “I hope to see the Republican
Party assume once again the mantle of being
the party of Lincoln.” Weld is a
fiscal conservative, but socially liberal. He supports abortion rights,
same-sex marriage and legalizing marijuana. He’s been campaigning in
New Hampshire and Iowa, hoping to best Trump in
those early primary contests. “I think we’re in something
of an inflection point.” And the former
governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, is also running. “We need a change in
spending, debt and deficits, and we need it now.” He’s a vocal critic
of President Trump, and served a total
of six terms in the House of
Representatives. Ultimately, he lost his seat
after a primary challenge by a Trump-backed candidate. His second term as South Carolina
governor was stained by a scandal involving
an extramarital affair. Trump referenced this scandal
in a tweet mocking all three Republican candidates
running against him. So what are their
chances at winning? Not good. As of now, Trump’s
approval rating is very high
among Republicans. However, primary challengers
in recent decades have shown that they can leave the incumbent wounded
in the general election.

JOE WALSH – Could Donald Trump’s Tea Party Primary Challenger End his Presidency? | QT Politics


I’m Joe Walsh, and I think I can be the president. On Sunday August 25, 2019, Joe Walsh announced
that he would be running for president, issuing a primary challenge for President Donald Trump. The very first question Joe Walsh was asked
as a declared candidate is an obvious one for anyone who follows Trump’s approval ratings
closely. Indeed, Trump’s approval rating amongst Republicans
has remained high throughout his presidency. A recent Monmouth University Poll placed that
figure at 84%. The question of whether Joe Walsh could actually
beat Trump in a primary challenge is barely worth considering. To do so, Walsh would not just have to be
more popular amongst Republicans than Trump. He would have to be so much more favorable
that Republicans are willing to risk the White House on an untested candidate. A sitting president has never lost a primary
challenge, and Trump’s strong support from his party makes him unlikely to be an exception. But some presidents have faced serious primary
challenges: Ford, Carter, and Bush senior barely survived theirs. In all three cases, these presidents also
had problematic approval ratings. Not within their own party, but amongst the
general electorate. Along those lines, Trump’s ratings are also
low, meaning a serious primary challenge is likely. There’s something else Ford, Carter, and Bush
all have in common. They lost the general. This isn’t to say that the tough primary challenges
caused the general election loss, or that the low approval ratings caused the primary
challenges. All three things tend appear together, but
the causal links are up for interpretation. All we really know is that there seems to
be a correlation. So, the question is not whether Joe Walsh
will beat Trump in his primary race, or even whether his primary challenge will cause Trump
to lose the general election. Before a president loses a general election,
a tough primary challenger tends to emerge. The question about Joe Walsh is… Is he that guy? (Everybody gets pumped) In oder to be a serious primary challenger
for Donald Trump, Joe Walsh needs to be in it to win it. While Donald Trump’s 2016 run was initially
often regarded to be nothing more than a publicity stunt, to win, a candidate typically needs
to be serious about what they’re doing. Running a winning campaign—or even coming
close to that—requires a deep level of commitment. The easiest way to eliminate Walsh as a serious
contender for Trump would be to claim that the run is insincere. Fortunately for everyone, one person who has
laid that charge was Herman Cain, former presidential candidate, pizza CEO, and expert on Libya. Here’s what Herman Cain had to say about Joe
Walsh’s run. Dispersions! See, this is why I love Herman Cain. Every time he opens his mouth, it’s hilarious. In case you’re watching Herman, a dispersion
is the process of distributing something over a wide area, like what would happen to a sliced
Godfather pizza, if you threw it across the room. The word you were looking for was aspersion. Like, if someone were to say of you, that
your 9-9-9 tax policy was an obviously fiscally irresponsible platform, intended to cynically
prey on the mathematical illiteracy of the most ignorant of your potential supporters. I, of course, would never say this about you,
as I assume your character is such, that you, too, must be mathematically illiterate. Anyway, that was all just a fun tangent. I got so much stuff twirling around in my
head Let’s press on! Publicity! In fact, given that Walsh is a nationally-syndicated
radio host, the prospect of doing something just for the publicity is a real possibility. Except that, in fact, he has already lost
the national distribution of his show because of this presidential run, and according to
his radio network, his program will even be removed from local distribution once he becomes
“a viable and legal candidate for president.” Of course, you could argue that this was an
unintended consequence, and that the publicity run some how back fired. But, I’m inclined to believe Walsh when he
claims that he kind of expected this all along. He said, “I’m running for president. I oppose this president. Most of my listeners support the president. It’s not an easy thing to do to be in conservative
talk radio and oppose this president…And I knew that, John, when I made the announcement
yesterday, that it could be in jeapardy” It really is difficult to believe that Walsh
was so unaware of his own audience and the rules of his radio network that he couldn’t
anticipate losing his show over this run. At any rate, he did point out that he anticipated
serious backlash just moments after making his announcement. So, it seems clear that Walsh takes his own
candidacy seriously. As for Republican voters, well, that’s another
matter, altogether. For Joe Walsh to be the serious primary challenger
that would ultimately signal a general election defeat for the President, he would need to
give Republican primary voters a very good reason to switch sides. Three points he made repeatedly in his ABC
interview were that: 1. Trump is disloyal
2. Trump is unfit
3. Trump is a liar He also made these points in his campaign
video launched the same day Now all three of these points could be effective
attacks on the president, but they don’t exactly make a positive case for Walsh. Loyalty to the United States is obviously
a basic criterion to be president, and Trump’s loyalty has been certainly questioned quite
a bit. From his taking Putin’s side at Helsinki,
to his son trying to get dirt on Clinton from Russian operatives, to Trump having foreign
business interests all over the world. However you come down on these issues, it’s
fairly clear that loyalty is a more complicated issue with Trump than it is with Walsh. But, that isn’t because Walsh has done anything
uniquely patriotic. He just simply hasn’t done the things Trump
has done—which is not enough to make him a serious challenger. In terms of being unfit, certainly Trump has
faced questions about his mental fitness. He responded to these concerns by calling
himself a very stable genius, which didn’t help matters. He apparently had trouble reading his daily
briefings, and in plain view of the press, we’ve seen him say “oranges” when he meant
“origins” and claim the wrong birthplace for his own father. A number of the people who have worked with
Trump have even talked about invoking the 25th Amendment. But as with the loyalty issue, sanity is an
extremely low bar, one that virtually any primary challenger would likely clear. As for lying, it may be easy to be caught
lying less often than Trump, but it’s also a more muddled issue, since it’s not exactly
easy to find an honest politician. When it comes to dishonesty, Walsh may have
particular difficulty distinguishing himself even from Trump—let alone other potential
challengers. Flip-flopping can indicate dishonesty, and
like Trump, Walsh has flip-flopped on the abortion issue. He was a failed pro-choice candidate in the
1990s, before running as a pro-lifer when losing his seat in 2012. He’s also, of course flip-flopped on the issue
of Trump himself, having claimed he would be “grabbing [his] musket” if Clinton
won the 2016 election, to now challenging Trump in 2020. One of Trump’s most infamous lies was that
there was something suspicious about the circumstances of President Obama’s birth. Even before Obama produced his long-form birth
certificate, Birtherism was always a lie. Not only was Barrack born in America, there
was never any reason to doubt this—and insinuations that there were, were laced with both sinister
bigotry and thorough intellectual dishonesty. Trump helped to establish himself in the political
dialogue through Birtherism. But, so did Walsh, even as late as during
the Republican primary in 2015. He even dabbled in the dishonest narrative
about Obama’s religion. These tweets demonstrate sufficient dishonesty
that Walsh may have trouble claiming the moral high ground on the issue of honesty. They’re also quite divisive, which could threaten
another mantle he seems to be trying to take up. Expressing regret for some of his past statements,
Walsh wrote in a New York Times op-ed, “We now see where this can lead”. This is just one part of a broader campaign
theme, which he tapped into repeatedly in his launch video. The promise here, is the return to normal. A return to civility and character, and away
from ugliness and division. This theme has been expressed by a number
of Democratic candidates. It’s what Kamala Harris was connecting to
when she said, during the 2nd Democratic Debate, “We are better than this.” It’s what Joe Biden has been near-constantly
evoking with his catch phrase, “We are in a battle for the soul of this
nation.” Say what you will about Joe Biden, he does
genuinely represent civility: he’s in fact been criticized for being too civil. And rightly so, in my view. He’s been civil to segregationists and the
current vice president. Say what you will about Kamala Harris, she’s
not likely to say that some tiki torch-wielding white nationalists are very fine people, nor
is she likely to secure the support of David Duke. A return to normal, in my view, is not a particularly
strong campaign message. But it is a plausible choice, one that Joe
Walsh seems keen on associating with himself. But unlike his Democratic counterparts, he
does not exactly have the right history to claim this mantle. He himself has admitted, “I wouldn’t call myself a racist, but I’ve
said racist things on Twitter.” Now, I’m not a particular fan of the modern
phenomenon of digging through a public figure’s old and deleted tweets to dig up dirt. Just because someone tweeted an insensitive
joke ten years ago does not mean they should be subject to public shaming, or a boycott,
or barred from public office. But the sheer volume of hateful tweets that
have come from Joe Walsh is astounding, and he himself has made this an issue by criticizing
Trump’s twitter rants. So, let’s just look at a few of Walsh’s tweets
that may actually be worse than anything Trump has ever tweeted. Trump has criticized the media extensively,
and called for banning Muslims from entering the country during the 2016 campaign. He even jokingly-not-jokingly called upon
Russia to continue their DNC hacks. But I don’t think he’s ever asked Islamists
to commit gruesome acts of violence. Trump has tweeted about black-on-black crime,
and apparently called countries with majority black populations what he has. The racist subtext is fairly clear. But here, Walsh connects the racist implications
for us. In this astounding tweet, Walsh uses a straw
man argument about the Washington Red Skins, reminds of the good old days when people were
bigoted towards the Irish, and delights in gratuitously using the N word. Here he employs the N word and the S word,
and draws a false equivalency to racist terms about the race that has most of the people
and power in America. And here, he thankfully departs from using
the N word, while still managing to say something entirely racist. Suffice it to say, Joe Walsh does not exactly
have a history of being woke on Twitter. Now, anti-Trump Republicans might rightly
be irritated by the fact that Walsh might be politically damaged by his own bigotry,
while Trump seems to be immune to similar criticism. New York Times contributor, Peter Wehner,
who considers himself to be one of the earliest Republican never Trumpers expressed frustration
at the fact that Trump supporters have been demanding that Walsh be called out. “Mr. Trump’s most vocal supporters are now
demanding that Mr. Trump’s most vocal critics do what they will not, which is to publicly
recoil against a politician—in this case, Mr. Walsh—who appeals to the worst instincts
and ugliest sentiments in America.” “Their argument seems to be that decency
requires the president’s relatively few conservative critics to call out Mr. Walsh for saying detestable
things while Mr. Trump’s right-wing supporters cheerfully defend him under any and all circumstances,
regardless of the fact that the president’s rhetoric is pathologically dishonest, dehumanizing,
cruel, crude, racist and misogynistic. There’s a word for what Trump supporters are
doing here: hypocrisy.” Wehner, by the way, would go on to criticize
Walsh at length in his op-ed, concluding with these words about Joe Walsh and Donald Trump: “They are cut from the same rancid cloth. That they personify the Republican Party today
is still, for some of us at least, a source of shock and shame.” The point I’m making about Walsh’s divisiveness
is not that he should be shamed or criticized or barred from office because of it—although
he should. My point is that his past statements make
it impossible for Walsh to successfully present himself as plausible bearer of the civility
mantle. Republicans who are sick of Trump’s divisive
language and bullying are unlikely to chose Walsh as an alternative, just as the Trump
fans who either don’t mind or enjoy his most vicious rhetoric are not likely switch to
Walsh, who has now positioned himself as formally against all that nasty stuff. As such, he is not likely to have any chance
of becoming a serious primary challenger for Trump, even if Trump’s popularity amongst
Republicans dropped dramatically. It also doesn’t help that after serving his
present term, Trump will have significantly more qualifying experience than the one-term
congressman. Now, Trump is also facing a primary challenge
from libertarian Bill Weld, and may soon be threatened by Mark Sanford, who Trump once
mocked for his infamous made-up journey through… The Tallahassee Trail! Unfortunately, he didn’t go there! Unfortunately that’s not a thing. It was the Appalachian Trail that he was not
actually hiking. At any rate, neither the scandal-ridden Mark
Sanford, nor the libertarian Bill Weld are likely to major challenges for Trump, either. Despite declaring his exploratory committee
back in February, Bill Weld’s gained little traction. He’s raised less than 700k in individual contributions,
averaging $98, meaning he’s received just over 7,000 donations. That’s not a lot of supporters. He poor fundraising has also lead to serious
financial trouble for his campaign. His FEC filing indicates his cash on hand
is $299k, and debts owed are $226k. Compare this to Trump, whose campaign has
similar debts ($294k) and $57 million cash on hand. One could argue that all three combined might
be able to deal enough damage to bring Trump down. In my view, multiple weaker opponents only
serve to help the president. By knocking them down, Trump is able to demonstrate
his own strength. Having a divided Republican opposition to
Trump also diverts attention away from a potential serious competitor. Someone like Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake, Paul
Ryan, Bob Corker, Larry Hogan or Nikki Haley could potentially pose a real threat to Trump
in a primary. Unfortunately, all of these candidates have
declined to run. Even John Kasich, who has expressed interest
in the past, has said he doesn’t see a path right now, but added, “That doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be a path
down the road.” Without a strong, unified opposition, Trump
is likely to breeze through the primaries. Without a strong primary challenge, losing
his general election campaign would be unprecedented. So unless Kasich, or some other viable candidate
steps up, Democrats should get used to the very real potential of losing the 2020 election. And Republicans, too, need to prepare for
what another 4 years of Trump will mean for the party. As the electorate of America grows increasingly
multicultural and diverse, as the sjw snowflake millennial generation ages—and thus becomes
more likely to vote in greater numbers, and as blue collar workers continue to lose their
jobs as their billionaire bosses turn to automation, the Republican party must adapt, if it is
to survive. I’ll leave it to my Republican friends to
decide just how the GOP should change to meet the needs of an ever-changing America. But just as progressive Democrats had serious
concerns about what a President Hilary Clinton would mean for the Democratic brand, Republicans
must seriously consider what eight years of President Trump will mean for the GOP. As an insurgent candidate in 2016, Trump’s
first term could be chalked up as a bizarre departure for the GOP. A blip. But after serving two terms, Trumpism will
become synonymous with the conservative movement and the Republican party. Trump will define the party for a generation. So, I do recommend that Republicans seriously
consider what kind of person would best embody Republican character and values in the 21st
century, then take a long hard look at Trump, and ask yourselves, Is he that guy?

George Conway BLASTS Trump by Supporting Joe Walsh to Send He to ‘Trash Bin of History’


>>>I’M BRIAN STELTER. WELCOME TO “RELIABLE SOURCES.” HOW THE MEDIA WORKS AND HOW THE NEWS GETS MADE AND HOW WE CAN HELP IT GET BETTER. LOTS GOING ON. WE’RE DROWNING IN HYPOCRISY ABOUTREPORTS. THAT’S ALL COMING UP IN THE MINUTES AHEAD. FIRST, THE STORIES PLAYING OUT ON OUR TVS AND TWITTER FEEDS. HE’S GETTING WORSE. WE CAN SEE IT. IT’S HAPPENING IN PUBLIC AND A VERY HARD, VERY SENSITIVE STORY TO COVER. I’M TALKING OF COURSE ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP, ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR, ABOUT HIS INSTABILITY. THE CONTRADICTIONS, THE LIES, THE COMPLETE REJECTION OF REALITY. SOME PROMINENT FIGURES INCLUDING THE HUSBAND OF KELLY ANNE CONWA ARE PLEADING WITH THE PRESS TO TAKE THIS MORE SERIOUSLY. THEY SAID TRUMP IS DECOMPOSING BEFORE OUR EYES. REPUBLICANS NEED TO FACE THE FACT THE PRESIDENT IS MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNFIT. CONWAY THINKS IT’S NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER. ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI SAYS MENTAL BREAKDOWN. THIS SUM MER IS CHALKED FULL OF EXAMPLES. RACIST COMMENTS ABOUT THE QUAD AND REPEATING THINGS ABOUT VOTER FRAUD AND DENYING CALLING MEGHAN MARKLE ON TAPE AND CLAIMING HE NEVER SAID IT. HE’S BEEN BRAGGING ABOUT VISITS TO HOSPITALS IN DAYTON AND EL PASO AND MIXED-UP DAYTON AND TOLEDO AND CANCELLING A PLANNED TRIP TO DENMARK OVER THE GREENLAND DISPUTE AND BACK IN JUNE HE ATTACKED NANCY PELOSI AND MULLER AND BEEN RETWEETING CONSPIRACY THEORIES BY EPSTEIN. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON BUT THE LIST IS NECESSARY TO COVER THE BIG PICTURE OF WHAT IS GOING ON. LOOK, ALL OF THESE STORIES ARE COVERED IN THE MOMENT. INDIVIDUALLY. BY REPORTERS. NEWS OUTLETS USE WORDS LIKE ERRATIC, VOLATILE, UNSTABLE BUT RARELY ARE THE WORDS AND ACTIONS COVERED AS A WHOLE AND RARELY DO THEY TAKE IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL. OKAY, WHAT HE JUST SAID SEEMS CRAZY. WHAT DOES THAT REVEAL ABOUT HIM? WE RARELY SEE IT GO TO THAT NEXT STEP. NOW I GET THE TRUMP OPPONENTS HAVE BEEN SAYING HE’S SICK SINCE BEFORE ELECTION DAY AND DREAM ABOUT THE 25th AMENDMENT. IT’S POSSIBLE TO HAVE A FACT CONSERVATION. NOT JUST POSSIBLE BUT NECESSARILY. LOOK AT THE “NEW YORK TIMES” REPORTING THAT SOME FORMER TRUMP AIDS ARE INCREASINGLY WORRIED ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR. MOST PEOPLE WHO COVER THIS WORLD FOR A LIVING KNOW THAT. I SPENT THE WEEK TALKING WITH MAJOR MEDIA FIGURES AT NETWORKS AND NEWSPAPERS. THERE IS DEFINITELY WIDE SPREAD RECOGNITION THAT TRUMP’S BEHAVIOR IS GETTING WORSE IN TYPE AND INFREQUENCY. HE’S ACTING MORE ERRATIC MORE OFTEN. CALLING HIS FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR AN ENEMY AND SAYING THE MARKET IS INTO A FREE FALL. COME ON. OF COURSE, THE PRESIDENT IS ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE A CHOIR TO BACK HIM UP AND RATIONALIZE AND MAKE EXCUSES AND ORDERS SAY HE WAS KIDDING. HIS FOX FANS PRETEND THE WORST EPISODES DIDN’T HAPPEN AT ALL OR BLAME THE MEDIA FOR BAD COVERAGE BUT LET’S TALK ABOUT THAT COVERAGE EVERYWHERE BUT FOX. WHEN YOU WATCH A BROADCAST NIGHTLY NEWSCAST, HOW OFTEN DO YOU HEAR HOW FAR OFF THE ROAD TRUMP? NOT OFTEN ENOUGH. THEY DO NOTE THE DAILY MADNESS BUT RARELY CONNECT THE DOTS BETWEEN THE FREAKOUTS. I DO THINK CNN AND MSNBC ARE BETTER ABOUT PUTTING THE UGLY REALITY IN FRONT AND CENTER WITH BANNERS BUT THERE IS NOT REALLY A VOCABULARY FOR THIS. T THERE IS NOT A FARORMAT. IT’S COMFORTABLE LEADING A NEWSCAST WITH TRUMP WANTING TO BUY GREENLAND. WE HAVE A FORMAT. WE KNOW WHAT TO DO. WE KNOW HOW. IT’S A LOT HARDER TO COVER CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S WELL BEING. BECAUSE IT’S REALLY A SERIES OF QUESTIONS THAT NO ONE IS ABLE TO ANSWER. WHY DOES HE MAKE IT ALL ABOUT HIMSELF EVEN AFTER VISITING A HOSPITAL AFTER A MASSACRE? WHY DOES HE LIE SO OFTEN? IS THERE A METHOD TO THE MADNESS OR IS SOMETHING WRONG? IS HE SUFFERING FROM SOME SORT OF ILLNESS? IT’S QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS AND THEN JUST MORE QUESTIONS. KNOW SATISFYING ANSWERS AND HERE IS WHAT HAPPENS EVERY TIME. TAKE MEGAN WITH THE WASHINGTON POST SAYS I’M NOT TRUMP’S DOCTOR AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT’S WRONG WITH HIM. THERE IS THAT UNDERSTANDABLE EVERSION TO DIAGNOSING SOMEONE OFF THE TV AND THAT AVERSION SOMETIMES SHUTS DOWN THESE CONVERSATIONS BUT SHE SAID SHE DOESN’T NEED A DIAGNOSIS TO KNOW SHE SHOULD BE WORRIED. MAYBE THAT’S THE POINT. HERE IS JAMES MAKING A SIMILAR POINT FOR THE ATLANTIC SAYING IF TRUMP WERE A CEO OR AIRLINE PILOT OR ANY RESPONSIBILITY, ACTION WOULD BE UNDERWAY TO REMOVE HIM FROM THAT ROLE. SO SOMETHING IS WRONG. THERE ARE LOTS OF THEORIES ABOUT WHAT IT IS. THERE ARE SOME DOCTORS WHO THINK THEY KNOW. OTHERS SAY WE SHOULDN’T SPECULATE. THERE ARE ETHICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT HAVING THIS CONVERSATION AT ALL. BUT WE CAN’T TIPTOE AROUND IT ANYMORE. WE’VE GOT TO TALK ABOUT THIS. SO LET’S TALK ABOUT IT. LET’S DO IT. LET ME BRING IN TWO GUESTS, TWO PSYCHIATRISTS WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS ABOUT. A PROFESSOR AT THE YALE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND CO-AUTHORED A BOOK “THE DANGEROUS DIAGNOSIS OF DONALD TRUMP” AND FORMER CHAIR OF SPSYCHIATRY AT DUKE. SO DR. LEE, FIRST, TO YOU, YOU HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SOUND AN ALARM FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S FITNESS. HAS THE PRESS BEEN LISTENING TO WHAT YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN SAYING?>>NOT AT ALL. I FEEL THAT THE PRESS HAS ACTIVELY TRIED TO SHUN US ESPECIALLY “THE NEW YORK TIMES” EDITORIAL THAT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN PUBLISH IN COLLABORATION WITH THE PAST APA PRESIDENT AND I’M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN WORKING AS PRETTY MUCH AS AN AGENT OF THE STATE TO — >>TO STOP PEOPLE FROM TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE?>>YES, I’M SPEAKING OF THE NEW, WHAT MANY OF US HAVE STARTED TO CALL A GAG RULE. THEY HAVE MODIFIED THE ORIGINAL GOLD WATER RULE, WHICH I’M A STAUNCH SUPPORTER OF INTO AN ORDER THAT ALLOWS FOR NO EXCEPTION AND IT BASICALLY SAYS THAT WE’RE NOT JUST ALLOWED TO DIAGNOSE BUT SAY ANYTHING OF ANY KIND IN RELATION TO AUB MANY I CAN WILL FIGURE. HERE IS WHAT THE ORIGINAL GOLD WATER RULE SAYS. THAT PSYCHIATRISTS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO SOCIETY AS WELL AS TO PATIENTS AND WE ARE EXPECTED TO CONTRIBUTE TO ACTIVITIES THAT IMPROVE THE COMMUNITY AND BETTER PUBLIC HEALTH, AND SO WHEN WE’RE ASKED ABOUT A PUBLIC FIGURE, WE SHOULD EDUCATE THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL TERMS, JUST NOT DIAGNOSE. >>WITHOUT SAYING I’M DIAGNOSING BECAUSE YOU’VE NEVER MET THE MAN. >>EXACTLY. >>YOU CAN DESCRIBE WHAT YOU’RE SEEING. DR. FRANCIS, I KNOW YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS VIEW DR. LEE AND A COUPLE SIGPSYCHIATRISTS PUBLISH. YOU SAID IT’S DANGEROUS, WHY?>>THERE ARE THREE VERY DIRE CONSEQUENCES. THE FIRST IS THAT IT STIGMATIZES. I’VE KNOWN THOUSANDS OF PATIENTS, ALMOST ALL OF THEM ARE WELL-BEHAVED WELL-MANNERED GOOD PEOPLE. TRUMP IS NONE OF THESE. LUMPING THAT IS A TERRIBLE INSULT AND THEY HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS AND STIGMA HAS IT IS. CALLING TRUMP CRAZY HIDES THE FACT THAT WE’RE CRAZY FOR HAVING ELECTED HIM AND EVEN CRAZIER FOR ALLOWING HIS CRAZY POLICIES TO PERSIST. TRUMP IS AS DESTRUCTIVE A PERP IN THIS CENTURY AS HITLER IN THE LAST CENTURY. HE MAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MANY MORE MILLION DEATHS THAN THEY WERE. HE NEEDS TO BE CONTAINED BUT HE NEEDS TO BE CONTAINED BY ATTACKING HIS POLICIES, NOT HIS PERSON. IT’S CRAZY FOR US TO BE DESTROYING THE CLIMATE OUR CHILDREN WILL LIVE IN. IT’S CRAZY TO BE GIVING TAX CUTS TO THE RICH THAT WILL ADD TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE DEBT OUR CHILDREN WILL HAVE TO PAY. IT’S CRAZY TO BE DESTROYING OUR DEMOCRACY BY CLAIMING THAT THE PRESS AND THE COURTS OF THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE. WE HAVE TO FACE THESE POLICIES NOT TRUMP’S PERSON. IT’S ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE, YOU CAN BET THE HOUSE THAT THE CONGRESS THAT PAINTS THAT THE CABINET WILL NEVER EVER REMOVE TRUMP ON GROUNDS OF MENTAL UNFITNESS. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. DISCUSSING THE ISSUE IN PSYCHOLOGICAL NAME-CALLING TERMS DISTRACTS US FROM GETTING OUT TO VOTE — >>BUT I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT NAME CALLING. I’M TALKING ABOUT ASKING QUESTIONS THAT ARE REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE. NOT SAYING WE HAVE THE ANSWERS, I’M SAYING WE NEED TO BRING IT UP. >>THE PROBLEM IS THE DIAGNOSIS OFFERED HAVE BEEN ARMATURE. THEY DON’T APPLY TO TRUMP. THEY WILL NEVER GET TRUMP OUT OF OFFICE AND I’M WORRIED THAT IN DEALING WITH THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MOTIVATIONS AND INACCURATE DIAGNOSIS, WE LOSE THE FOCUS ON GETTING OUT TO VOTE AND THAT’S MUCH MORE IMPORTANT AT THIS POINT. >>DR. LEE, YOUR RESPONSE?>>FIRST OF ALL, I’D LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT I HAVE NEVER DIAGNOSED, IN FACT, I HAVE ALWAYS EMPHASIZED DANGEROUSNESS OVER DIAGNOSIS. DANGEROUSNESS IS ABOUT THE SITUATION, NOT THE PERSON. MR. TRUMP AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN WOULD NOT BE SUCH A GREAT DANGER. I ALSO OBJECT TO THE MORAL ATTRIBUTION THAT DR. FRANCIS IS GIVING. THOSE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE GENERAL POPULATION. SOME ARE GOOD, SOME ARE BAD. IN FACT, MENTAL PATHOLOGY IS DEFINED BY DESTRUCTIVENESS, WHETHER ONE IS DESTRUCTIVE TOWARD ONESELF OR AGAINST OTHERS. IT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO TREAT AND ADDRESS. >>SO YOUR ADVICE TO THE PRESS TO OUTLETS LIKE CNN AND NBC TRYING TO COVER TRUMP, WHAT’S YOUR ADVICE?>>MY ADVICE IS CONSULT US. THERE ARE NOW THOUSANDS OF MENTAL HEALTH EXPERTS WHO ARE EAGER TO SPEAK BEYOND BELIEF. IN FACT, THEY HAVE FORMED PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION CALLED THE WORLD MENTAL HEALTH COLLISION AND MADE ME PRESIDENT. PEOPLE CAN GO TO THE WEBSITE DANGEROUS CASE.ORG. WE STARTED ON AN ETHICAL BASIS. I HELD AN ETHICS CONFERENCE AT YALE TO SPEAK ABOUT, TO DISCUSS THE GRAVITY OF SPEAKING UP AND AFTER THAT, WE COLLECTED THE ESSAYS OF 37 OF THE MOST RENOWNED PSYCHIATRISTS AND MENTAL HEALTH EXPERTS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY AND THAT’S HOW THE BOOK CAME ABOUT. WE’RE NOT TRYING TO MEDICALIZE POLITICS, WE’RE TRYING TO MEET OUR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO SOCIETY. >>AND DR. FRANCIS, YOUR ADVISE FOR THE PRESS? HOW DO YOU FEEL THE PRESS SHOULD HANDLE THESE ON GOING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S HEALTH?>>THE PROBLEM IS I THOUGHT THE BOOK WAS REALLY SILLY. THE PEOPLE MOST WILLING TO OFFER DIAGNOSIS KNOW THE LEAST ABOUT IT, HAVE NEVER CONTRIBUTED TO DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DIAGNOSIS. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT TRUMP IS DANGEROUS. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT BEFORE THE ELECTION. THE QUESTION IS HE DANGEROUS BECAUSE HE’S A BAD, EVIL CON MAN OR DANGEROUS BECAUSE HE’S MENTALLY ILL? ON THAT ISSUE, I THINK IT’S VERY CLEAR HE’S DANGEROUS BECAUSE HE’S EVIL. HE’S NOT DANGEROUS BECAUSE HE’S MENTALLY ILL AND THE MENTALLY ILL ARGUMENT, IF IT GETS HIM OUT OF THE OFFICE, GO WITH IT EVEN IF INACCURATE. ANYTHING TO GET THIS MAN OUT OF OFFICE BUT IT WON’T WORK SO PILING ON INACCURACY, STIGMA, THE PRESS WILL GET PEOPLE WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS SPOUTING OFF AT THE MOUTH, IT WON’T ADD TO THE DISCUSSION, IT WILL DISTRICT FROM THE POLITICAL STUFF AND WE HAVE TO FOCUS ON HOW EVIL — >>ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT — >>I DON’T CARE — >>CONNECTING THE DOTS BE BETWEEN ALL OF THESE RIDICULOUS THINGS THAT HAPPEN EVERY DAY AND MY FEAR IS THAT PEOPLE ARE TOO AFRAID TO SAY WOW, THIS IS A PROBLEM. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG HERE WHEN HE’S ATTACKING HIS FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR, MISSPELLING THE GUY’S NAME AND DOING 50 OF THOSE A DAY. KIND OF GRASPING FOR THE LANGUAGE TO USE AROUND THIS, BUT IT’S — >>I HAVE — I THINK I HAVE BETTER LANGUAGE. I THINK TRUMP IS BEST CHARACTERIZED AS A SPOILED BRAT AS A BABY HAVING TEMPER TANTRUMS, AS A COMPLETELY UNFIT PERSON UNABLE TO MEET THE CHALLENGES AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF HIS OFFICE, AS A CON MAN, AS A, THE MOST NARCOISSISTIC PERSON MAYBE IN OR TIME AND FOR ALL TIMES. ALL OF THESE AS A THIEF. AS A CORRUPTER OF OTHERS, AS A OBSTRUCTOR OF JUSTICE. THESE ARE TERMS THAT ALL MAKE SENSE. ATTRIBUTING EVERY BAD BEHAVIOR THAT HUMANITY IS CAPABLE OF TO MENTAL ILLNESS MISSES THE POINT OF EVIL AND STIGMATIZES THE MENTALLY ILL. >>DR. FRAN SCIS, DR. LEE, TO Y.>>HE HAS DIAGNOSED SAYING SOMEBODY HAS A NARCISSISTIC DISORDER IS A DIAGNOSIS AND I DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A NEED TO DUALIZE EVERYTHING. WE NEED TO CONNECT THE DOTS. ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE — ONE OR THE OTHER, SOMEONE CAN BLACK THE CAPACITY AND BE CRIMINALLY MINDED. I POINTED THAT OUT IN A NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS AND IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ONLY A PERSONAL PROBLEM, WE’RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT MR. TRUMP’S PERSONAL MENTAL HEALTH, WE’RE KCONCERNED ABOUT HIS AFFECTS ON SOCIETY AND POLITICAL PEOPLE ARE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH. MENTAL HEALTH PEOPLE ARE WONDERING ABOUT THE POLITICAL PROCESS. IT’S ABOUT TIME FOR A CONVERSATION, I WOULD SAY. >>DR. LEE, DR. FRANCIS, THANK YOU BOTH. I’M GRATEFUL FOR YOU BOTH. QUICK BREAK AND A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ECONOMY, PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TWEETS AND COMMENTS ABOUT THE>>>WELCOME BACK TO “RELIABLE SOURCES.” I’M BRIAN STELTER. TRUMP’S PLEDGE TO ELIMINATE THE FEDERAL DEBT IS FURTHER AND FURTHER OUT OF REACH. THEY EXPECT THE DEFICIT TO REACH $1 TRILLION NEXT YEAR SOONER THAN EXPECTED. NOTICE WHAT IS NOT HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. RIGHT WING TV AND RADIO HOSTS ARE NOT UP IN ARMS. IN FACT, THEY BARELY MADE A PEEP WHEN TRUMP SURRENDERED A FIGHT OVER DEBT AND DEFICITS BY SIGNING A BILL THAT INCREASES SPENDING AND RAISES THE DEBT CEILING. THAT STORY ALMOST DIDN’T LEAD THE NIGHTLY NEWS, IT IS PARTLY BECAUSE THERE WASN’T AN OUTCRY. I GUESS CONSERVATIVES WANTED THIS ISSUE TO DISAPPEAR TO ENSURE THEIR CONPITLATION, ONCE SAID TO BE A TOP PRIORITY WOULD GO UNNOTICED AND MOSTLY DID BUT SMALL SIGNS SURFACED. THEY CALLED IT TO TO LOU DOBBS AND EXPLAINED WHAT TRUMP IS DOING TO LOWER THE DEFICIT. DOBBS COULDN’T. >>WHAT HAS HE DONE TO ADDRESS I IT?>>LOOKING FOR RECORD LOW MINORITY. >>THE DEBT — ASKING YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THE DEFICIT AND DEBT. DO YOU WORRY ABOUT THAT OR NOT? IF YOU DON’T, THAT’S FINE. >>DEFENDING TRUMP OF COURSE BUT I DON’T WANT THIS HE’SRY TO FALL DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE. D DOBBS AND RIGHT-WING STARS SCREAMED. THIS IS IN 2015, WATCH. >>WE’VE SEEN SEVEN YEARS OF ABSU ABSURDITY. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT A DEBTOR NATION. WE CONTINUE TO PERSIST BETWEEN $400 BILLION AND A HALF TRILLION IN DEFICIT EVERY YEAR. YOU DON’T FIND YOUR WAY TO THE PROMISE LAND AND FIND YOUR WAY TO DEVASTATION. >>DEVASTATION, WE’RE NEARING A TRILLION DOLLARS AND LIKES THE GUY. >>IT’S THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS EXAMPLE OF DEFICIT SPENDING IMAGINABLE. THEY BORROWED $170 BILLION TO PAY FOR THE SPENDING NOT COVERED BY THE TAX REVENUE. AMAZING. IF YOU RUN YOUR HOUSEHOLD LIKE THAT, YOU WOULD BE BANKRUPT. >>THESE CLIPS ARE IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, RUSH LIMBAUGH SPENT YEARS SLAMMING OBAMA TO TURN AROUND AND BLAME POLITICIANS, NOT HIMSELF FOR SQUAR SCARES PE ABOUT THE DEFICIT. >>THIS IS ABOUT THE DEBT THAT OBAMA CREATED IF OBAMA WAS A CEO OF A PRIVATE COMPANY, HE WOULD FACE AN E. SEC. INVESTIGATION BECAUSE OF HIS LIES. HE’S NOT A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE ANYMORE. >>IT’S EASIER TO ROLL YOUR EYES AND EXCUSING THE OBAMA APART FOR BUT IN THIS MOLT, WE NEED TO REMEMBER THOSE OLD CLIPS. O OUTRAGEOUS ACTS AND OBAMA KEPT THE GREAT RECESSION FROM BECOMING A DEPRESSION AND SUPPORT THE SAFETY NET DURING A RECESSION AND IT WORKED. TRUMP INHERITED A HEALTHY ECONOMY WITH THE DEFICIT SLOWING AND TRUMP STARTED BLOWING UP THE DEBT WITH TAX CUTS. GOD HELP US IF WE DO HAVE ANOTHER RECESSION. JOINING ME IS MY TWO GUESTS. DANIEL DALE, THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO BLAME ANY DOWNTURN ON THE MEDIA AND WILL SAY IT’S OUR FAULT. WHAT IS HIS MOST AGEGREGIOUS LI?>>IT’S NOT HIS TRADE WAR. AS FACT CHECKERS, WE LIKE COMPLICATED POLICY CLAIMS WE CAN DELVE INTO AND MAKE OURSELVES LOOK SMART AND RIDICULOUS ONES WHERE YOU’RE LIKE NO, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT’S NOT TRUE. >>THERE IS THE QUOTE. HE DID SAY IT. HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO RESPOND WHEN HE SAYS I’M THE CHOSEN ONE TO TAKE ON CHINA AND HE SAYS I WAS BEINGCASTICSARCASTIC, YOU C TAKE A JOKE. >>WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE SECOND THOUGHTS. IT’S REALLY A PROBLEM WHEN THE PRESIDENT’S VERSION OF TRUTH, WE ALREADY KNOW IS NOT EVOLVED AND WE DON’T EVEN KNOW IF HIS WORDS SEEM TO MEAN WHAT THEY SOUND LIKE IF THE TWEETS CONSTITUTE ANY KIND OF POLICY, I MEAN, WE’RE IN THIS EVER SHIFTING REALITY HERE WHERE IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHETHER TO TAKE THESE SERIOUSLY BECAUSE SOMETIMES POLICIES DO FOLLOW SOME TRUMP’S RANDOM USING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. >>RIGHT, AND TWEETS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WHAT SHOULD THE PRESS DO DIFFERENTLY? I WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE THINGS THAT SEEM UNHINGED BUT WHEN IT SEEMS TO FACT CHECKING, YOUR SPECIALTY, WHAT DO YOU WISH WE WOULD DO DIFFERENTLY?>>COVER THE DISHONESTY AT ALL. I CAN’T TELL YOU THE NUMBER OF TIMES I FACT CHECKED A RALLY HE MADE 15, 25, SOMETIMES 30 FALSE CLAIMS AND READ THE COVERAGE AND NOT ONLY IS THAT NOT THE FOCUS — >>HE WAS ENTERERGETIC AT THE RALLY. >>THE HEADLINE IS HIS PEOPLE LOVE IT AND DON’T CARE. >>IF IT’S NOT THE FOCUS, IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED AT LEAST AND THAT OFTEN STILL FOUR YEARS INTO THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. >>OFTEN TIMES, THE LYING IS THE STORY. >>YES. >>I’M GLAD CNN BROUGHT YOU ON. WE HAVE A FACT CHECKER BUT NEED MORE OF THAT ACROSS THE PRESS IT SEEMS LIKE. ALL THROUGH THE NEWS OUTLETS TO KEEP IT FRONT AND CENTER. >>AGREE. THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS THE PRESS SHOULD BE DOING. ONE IS CONFRONTING TRUMP AT LEAST ABOUT THE LIES AND FALSE CLAIMS HE’S MADE DOZENS OF TIMES. I UNDERSTAND IF THE FIRST TIME YOU DON’T KNOW THE FACTS AND AREN’T COMFORTABLE PUTTING HIM ON THE SPOT BUT AFTER 80 TIMES HE PASSED THE PROGRAM THAT OBAMA SIGNED INTO LAW, SOMEONE CAN SAY MR. PRESIDENT, THAT’S NOT TRUE. ALSO, IT’S NOT EVEN AFTER HIS RALLIES, IT’S NOT EVEN MENTIONED WHATSOEVER THAT HE MADE 15 OR 20. I THINK BOTH OF THESE THINGS NEED TO HAPPEN. >>THIS WEEK TWO FORMER TRUMP SECRETARIES GOT NEW JOBS, SEAN SPICER GOING TO “DANCING WITH THE STARS” SARAH SANDERS JOINING FOX NEWS AS A COMMENTATOR. DOES THIS MATTER TO SEE FOLKS REWARDED AFTER MISLEADING THE PUBLIC AFTER MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS?>>WHAT WE’RE SEEING IS PRECISELY THE CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT DANIEL IS TALKING ABOUT AND REPORTERS DAILY INTERACTING WITH TRUMP TO CALL HIM OUT. THERE IS A DESIRE HERE TO PRETEND EVERYTHING IS NORMAL AND TO MEMORY HOLE THE PARTS THAT ARE EXTRAORDINARY. SEAN SPICER AND SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS REGULARLY LIED TO THE PRESS AND AMERICAN PEOPLE IN SERVICE OF MOST LIKELY PLAY TABLETLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICIES. SO DOES TRUTH MATTER? DOES IT MATTER THAT WE CAN TRUST BASICALLY WHAT’S COMING OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE? INSTEAD WE HAVE THIS IMPULSE WHERE WE WANT TO MOVE ON AND PRETEND IT’S NORMAL AND PEOPLE WANT TO TAKE THEIR KIDS TO SCHOOL AND WORRY ABOUT THEIR JOBS AND NOT KEEP THINKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT PEOPLE IN WHAT IS SUPPOSEDLY THE MOST ELEVATED INSTITUTION OF OUR COUNTRY ARE LYING TO THEM AND SO WE TURNED IT INTO MEANINGLESST TRIVIA. WE WANT TO MAKE SEAN SPICER INTO THIS LOVABLE HILARIOUS CHAKT ACR WITH NO RHYTHM. SEAN SPICER IS OUT THERE LYING ABOUT VOTING FRAUD. >>CNN HIRED ANDREW MCELcCABE ACCUSED OF LYING AND PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, YOU’RE HIRING McCABE, WHY CAN’T FOX HIRE SPICER? IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? WHY CAN’T FOX HIRE SANDERS? IS THERE A DIFFERENCE?>>OF COURSE. ANDREW McCABE WILL BRING SERIOUS EXPERTISE WITH RESPECT TO THE FBI AND INVESTIGATIONS, AND HE IN NO WAY WAS ACCUSED OF STANDING IN FRONT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND LYING TO THEM. HE WAS ACCUSED OF LACK OF CANDOR AND TALKING TO THE PRESS THAT THE PROPORTION, SKILL AND SUBSTANCE ARE UP EARLY IN THE COMPARABLE. >>IS THAT A PROBLEM, TWO WRONGS DON’T MAKE A RIGHT BEHAVIOR THAT GOES ON A LOT? I FIND IN MY TWITTER FEED, I GOT A LOT OF TRUMP SUPPORTERS SAYING EVERY POLITICIAN LIES, SO WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL ABOUT TRUMP?>>YEAH, I GET THAT ALL THE TIME. I’LL POINT OUT THAT TRUMP MADE, SAY, 240 FALSE CLAIMS IN A SINGLE WEEK BEFORE THE MIDTERMS AND I’LL GET PEOPLE SAYING WELL, OBAMA SAID YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR UNDER OBAMACARE WHERE YOU COULDN’T. EVERY POLITICIAN IS NOT ALWAYS HONEST AND OBAMA WAS SOMETIMES DISHONEST. IF YOU TALK TO ANY HISTORIAN, WE’VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THE AVALANCHE OF DISHONESTY AND THE TRIVIALITY, THE NEEDLESSNESS OF MANY OF THESE ARE SIMPLY NO QUALITATIVE OR QUANTITITIVE COMPARISON>>>A BAILLIONAIRE POLITICIAN COMPARING THE MEDIA TO GARBAGE. WEST VIRGINIA’S NEWSPAPER LEASED A DAMMING REPORT ABOUT THE STATE’S REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR JIM JUSTICE AND DETAILS THE COUNTLESS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST CREATED BY THE GOVERNOR’S CONFLICT OVF INTEREST. THIS SOUNDS FAMILIAR BECAUSE TRUMP MADE THE SAME MOVE. THEY SHARE A LOT IN COMMON. THEY CRITICIZE THE SAME TARGETS AND ATTACK THE MEDIA. JUSTICE IS KNOWN TO BRING A PAPER COPY OF THE GAZETTE TO SLAM COVERAGE OF THE RALLIES. WE DID INVADE THE GOVERNOR TO COME ON OUR SHOW AND HE DECLINED BY KEN MOORE JUNIOR IS HERE. BEFORE I BRING IN KEN, LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT JUSTICE SAID. HE SAID THIS WEEK IT’S BECOME THE CHARLESTON INQUIRER. THEY MAKE NO NEWS. ALL THEY DO IS THROW GARBAGE. COME ON. DESPITE HIS EFFORTS, LAWMAKERS ARE CALLING FOR ETHICAL REFORMS. KEN MOORE JUNIOR’S REPORTING IS HAVING AN IMPACT. KEN IS WITH ME FROM CHARLESTON. WHAT IS IT LIKE TO BE CALLED GARBAGE BY THE GOVERNOR?>>WELL, THIS IS NOTHING NEW FOR US. FORMER GOVERNOR ARCH MORE YEARS AGO THE CHARLESTON GAZETTE WAS KNOWN AS THE MORNING SICK CALL BUT CERTAINLY I THINK THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS KIND OF ELEVATED THIS AND IT’S ALLOWING THIS SORT OF ANTI PRESS RHETORIC TO TRICKLE DOWN AND EMBOLDEN PEOPLE LIKE GOVERNOR JUSTICE TO TAKE THOSE KIND OF CRACKS AND ATTACKS AT WHAT IS GOOD SOLID REPORTING BY THE GAZETTE MAIL. >>DID HE ACTUALLY ANSWER REAL QUESTIONS YOU ASKED?>>WE WANTED TO SIT DOWN WITH GOVERNOR JUSTICE AND GO OVER THE QUESTIONS WE HAD ABOUT THE GREENBRIER AND THAT HE DECLINED TO DO THAT. A SPOKESMAN DID SEND US SOPME RESPONSES TO EMAILED QUESTIONS BUT NO, THEY WOULD NOT SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS THIS WITH US. >>NOTABLY, YOUR REPORTING WAS IN CONSULT WITH A NATIONAL NON-PROFIT NEWS ORGANIZATION THAT’S BEEN TRYING TO HELP LOCAL NEWS OUTLETS RECENTLY. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO HAVE NON-PROFIT HELP LIKE THIS?>>OH, IT’S JUST ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. YOU KNOW, THE PROGRAM, THE LOCAL REPORTING NETWORK REPORT FOR AMERICA IS ANOTHER GREAT PROGRAM. ONE OF THE THINGS WE’RE SEEING AND THIS HAPPENED IN WEST VIRGINIA LAST YEAR WHEN THEY HELPED WRITE ABOUT THE NATURAL GAS ININDUSTRY, WHAT WE’RE SEEI IS THAT A POWERFUL INTEREST WHETHER POLITICIANS OR INDUSTRIES ARE VERY CRITICAL OF THIS PROPUBLICIA PROGRAM. POWERFUL PEOPLE DON’T WANT LOCAL NEWS ORGANIZATIONS STRONG AND INDEPENDENT AND DOING THAT. >>THAT’S ONE OF THE BEST TESTIMONIALS FOR HAVING IF THEY DON’T LIKE IT. >>WE FOLLOW THE MONEY AND GET A REACTION LIKE THIS, IT SHOWS WE’RE ON TO SOMETHING. THE GOVERNOR, HE POINTED OUT SOMETHING INACCURATE. >>THAT’S ALWAYS A THING. WE KNOW THE FACTS ARE NOT ON THEIR SIDE. KEN, THANKS SO MUCH. CHECK OUT THE FULL REPORTING ON THE WEBSITE. QUICK BREAK AND MUCH MORE ASED BEING A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION. IT LOOKS CONCERNING TO ME. IT SEEMS LIKE THE BODY GUARD TRIES TO SAY SOMETHING TO YOU ON STAGE STARTING YOUR SPEECH. DID YOU ORDER THE BODY GUARD TO TAKE THE MAN’S CAMERA AND REMOVE THE REPORTER FROM THE EVENT. >>BEFORE I GET TO THAT, I WANT TO SAY THIS. ANYONE WHO KNOWS ME KNOWS THAT I’M THE FIRST PERSON WHO WANTS TO GET A STORY OUT BE IT ON TV OR RADIO, AND THE ONLY REASON WHY I’VE BEEN QUIET IS BECAUSE OF THREAT OF LAWSUITS, AND MY ATTORNEY SAID I CAN SPEAK BUT HERE IS THE THING, THIS IS NOT ABOUT SUPPRESSING THE PRESS. MY BODY OF WORK STANDS FOR ME. AND NO, I DID NOT ORDER ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING. AT THAT MOMENT, WHAT YOU SAW WAS MY THEN BODY GUARD, WHO WAS CONCERNED WITH MY SAFETY COME TO ME AND SAY STOP TALKING. THEY WERE ABOUT 100 T0 FEET AWA FROM ME. I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON OR SAID. I WAS ON STAGE AT THE TIME. >>AND THAT’S TOUGH WHEN YOU’RE ON STAGE AND YOU’RE NOT SURE WHAT’S GOING ON BUT WHY NOT HAVE CAMERAS AT YOUR SPEECHES? WHAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH HAVING A PERSON VIDEOTAPE YOUR SPEECH?>>WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS A PRIVATE EVENT FOR A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION IN NEW BRUNSWICK NEW JERSEY. OUR CONTRACT STATED IF SOMEONE WANTED TO COME AND FILM OR IF THEY WANTED TO INTERVIEW ME, THEY HAD TO ASK FOR PERMISSION. THERE WAS NO REQUEST FOR PERMISSION AND PERMISSION WAS NOT GRANTED. NOW, IF THEY WOULD HAVE ASKED FOR PERMISSION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE REASON I DO THIS, ONE, IT’S STANDARD IN THE INDUSTRY AND TWO, BECAUSE I DON’T WANT MY WORDS TWISTED. >>AND I GET THAT. HE SAYS HE DID HAVE PERMISSION. HE SAYS HE HAS THE DOCUMENTATION AND SENT SOME OF THAT TO ME. >>ACCORDING TO MY CONTRACT AND WITH THE ORGANIZATION, NO ONE ASKED ME FOR PERMISSION. >>DO YOU — >>IF IT WAS ASKED, YES. >>DO YOU REGRET THAT THE BODY GUARD PUT HIS HANDS ON THIS REPORTER? TO ME THAT’S COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE. >>WELL, AGAIN, MY FORMER CONTRACTED SECURITY PERSONNEL THOUGHT I GUESS I SUSPECT WAS CONCERNED FOR MY SAFETY. >>SO MAYBE HE JUST OVERREACTED? ARE YOU SAYING HE JUST OVERREACTED?>>YES, YES. >>I REMEMBER I WAS GIVING — >>THEN THE DATE AFTER THIS, WE REVIEWED THIS AND DECIDED NOT TO CONTRACT WITH THAT ORGANIZATION ANYMORE BUT AGAIN, I BELIEVE IN MY HUMBLE OPINION OR I ASSUME THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT MY SAFETY. >>AND YOU HAVE SPOKEN IN THE PAST ABOUT FACING DEATH THREATS MORE THAN ONE. >>YES. >>CAN YOU TELL US ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THAT? I KNOW THAT’S SENSITIVE. >>IT’S A VERY SENSITIVE SITUATION. I DO RECEIVE DEATH THREATS. I CONTINUE TO RECEIVE DEATH THREATS. THE ATMOSPHERE AROUND ME IS CHARGED, AND THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I ASSUME HE MAY HAVE OVERREACTED BECAUSE HES CONCERNED FOR MY SAFETY BUT IT DOESN’T MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD TO GET A DEATH THREAT AND HAVE TO SEND IT TO THE FBI AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES. I’M A PERSON IN THE COMMUNITY, OF CHILDREN. I HAVE FRIENDS, I HAVE FAMILY. IT’S A TOUGH SITUATION TO LIVE UNDER BUT I DO IT AND UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE TO HAVE BODY GUARDS AROUND ME. >>HERE IS WHAT T”THE WASHINGTO POST” ERIC WROTE. IT’S ONE THING TO HIRE A BODY GUARD TO PROTECT FROM DEATH THREATS BUT ONE THING WHEN THEY UNDERMINE THE FREEDOM OF PRESS. WHAT WILL BE DIFFERENT IN THE FUTURE? WILL THERE BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN THE FUTURE? IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BODY GUARD IS NO LONGER WORKING FOR YOU.>>AS LONG AS THIS ATMOSPHERE CONTINUES, RYAN, I’M GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A BODY GUARD BUT THE PROTOCOL IS THAT THE BODY GUARD IS SUPPOSED TO BE WITH ME, AND THAT WAS NOT PROTOCOL. >>YOU MEAN BECAUSE HE LEFT, HE LEFT TO GO ALLEGEDLY ASSAULT THE JOURNALIST, YOUR ‘RE SAYING HE DIDN’T FOLLOW PROTOCOL. >>YOU WEREN’T IN THE ROOM. >>I WAS SPEAKING. SO AND AT THE VERY LEAST, FOR THOSE JOURNALIST WHO ARE SAYING THE THINGS THEY ARE SAYING, I WOULD HOPE THERE MAY BE A CORRECTION FOR THE ERROR THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID. >>ISN’T IT CONCERNING YOU’RE OUT THERE SPEAKING PRIVATELY, I REMEMBER WHEN I WAS GIVING A SPEAK AT A COLLEGE AND INFO WAR REPORTERS, THEY WERE ASKING QUESTIONS. I FOUND IT THE BEST WAY TO TALK TO THEM. OUR JOB IS NOT TO STOP PEOPLE FROM ASKING QUESTIONS, IT’S TO HELP THEM ASK QUESTIONS. >>THAT’S THE ISSUE. IF SOMEONE ASKED FOR PERMISSION, I WOULD HAVE GRANTED IT, BUT SOMETIMES YOUR WORDS ARE TWISTED BY PEOPLE WHO DON’T NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND YOU OR WHAT YOU’RE SAYING OR WHO HAVE AN AGENDA AND THAT KIND OF THING CAN CHARGE THE ATMOSPHERE TO CREATE HATE AGAINST ME, AND DEATH THREATS. SO THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS THIS WAS A PROTECTED MEASURE BUT AGAIN, WE’RE REASSESSING A LOT OF THINGS. >>AP

Tamara Keith and Amy Walter on what’s different about 2020 fundraising


Also what can’t come soon enough is Politics
Monday. And reunited, we have in our studio back together
again the great Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report and, of course, Tamara Keith of NPR,
also the “NPR Politics Podcast.” Thank you both. Good to see you back together. Let’s start with the dollar race, ladies. Tam, I’m going to ask you first. We talk about fund-raising every single election. Is it any different this presidential cycle? TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: On the
Democratic side, there has been a decoupling of donor and voter. And what by that is, traditionally, campaigns,
they go out, they try to raise money, and when they raise money from someone, when someone
writes them a check, sends them $1, sends them $50, they can mark them down not just
as a supporter, but as a voter. And, this time, it’s not monogamous. You have can — you have voters, Democrats
giving money five candidates, 10 candidates. Every time there’s, please give me $1, so
that I can be on the stage and have my voice heard, people are like, oh, yes, sure I will
give you $1. So then, when it comes time to actually sort
of buckle down and get voters out, they aren’t going to be able to just go to their donor
file and say, well, I can assume that those people will be caucusing for me or voting
for me in New Hampshire or South Carolina or caucusing in Nevada. Instead, they will have to figure out which
of their donors are actually their voters. AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: The
other big difference when you look back, especially thinking about the Republican — they have
had the most competitive primaries over the most recent era, right, 2012 and 2016. And the big thing in those campaigns were
the super PACs. Remember, individual candidates were associated
with super PACs, Jeb Bush probably the most famous. He personally didn’t raise as much money,
but his super PAC, because there are different rules for fund-raising super PACs, you can
give millions of dollars to a super PAC, had tons and tons of money. In 2012, super PACs were really influential
in that race especially helping in the early states like Iowa for candidates like Mitt
Romney and Newt Gingrich. Democrats, they have been moving away from
taking money from super PACs. There are no super PACs involved in this primary
election. All the Democratic candidates have said, don’t
build one for me. I don’t want your money. They’re staying away from corporate PAC money. They’re staying away from a lot of the sort
of traditional — I think in your piece, setup piece, you said sort of the old school fund-raising
of going and — going to these big high-dollar fund-raisers. LISA DESJARDINS: High-dollar. AMY WALTER: And they used to boast about that. (CROSSTALK) AMY WALTER: And even Democratic candidates
used to boast about they had bundlers, right, and they had people who would come. And, individually, Lisa would go and ask 20
of her friends to write $1,000 checks, and you would get lauded by the campaign for being
that big fund-raiser. They’re not doing that now. The focus is really on small-dollar donors. And it means that the way — it’s not just
that the way that the money is being raised is different, but now if you think about these
early states, who’s going to have influence in these races, it’s going to look a lot different
than it has in recent years. LISA DESJARDINS: One reason, of course, for
all these small donor numbers going up is the Democrats are forcing the issue. You have to get 130,000 small donors in 20
states to make the next debate. So far, I think we have 10 qualified, but
we still have 21 candidates, ladies. My question to you is, when we see this field
really cut down? Is it going to be after this next debate? What do you think? TAMARA KEITH: Well, I mean, in the last week,
I think there have been three fewer candidates. So there is a winnowing as we get toward these
fall debates. And there are a few candidates who think that
they won’t make it for the September debate, but they could make it for the October debate. And so they are hanging on for that. But I think that we will see a winnowing this
fall, but it’s still going to be a very big field, a historically large field. AMY WALTER: It is. It just gets harder and harder. We talked about fund-raising. LISA DESJARDINS: Right. AMY WALTER: It gets harder and harder to raise
money if you’re not publicly having a presence, whether it’s on the debate stage or getting
invited for interviews. So I think you will see a little more winnowing. And, look, I think what voters really want
to see — I know I want to see this personally, just as an analyst — is to see the top candidates
all on the same stage. Look, we have a field of 21 candidates, but
there are really only three candidates who have consistently polled in the double digits,
Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Kamala Harris sometimes touches up there. Buttigieg gets in the low single digits, and
that’s about it. Nobody else — after these other two debates
that we have already had, we haven’t seen much movement, except really among the top
three, four candidates. And so getting on stage in the debate, I know
it may help candidates’ ego, but it’s not necessarily helping their poll standing. LISA DESJARDINS: Someone who would like any
stage, I think, is Joe Walsh, who is a conservative former member of Congress, also radio talk
show host, Republican, who announced. There you see it here, his announcement that
he’s running against Donald Trump as a Republican, and he’s doing it in a couple interesting
ways. He issued basically a mea culpa, saying, in
the past, he believes his remarks may have been racist. He apologized for them. He said the president is not appropriate for
our children to watch. He’s going after the president on moral grounds. Is he a serious challenger? He’s challenging the president for his conservative
base. TAMARA KEITH: So what my reporting has shown
over time is that the president has consolidated the Republican Party, both if you look at
polling in terms of support for the president. There is not a lot of weakness among Republicans. But in terms of the actual party apparatus,
the Trump campaign and the Republican Party are one and the same. The Republican Party, the GOP, the RNC is
not going to allow a robust and competitive primary, because the president of the United
States is their candidate. And they have… (CROSSTALK) LISA DESJARDINS: He’s a Republican. TAMARA KEITH: And he’s a Republican. And they have worked very hard to lay the
groundwork to box out any serious challenge to the president in the primary. AMY WALTER: Right. I mean, the first thing is, it’s hard to know
whether to take Joe Walsh’s apology seriously. To say that he was a firebrand is putting
it nicely, the things that he has said on Twitter, that he said during his campaign,
that he has been known to tweet about, pretty out there, all right, and, in some cases,
calling for violence. TAMARA KEITH: Yes. (CROSSTALK) LISA DESJARDINS: He’s apologized for that,
but… AMY WALTER: That’s right. And one of his most famous, infamous was saying
Obama is indeed a Muslim, you should believe this. So that’s one piece that we have to deal with. The second piece is, who are these folks who
are frustrated with Donald Trump, the Republican Party? We think of the never-Trumpers, right, these
folks who were once — considered themselves Republicans. Either they’re conservative or they’re moderate. They don’t find a place with Donald Trump. Remember where Joe Walsh is from. It’s actually my home district, suburban Chicago,
a district that traditionally voted for Mitt Romney, voted for a Republican for Congress
for many years, this last year voted overwhelmingly for a Democrat, voted for Hillary Clinton
in 2016. He’s representative — even though he personally
is not like that, where he’s from his representative of a Republican base in the suburbs that once
supported every Republican candidate. But in the era of Trump, they have moved away
from him. But let’s be clear. He in his past was not that kind of candidate. But his district that he used to represent
was. LISA DESJARDINS: I want to end — I will end
on you, Amy. And we have seen ups and downs on Wall Street
in the last couple of weeks. That’s an important metric, we know, for President
Trump. My question to you, do you think this president
is recession-proof, if we have a recession? AMY WALTER: Yes, it’s hard to believe that
any president could withstand like a major economic crisis or recession. The question is whether or not just having
a slowing down is enough. And I think that, for Trump, we have already
seen the fact that his approval ratings on the economy have been separate from his overall
approval ratings. The gap between those is pretty significant. People, for a long time, at least up until
now, said they approve of the job he’s doing on the economy, don’t approve of the job that
he’s doing as president. So that gap is pretty big. LISA DESJARDINS: All right, we will have to
end it there. So good to see both of you. Tamara Keith, Amy Walter, thank you. AMY WALTER: You’re welcome. TAMARA KEITH: You’re welcome.

Trump Primary Challenger: It Seems To Me We Would Welcome Converts At Every Stage | Deadline | MSNBC


>>>I THINK IT’S A WEAKNESS NOT>>>I THINK IT’S A WEAKNESS NOT TO APOLOGIZE. TO APOLOGIZE. I’VE HELPED — I’VE HELPED I’VE HELPED — I’VE HELPED CREATE TRUMP, THERE’S NO DOUBT CREATE TRUMP, THERE’S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. ABOUT THAT. THE PERSONAL UGLY POLITICS, I THE PERSONAL UGLY POLITICS, I REGRET THAT AND I’M SORRY FOR REGRET THAT AND I’M SORRY FOR THAT. THAT. AND NOW WE’VE GOT A GUY IN THE AND NOW WE’VE GOT A GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE, GEORGE, THAT’S ALL WHITE HOUSE, GEORGE, THAT’S ALL HE DOES. HE DOES.>>THAT WAS FORMER GOP>>THAT WAS FORMER GOP CONGRESSMAN JOE WALSH, WHO IS CONGRESSMAN JOE WALSH, WHO IS TESTING THE POWER OF AN APOLOGY TESTING THE POWER OF AN APOLOGY THERE. THERE. HE’S COUNTING ON FORGIVENESS HE’S COUNTING ON FORGIVENESS FROM SOME PEOPLE WHO VIEW FROM SOME PEOPLE WHO VIEW BEATING TRUMP AS MORE IMPORTANT BEATING TRUMP AS MORE IMPORTANT THAN JUST ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE. THAN JUST ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE. WALSH ANNOUNCED OVER THE WEEKEND WALSH ANNOUNCED OVER THE WEEKEND THAT HE’S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT THAT HE’S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ON A SINGLE CORE MESSAGE, THAT ON A SINGLE CORE MESSAGE, THAT DONALD TRUMP IS UNFIT FOR THE DONALD TRUMP IS UNFIT FOR THE OFFICE HE HOLDS. OFFICE HE HOLDS. IT’S AN ARGUMENT MADE BY JUST IT’S AN ARGUMENT MADE BY JUST ONE OTHER EE LENGTLECTED OFFICIA ONE OTHER EE LENGTLECTED OFFICIA CAN COUNT. CAN COUNT. WHEN HE WAS IN THE SENATE, BOB WHEN HE WAS IN THE SENATE, BOB CORKER OF TENNESSEE SAID TRUMP CORKER OF TENNESSEE SAID TRUMP DID NOT DISPLAY THE CONFIDENCE DID NOT DISPLAY THE CONFIDENCE THE WEST WING REQUIRED. THE WEST WING REQUIRED. CORKER RETIRED IN 2018. CORKER RETIRED IN 2018. TRUMP’S ERRATIC BEHAVIOR IS NOW TRUMP’S ERRATIC BEHAVIOR IS NOW WELL DOCUMENTED. WELL DOCUMENTED. BUT NOT ONE OF THE NEARLY TWO BUT NOT ONE OF THE NEARLY TWO DOZEN DEMOCRATS RUNNING FOR DOZEN DEMOCRATS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT HAS MADE TRUMP’S PRESIDENT HAS MADE TRUMP’S FITNESS A CENTRAL MESSAGE IN THE FITNESS A CENTRAL MESSAGE IN THE CAMPAIGN. CAMPAIGN. ENTER JOE WALSH. ENTER JOE WALSH.>>WE HAVE SOMEONE IN THE WHITE>>WE HAVE SOMEONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO WE ALL KNOW IS UNFIT, HOUSE WHO WE ALL KNOW IS UNFIT, SOMEONE WHO LIES VIRTUALLY EVERY SOMEONE WHO LIES VIRTUALLY EVERY TIME HE OPENS HIS MOUTH, SOMEONE TIME HE OPENS HIS MOUTH, SOMEONE WHO PLACES HIS OWN INTERESTS WHO PLACES HIS OWN INTERESTS ABOVE THE NATION’S INTERESTS AT ABOVE THE NATION’S INTERESTS AT EVERY SINGLE TURN. EVERY SINGLE TURN. WE CANNOT AFFORD FOUR MORE YEARS WE CANNOT AFFORD FOUR MORE YEARS OF DONALD TRUMP, NO WAY. OF DONALD TRUMP, NO WAY.>>JOINING US NOW FORMER>>JOINING US NOW FORMER REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN JOE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN JOE WALSH. WALSH. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.>>GOOD TO BE HERE, NICOLLE.>>GOOD TO BE HERE, NICOLLE.>>I STARTED WITH THE APOLOGY>>I STARTED WITH THE APOLOGY BECAUSE I THINK FOR A LOT OF BECAUSE I THINK FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, I THINK THAT’S YOUR ONLY PEOPLE, I THINK THAT’S YOUR ONLY WAY IN. WAY IN.>>YES.>>YES.>>I THINK IT’S ATONING FOR SOME>>I THINK IT’S ATONING FOR SOME OF THE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE OF THE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH IT. INCONSISTENT WITH IT. SO TALK TO ME ABOUT THE SPIRIT SO TALK TO ME ABOUT THE SPIRIT IN WHICH DISPARAGING COMMENTS IN WHICH DISPARAGING COMMENTS WERE MADE ABOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA, WERE MADE ABOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA, MUSLIM MEN. MUSLIM MEN.>>ABSOLUTELY.>>ABSOLUTELY. WE WERE DIVIDED BEFORE TRUMP AND WE WERE DIVIDED BEFORE TRUMP AND YOU CAN ARGUE IT GOT DIVIDED. YOU CAN ARGUE IT GOT DIVIDED. I GOT AHEAD OF MYSELF AND I GOT AHEAD OF MYSELF AND PERSONAL A LOT. PERSONAL A LOT. I WANTED TO FIGHT ABOUT POLICY I WANTED TO FIGHT ABOUT POLICY AND IDEAS AND I GOT PERSONAL AND AND IDEAS AND I GOT PERSONAL AND HATEFUL ABOUT BARACK OBAMA HATEFUL ABOUT BARACK OBAMA BECAUSE I GOT SO INTO THE FIGHT. BECAUSE I GOT SO INTO THE FIGHT. IT OCCURRED TO ME AFTER TRUMP IT OCCURRED TO ME AFTER TRUMP GOT ELECTED THAT THE DEMONIZING GOT ELECTED THAT THE DEMONIZING I DID OF PEOPLE LED TO HIM, I DID OF PEOPLE LED TO HIM, BECAUSE THAT’S ALL HE DOES. BECAUSE THAT’S ALL HE DOES. IT’S PROBABLY BEEN THE MOST IT’S PROBABLY BEEN THE MOST DIFFICULT THING I’VE EVER SAID, DIFFICULT THING I’VE EVER SAID, TO APOLOGIZE FOR VOTING FOR HIM TO APOLOGIZE FOR VOTING FOR HIM AND TO APOLOGIZE FOR CREATING AND TO APOLOGIZE FOR CREATING HIM. HIM. NICOLLE, I DON’T WANT TO GIVE NICOLLE, I DON’T WANT TO GIVE MYSELF TOO MUCH CREDIT BUT I MYSELF TOO MUCH CREDIT BUT I THINK I CREATED HIM BECAUSE I THINK I CREATED HIM BECAUSE I ENGAGED TOO MUCH IN HIS PERSONAL ENGAGED TOO MUCH IN HIS PERSONAL DEMONIZATION. DEMONIZATION. MAN, THAT GUY LIVES ON THAT BS. MAN, THAT GUY LIVES ON THAT BS.>>I GUESS I WANT TO NAIL DOWN>>I GUESS I WANT TO NAIL DOWN WHEN HE LOST YOU. WHEN HE LOST YOU. FOR ME WHEN HE CAME DOWN THE FOR ME WHEN HE CAME DOWN THE STAIRS AND CALLED ALL MEXICANS STAIRS AND CALLED ALL MEXICANS RAPISTS AND MURDERS AND TALKED RAPISTS AND MURDERS AND TALKED ABOUT MEGYN KELLY — I WAS NEVER ABOUT MEGYN KELLY — I WAS NEVER AVAILABLE TO HIM AS A REPORTER AVAILABLE TO HIM AS A REPORTER WHO WORKED FOR THE BUSH FAMILY. WHO WORKED FOR THE BUSH FAMILY. WHY WERE YOU EVEN AVAILABLE TO WHY WERE YOU EVEN AVAILABLE TO HIM TO BEGIN WITH? HIM TO BEGIN WITH?>>THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION.>>THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION. I SUPPORTED RAND PAUL IN THE I SUPPORTED RAND PAUL IN THE PRIMARY. PRIMARY. ONCE WON THE GENERAL I SUPPORTED ONCE WON THE GENERAL I SUPPORTED HIM BECAUSE I DIDN’T LIKE HIM BECAUSE I DIDN’T LIKE HILLARY. HILLARY. I DIDN’T LIKE TRUMP BUT HE I DIDN’T LIKE TRUMP BUT HE WASN’T HILLARY. WASN’T HILLARY. WHEN HE GOT ELECTED I TRIED TO WHEN HE GOT ELECTED I TRIED TO DO THE GOOD TRUMP/BAD TRUMP DO THE GOOD TRUMP/BAD TRUMP THING. THING. GIVE HIM A PAT ON THE BACK WHEN GIVE HIM A PAT ON THE BACK WHEN HE DID SOMETHING GOOD, ATTACK HE DID SOMETHING GOOD, ATTACK HIM WHEN HE DID SOMETHING BAD. HIM WHEN HE DID SOMETHING BAD. I’M ON CONSERVATIVE TALK SHOW I’M ON CONSERVATIVE TALK SHOW RADIO, ALL THEY WANT TO HEAR IS RADIO, ALL THEY WANT TO HEAR IS THE SEANTY BAD HANNITY BAD. THE SEANTY BAD HANNITY BAD. THE GUY WALKS ON WATER. THE GUY WALKS ON WATER. TO BE HONEST, I DIDN’T PAY THAT TO BE HONEST, I DIDN’T PAY THAT MUCH ATTENTION TO HIM. MUCH ATTENTION TO HIM. I THOUGHT HE WOULD MAKE A FEW I THOUGHT HE WOULD MAKE A FEW JOKES AND THAT WAS IT. JOKES AND THAT WAS IT. BUT EVERY TIME HE OPENED HIS BUT EVERY TIME HE OPENED HIS MOUTH AND HE LIED AND HE LOST ME MOUTH AND HE LIED AND HE LOST ME FOR SURE AT HELSINKI WHEN HE FOR SURE AT HELSINKI WHEN HE STOOD IN FRONT OF THE WORLD AND STOOD IN FRONT OF THE WORLD AND SAID I’M WITH PUTIN, HE’S MY SAID I’M WITH PUTIN, HE’S MY FRIEND, I DON’T LIKE MY FRIEND, I DON’T LIKE MY INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. THAT WAS IT AND I HAVE NEVER, THAT WAS IT AND I HAVE NEVER, EVER GONE BACK. EVER GONE BACK.>>WHAT DO YOU THINK THE BEST>>WHAT DO YOU THINK THE BEST AND MOST EFFECTIVE WAY, BECAUSE AND MOST EFFECTIVE WAY, BECAUSE THE IDEA OF HIS FITNESS — THE IDEA OF HIS FITNESS –>>HE’S NUTS.>>HE’S NUTS. NUTS. NUTS.>>THE TRUTH IS THAT WHETHER>>THE TRUTH IS THAT WHETHER PEOPLE SAY IT DISPARAGINGLY OR PEOPLE SAY IT DISPARAGINGLY OR AFFECTIONATELY, ANYONE WHO COMES AFFECTIONATELY, ANYONE WHO COMES IN CONTACT WITH HIM COMES AWAY IN CONTACT WITH HIM COMES AWAY SAYING HE’S CRAZY BUT THIS IS A SAYING HE’S CRAZY BUT THIS IS A HARD STORY TO COVER AND HARD HARD STORY TO COVER AND HARD ATTACK TO MAKE. ATTACK TO MAKE. WHAT ARE SORT OF YOUR PROOF WHAT ARE SORT OF YOUR PROOF POINTS? POINTS?>>HE’S A PSYCHOPATH, HE LIES>>HE’S A PSYCHOPATH, HE LIES EVERY TIME HE OPENS HIS MOUTH, EVERY TIME HE OPENS HIS MOUTH, HE’S THE BIG OF THE NARCISSIST HE’S THE BIG OF THE NARCISSIST WE EVER HAD IN THAT OFFICE AND WE EVER HAD IN THAT OFFICE AND THAT’S SAYING A LOT, JOHN. THAT’S SAYING A LOT, JOHN. AT EVERY TURN, NICOLLE, HE’S PUT AT EVERY TURN, NICOLLE, HE’S PUT HIS OWN INTEREST AHEAD OF THE HIS OWN INTEREST AHEAD OF THE COUNTRY’S INTEREST. COUNTRY’S INTEREST. LIKE A 5-YEAR-OLD CHILD HE DID LIKE A 5-YEAR-OLD CHILD HE DID NOT WANT WHAT RUSSIA DID TO COME NOT WANT WHAT RUSSIA DID TO COME OUT SO NOTHING TOOK AWAY FROM OUT SO NOTHING TOOK AWAY FROM HIS ELECTION. HIS ELECTION. HE’S DONE THAT AT EVERY TURN. HE’S DONE THAT AT EVERY TURN. WE WERE ATTACKED. WE WERE ATTACKED. MAYBE I’M NAIVE, I ONLY SERVED MAYBE I’M NAIVE, I ONLY SERVED TWO YEARS IN CONGRESS, BUT I TWO YEARS IN CONGRESS, BUT I CAN’T BELIEVE A BIGGER CAN’T BELIEVE A BIGGER REPUBLICAN HASN’T STEPPED UP REPUBLICAN HASN’T STEPPED UP THIS YEAR TO SAY IT. THIS YEAR TO SAY IT. I THINK, JOHN, YOU SAID IT LAST I THINK, JOHN, YOU SAID IT LAST SEGMENT, THIS GUY IS A CLEAR AND SEGMENT, THIS GUY IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. PRESENT DANGER. NICOLLE, MAYBE I’M A FLAWED NICOLLE, MAYBE I’M A FLAWED CANDIDATE, I PROBABLY AM, BUT MY CANDIDATE, I PROBABLY AM, BUT MY GOD, NO ONE ELSE HAS STOOD UP. GOD, NO ONE ELSE HAS STOOD UP. THIS IS MADNESS THAT ANYBODY IS THIS IS MADNESS THAT ANYBODY IS EVEN THINKING OF KEEPING THAT EVEN THINKING OF KEEPING THAT CHILD IN THE WHITE HOUSE. CHILD IN THE WHITE HOUSE.>>WHAT DO YOU THINK IT SAYS>>WHAT DO YOU THINK IT SAYS THOUGH THAT 85% OF REPUBLICANS THOUGH THAT 85% OF REPUBLICANS STILL APPROVE OF THE JOB HE’S STILL APPROVE OF THE JOB HE’S DOING? DOING?>>I THINK HIS APPROVAL IS SOFT.>>I THINK HIS APPROVAL IS SOFT. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE AN I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE. ALTERNATIVE. A LOT OF THE POLLING ALSO SHOWS A LOT OF THE POLLING ALSO SHOWS 50-SOME PERCENT OF REPUBLICANS 50-SOME PERCENT OF REPUBLICANS WOULD LIKE TO SEE A CHALLENGER. WOULD LIKE TO SEE A CHALLENGER. THERE ARE A LOT OF REPUBLICANS THERE ARE A LOT OF REPUBLICANS WHO LEFT THE PARTY, YOU KNOW WHO LEFT THE PARTY, YOU KNOW THAT. THAT. WE NEED TO BRING THEM BACK. WE NEED TO BRING THEM BACK. THE SLOGAN OF OUR CAMPAIGN IS BE THE SLOGAN OF OUR CAMPAIGN IS BE BRAVE. BRAVE. MAN YOU GOT TO BE NUTS OR BE MAN YOU GOT TO BE NUTS OR BE BRAVE TO DO WHAT I’M DOING. BRAVE TO DO WHAT I’M DOING. NICOLLE, IT’S A SERIOUS SLOGAN NICOLLE, IT’S A SERIOUS SLOGAN IN THAT I BELIEVE MOST EVERY IN THAT I BELIEVE MOST EVERY REPUBLICAN PRIVATELY BELIEVES REPUBLICAN PRIVATELY BELIEVES WHAT I’M SAYING PUBLICLY. WHAT I’M SAYING PUBLICLY. THEY’RE AFRAID TO SAY IT. THEY’RE AFRAID TO SAY IT. I KNOW MY FORMER COLLEAGUES FEEL I KNOW MY FORMER COLLEAGUES FEEL THAT WAY. THAT WAY. WE WANT THEM TO BE BRAVE. WE WANT THEM TO BE BRAVE.>>BOB CORKER SAID IT, AND HE>>BOB CORKER SAID IT, AND HE SAID IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND SAID IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND DEVELOPED CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS DEVELOPED CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEN SECRETARY OF STATE REX WITH THEN SECRETARY OF STATE REX TILLERSON. TILLERSON. HE ACTUALLY HELD HEARINGS TO TRY HE ACTUALLY HELD HEARINGS TO TRY TO LIMIT DONALD TRUMP’S NUCLEAR TO LIMIT DONALD TRUMP’S NUCLEAR AUTHORITY, FIRST TIME IN AUTHORITY, FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY I THINK A AMERICAN HISTORY I THINK A REPUBLICAN SENATOR WENT IN AND REPUBLICAN SENATOR WENT IN AND TRIED TO STRIP NUCLEAR AUTHORITY TRIED TO STRIP NUCLEAR AUTHORITY FROM A KEY EXECUTIVE. FROM A KEY EXECUTIVE. WHY DO YOU THINK MORE WHY DO YOU THINK MORE REPUBLICANS AREN’T WILLING TO DO REPUBLICANS AREN’T WILLING TO DO WHAT BOB CORKER DID, ATRADE TO WHAT BOB CORKER DID, ATRADE TO DO SOMETHING AND SAY SOMETHING? DO SOMETHING AND SAY SOMETHING? SOMEWHERE THEY’RE AFRAID. SOMEWHERE THEY’RE AFRAID.>>OF A TWEET?>>OF A TWEET?>>MEAN TWEET, PRIMARY>>MEAN TWEET, PRIMARY CHALLENGER AND I’M NOT GETTING CHALLENGER AND I’M NOT GETTING RE-ELECTED AND THAT’S PALPABLE RE-ELECTED AND THAT’S PALPABLE IN THE MEMBERS I HAVE SPOKEN TO, IN THE MEMBERS I HAVE SPOKEN TO, NICOLLE. NICOLLE. THEY ALSO MADE A BET, AND THIS THEY ALSO MADE A BET, AND THIS IS DISAPPOINTING, THEY THINK IS DISAPPOINTING, THEY THINK TRUMP WILL LOSE IN 2020, ALL OF TRUMP WILL LOSE IN 2020, ALL OF THESE REPUBLICANS. THESE REPUBLICANS. THEY WANT HIM TO LOSE. THEY WANT HIM TO LOSE. THEY SAY WE WILL HANG ON FOR TWO THEY SAY WE WILL HANG ON FOR TWO YEARS AND HE’S GONE AND YEARS AND HE’S GONE AND EVERYTHING WILL BE BACK IN EVERYTHING WILL BE BACK IN NORMAL. NORMAL.>>THEY HAVE GORSUCH AND>>THEY HAVE GORSUCH AND KAVANAUGH. KAVANAUGH.>>BE ITIT WILL NOT BE DONE.>>BE ITIT WILL NOT BE DONE. MANY HATE THE REPUBLICAN BRAND MANY HATE THE REPUBLICAN BRAND BECAUSE OF TRUMP. BECAUSE OF TRUMP.>>SO MANY DISSOCIATIVE>>SO MANY DISSOCIATIVE SITUATION WHEN I WORKED FOR THE SITUATION WHEN I WORKED FOR THE BUSH CAMPAIGN WERE COMMENTS BUSH CAMPAIGN WERE COMMENTS AROUND RACE, YOUR MANNER AROUND RACE, YOUR MANNER SUGGESTS YOU’RE SENSITIVE TO SUGGESTS YOU’RE SENSITIVE TO RACE. RACE. HOW DO YOU HELP HEAL IN A LOT OF HOW DO YOU HELP HEAL IN A LOT OF PEOPLE’S VIEWS THE MOST PEOPLE’S VIEWS THE MOST DANGEROUS PART OF TRUMPISM? DANGEROUS PART OF TRUMPISM?>>I’M OBSESSED WITH RACE.>>I’M OBSESSED WITH RACE. I’M PRETTY OUTSPOKEN. I’M PRETTY OUTSPOKEN. I PUSH THE ENVELOPE. I PUSH THE ENVELOPE. I HAVE A PODCAST WITH A BLACK I HAVE A PODCAST WITH A BLACK RADIO HOST IN CHICAGO AND WE RADIO HOST IN CHICAGO AND WE TALK ABOUT RACISM. TALK ABOUT RACISM. I THINK AMERICA IS AFRAID TO I THINK AMERICA IS AFRAID TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE. TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE. SOMETIMES I PUSH THE ENVELOPE SOMETIMES I PUSH THE ENVELOPE TOO FAR, AND I HAVE, BUT I AM SO TOO FAR, AND I HAVE, BUT I AM SO EXCITED TO LEAD A DIALOGUE ON EXCITED TO LEAD A DIALOGUE ON THAT, ON THE ISSUE OF RACE. THAT, ON THE ISSUE OF RACE. I WORK WITH A BLACK PASTOR ON I WORK WITH A BLACK PASTOR ON CHICAGO’S SOUTH SIDE, THERE’S AN CHICAGO’S SOUTH SIDE, THERE’S AN OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR REPUBLICANS OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR REPUBLICANS TO GET BLACK VOTES U. BUT, BUT N TO GET BLACK VOTES U. BUT, BUT N THIS GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE. THIS GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE.>>WHY DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET>>WHY DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET FARTHER THAN THE 16 REPUBLICANS FARTHER THAN THE 16 REPUBLICANS DID THAT RAN AGAINST HIM? DID THAT RAN AGAINST HIM?>>BECAUSE I’M GOING TO HIT>>BECAUSE I’M GOING TO HIT DONALD TRUMP, I’M GOING TO PUNCH DONALD TRUMP, I’M GOING TO PUNCH HIM IN THE FACE EVERY SINGLE HIM IN THE FACE EVERY SINGLE DAY. DAY.>>ON TV?>>ON TV?>>ON TV, RADIO, I’M GOING>>ON TV, RADIO, I’M GOING EVERYWHERE. EVERYWHERE.>>IF IT DOESN’T WORK OUT, WILL>>IF IT DOESN’T WORK OUT, WILL YOU VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT? YOU VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT?>>I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR DONALD>>I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP AGAIN. TRUMP AGAIN.>>WILL YOU VOTE FOR THE>>WILL YOU VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT? DEMOCRAT?>>I DON’T KNOW, THAT’S THE BEST>>I DON’T KNOW, THAT’S THE BEST HONEST ANSWER I CAN GIVE YOU. HONEST ANSWER I CAN GIVE YOU. I DON’T THINK SO. I DON’T THINK SO.>>IF YOU THINK HE’S MENTALLY>>IF YOU THINK HE’S MENTALLY UNFIT. UNFIT. I SAID MONTHS AGO I WOULD VOTE I SAID MONTHS AGO I WOULD VOTE FOR ANY OF THESE CANDIDATES, I FOR ANY OF THESE CANDIDATES, I WOULD VOTE FOR THEIR AUTOMOBILE. WOULD VOTE FOR THEIR AUTOMOBILE. I THINK THE MOST INTELLECTUALLY I THINK THE MOST INTELLECTUALLY HONEST THING TO DO, AND I HONEST THING TO DO, AND I BELIEVE YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU’RE BELIEVE YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU’RE SAYING, IS TO SAY THE BEST SAYING, IS TO SAY THE BEST PERSON TO BEAT HIM WILL BE THE PERSON TO BEAT HIM WILL BE THE NOMINEE OF THE OTHER MAJOR PARTY NOMINEE OF THE OTHER MAJOR PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY. IN THIS COUNTRY. SO I’M GOING TO TRY TO TAKE DOWN SO I’M GOING TO TRY TO TAKE DOWN HIS NUMBERS. HIS NUMBERS. THIS IS A POLITICAL STRATEGIST THIS IS A POLITICAL STRATEGIST THINKING, I’M GOING TO TRY TO THINKING, I’M GOING TO TRY TO PULL DOWN HIS NUMBERS, RAISE PULL DOWN HIS NUMBERS, RAISE ATTENTION AROUND HIS FITNESS, ATTENTION AROUND HIS FITNESS, FIND A FEW CATS AND DOGS, MAYBE FIND A FEW CATS AND DOGS, MAYBE STICK CORKER IN A BUS AND DRIVE STICK CORKER IN A BUS AND DRIVE AROUND IOWA, ONLY A HANDFUL OF AROUND IOWA, ONLY A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE MADE THIS ARGUMENT BUT IF PEOPLE MADE THIS ARGUMENT BUT IF IT DOESN’T WORK OUT I WILL THROW IT DOESN’T WORK OUT I WILL THROW MY WEIGHT AND VOTE AND SUPPORT MY WEIGHT AND VOTE AND SUPPORT AND LISTENERS BEHIND THE AND LISTENERS BEHIND THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE. DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE.>>TRUMP CAN’T WIN.>>TRUMP CAN’T WIN.>>IS THAT A YES?>>IS THAT A YES?>>NICOLLE, IT’S GRAB MY HAND, I>>NICOLLE, IT’S GRAB MY HAND, I COULD BE BROUGHT THERE. COULD BE BROUGHT THERE. I’M A TEA PARTY CONSERVATIVE. I’M A TEA PARTY CONSERVATIVE. THE DEMOCRATS’ IDEAS, MANY SCARE THE DEMOCRATS’ IDEAS, MANY SCARE ME. ME.>>IF YOU BELIEVE IT’S AN>>IF YOU BELIEVE IT’S AN EMERGENCY, PAY MORE IN TAXES TO EMERGENCY, PAY MORE IN TAXES TO GET RID OF THE CRAZY. GET RID OF THE CRAZY. THAT SEEMS LIKE THE MOST THAT SEEMS LIKE THE MOST INTELLECTUAL HONEST PLACE TO GO INTELLECTUAL HONEST PLACE TO GO IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAY. IF YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAY.>>I’M ALMOST THERE.>>I’M ALMOST THERE. I AM. I AM. BECAUSE THAT’S THE FIGHT. BECAUSE THAT’S THE FIGHT. AND THAT’S A BETTER FIGHT. AND THAT’S A BETTER FIGHT. I WOULD RATHER SIT DOWN AT THE I WOULD RATHER SIT DOWN AT THE TABLE WITH ELIZABETH WARREN AND TABLE WITH ELIZABETH WARREN AND TALK ABOUT FREE COLLEGE TUITION. TALK ABOUT FREE COLLEGE TUITION. THIS GUY IS DESTROYING THE THIS GUY IS DESTROYING THE COUNTRY. COUNTRY. I AGREE WITH YOU. I AGREE WITH YOU. I CAN BE BROUGHT THERE. I CAN BE BROUGHT THERE.>>CONGRESSMAN, I WANT TO COME>>CONGRESSMAN, I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE TOPIC NICOLLE RAISED BACK TO THE TOPIC NICOLLE RAISED A SECOND AGO AND FOCUS ON A A SECOND AGO AND FOCUS ON A LITTLE MORE. LITTLE MORE. YOU KNOW, YOU’VE APOLOGIZED FOR YOU KNOW, YOU’VE APOLOGIZED FOR HELPING TO SPAWN TRUMP, YOU HELPING TO SPAWN TRUMP, YOU APOLOGIZED FOR GOING TOO FAR. APOLOGIZED FOR GOING TOO FAR. LOOK, WHAT NICOLLE SAID I THINK LOOK, WHAT NICOLLE SAID I THINK IS TRUE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, THE IS TRUE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, THE PRESIDENT IS STONE-COLD RACIST PRESIDENT IS STONE-COLD RACIST AND SO ARE YOU. AND SO ARE YOU. I CAN SIT HERE AND READ OFF I CAN SIT HERE AND READ OFF TWEETS, BARACK OBAMA IS A TWEETS, BARACK OBAMA IS A MUSLIM, BARACK OBAMA’S BORN IN MUSLIM, BARACK OBAMA’S BORN IN KENYA. KENYA. I HAVE TWEETS USING THE N-WORD I HAVE TWEETS USING THE N-WORD NOT THAT LONG AGO AND FOR A LOT NOT THAT LONG AGO AND FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE THE NOTION THAT OF PEOPLE THE NOTION THAT ANYBODY WHO IS EXHIBITED — YOU ANYBODY WHO IS EXHIBITED — YOU CAN APOLOGIZE FOR VARIOUS CAN APOLOGIZE FOR VARIOUS THINGS, APOLOGIZING FOR BURPING THINGS, APOLOGIZING FOR BURPING AT THE TABLE OR USING THE WRONG AT THE TABLE OR USING THE WRONG FORK WITH YOUR MAIN COURSE IS FORK WITH YOUR MAIN COURSE IS DIFFERENT FROM OFFERING SOME DIFFERENT FROM OFFERING SOME KIND OF GENUINE RECOGNITION THAT KIND OF GENUINE RECOGNITION THAT NOT JUST I SAID THINGS THAT ARE NOT JUST I SAID THINGS THAT ARE OFFENSIVE BUT I’M A RACIST. OFFENSIVE BUT I’M A RACIST. I HAVE SAID RACIST STUFF. I HAVE SAID RACIST STUFF. THERE’S NO WAY SOMEONE WHO THERE’S NO WAY SOMEONE WHO HAS — TO MANY AFRICAN-AMERICANS HAS — TO MANY AFRICAN-AMERICANS LOOKS LIKE AS MUCH OF A RACIST LOOKS LIKE AS MUCH OF A RACIST AS DONALD TRUMP HAS THE MORAL AS DONALD TRUMP HAS THE MORAL STANDING TO CHALLENGE DONALD STANDING TO CHALLENGE DONALD TRUMP. TRUMP.>>YEAH, AND I WOULDN’T CALL>>YEAH, AND I WOULDN’T CALL MYSELF A RACIST BUT I WOULD SAY, MYSELF A RACIST BUT I WOULD SAY, JOHN, I’VE SAID RACIST THINGS ON JOHN, I’VE SAID RACIST THINGS ON TWITTER. TWITTER. THERE’S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. THERE’S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. AND AN APOLOGY IS NOT ENOUGH. AND AN APOLOGY IS NOT ENOUGH. WHEN I SAID BARACK OBAMA WAS A WHEN I SAID BARACK OBAMA WAS A MUSLIM, THAT WAS A HORRIBLE MUSLIM, THAT WAS A HORRIBLE THING TO SAY. THING TO SAY. AND I SAID IT BECAUSE I WAS SO AND I SAID IT BECAUSE I WAS SO DISGUSTED WITH OBAMA’S POLICY DISGUSTED WITH OBAMA’S POLICY TOWARDS ISRAEL, THAT I WENT A TOWARDS ISRAEL, THAT I WENT A BAD, UGLY STEP. BAD, UGLY STEP. THE SANDY HOOK MOMS, I TOOK A THE SANDY HOOK MOMS, I TOOK A CHEAP SHOT AGAINST THEM THREE CHEAP SHOT AGAINST THEM THREE YEARS AGO BECAUSE THEY WERE YEARS AGO BECAUSE THEY WERE SUING GUN MANUFACTURERS, AN SUING GUN MANUFACTURERS, AN ISSUE I DISAGREE WITH. ISSUE I DISAGREE WITH. SO I TOOK A BAD, CHEAP SHOT SO I TOOK A BAD, CHEAP SHOT AGAINST THEM. AGAINST THEM. I’VE DONE THAT. I’VE DONE THAT. BUT, JOHN, AGAIN CONTEXT, I BUT, JOHN, AGAIN CONTEXT, I PROBABLY SENT OUT 40,000 TWEETS PROBABLY SENT OUT 40,000 TWEETS IN THE LAST SIX YEARS, NO IN THE LAST SIX YEARS, NO EXCUSE, YOU AND I COULD SIT DOWN EXCUSE, YOU AND I COULD SIT DOWN AND FIND 200 TO 300 YOU WOULD AND FIND 200 TO 300 YOU WOULD SAY WALSH, WHAT WERE YOU SAY WALSH, WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? THINKING? ALL I CAN DO IS OWN THEM AND ALL I CAN DO IS OWN THEM AND EXPLAIN THEM AND APOLOGIZE AS EXPLAIN THEM AND APOLOGIZE AS SINCERELY AS I CAN FOR THOSE SINCERELY AS I CAN FOR THOSE THAT DESERVE AN APOLOGY. THAT DESERVE AN APOLOGY.>>I WILL JUST ADD YOU HAVE A>>I WILL JUST ADD YOU HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO TRY TO MAKE LOT OF WORK TO DO TO TRY TO MAKE A DISTINCTION PEOPLE I’M NOT A A DISTINCTION PEOPLE I’M NOT A RACIST BUT I SAID A LOT OF RACIST BUT I SAID A LOT OF RACIST STUFF IN PUBLIC. RACIST STUFF IN PUBLIC.>>THAT’S NOT FAIR BECAUSE WE>>THAT’S NOT FAIR BECAUSE WE HAVE A SHORT SHOW. HAVE A SHORT SHOW. YOU SAID I SAID THE N-WORD IN A YOU SAID I SAID THE N-WORD IN A TWEET ANDY TO MAKE A POINT. TWEET ANDY TO MAKE A POINT. THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE NAME THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS SO OF THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS SO THEY SAID REDSKINS WAS THE NEW THEY SAID REDSKINS WAS THE NEW N-WORD. N-WORD. THAT’S BS. THAT’S BS. THE REDSKINS DOESN’T EQUATE WITH THE REDSKINS DOESN’T EQUATE WITH THE N-WORD. THE N-WORD. THAT HAS AN UGLY HISTORY. THAT HAS AN UGLY HISTORY. TO MAKE THE POINT I WROTE DOWN TO MAKE THE POINT I WROTE DOWN THE N-WORD IN A TWEET. THE N-WORD IN A TWEET. TO MAKE THE POINT IT’S NOT TO MAKE THE POINT IT’S NOT NEARLY WHAT THE WORD REDSKINS NEARLY WHAT THE WORD REDSKINS IS. IS.>>YOU GET THE COMBINATION OF>>YOU GET THE COMBINATION OF CALLING THE PRESIDENT MUSLIM AND CALLING THE PRESIDENT MUSLIM AND BORN IN KENYA, ET CETERA, ET BORN IN KENYA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, THIS PAINTS A PICTURE CETERA, THIS PAINTS A PICTURE THAT MAKES PEOPLE DOUBT YOUR THAT MAKES PEOPLE DOUBT YOUR MORAL STANDING TO TAKE ON MORAL STANDING TO TAKE ON SOMEONE’S WHO’S PRIMARY IS SOMEONE’S WHO’S PRIMARY IS RACISM. RACISM.>>JOHN, MAYBE YOU AND I>>JOHN, MAYBE YOU AND I DISAGREE WITH THIS AND I NEVER DISAGREE WITH THIS AND I NEVER GOT INTO THE BIRTHER STUFF. GOT INTO THE BIRTHER STUFF. I SAID OBAMA IS MUSLIM AND I I SAID OBAMA IS MUSLIM AND I WILL GET DOWN ON MY KNEES. WILL GET DOWN ON MY KNEES. I DON’T THINK TRUMP IS A RACIST. I DON’T THINK TRUMP IS A RACIST. ALL TRUMP CARES ABOUT IT ALL TRUMP CARES ABOUT IT HIMSELF. HIMSELF. HE THERE THROW OUT RACIST AND HE THERE THROW OUT RACIST AND BIGOTED STUFF. BIGOTED STUFF. THAT’S ALL HE CARES ABOUT. THAT’S ALL HE CARES ABOUT. I DON’T KNOW IF HE’S A RACIST. I DON’T KNOW IF HE’S A RACIST.>>WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED TO>>WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW? KNOW?>>HE’S A RACIST, BIGOT,>>HE’S A RACIST, BIGOT, XENOPHOBE, HE’S EVERYTHING, XENOPHOBE, HE’S EVERYTHING, NICOLLE, BECAUSE HE WILL USE NICOLLE, BECAUSE HE WILL USE EVERYTHING TO JUST SIMPLY EVERYTHING TO JUST SIMPLY ADVANCE HIS INTERESTS. ADVANCE HIS INTERESTS.>>I WANT TO GET MY FRIEND DAVID>>I WANT TO GET MY FRIEND DAVID JOLLY IN HERE. JOLLY IN HERE. HE MADE THE DECISION TO LEAVE HE MADE THE DECISION TO LEAVE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. AND I JUST WANT HIM TO GET A AND I JUST WANT HIM TO GET A CHANCE TO JUMP IN. CHANCE TO JUMP IN.>>HEY, DAVID.>>HEY, DAVID.>>I GUESS CONGRESSMAN HERE>>I GUESS CONGRESSMAN HERE WOULD BE MY QUESTION FOR YOU, WOULD BE MY QUESTION FOR YOU, AND I WILL JUST ADMIT IT AND I AND I WILL JUST ADMIT IT AND I THINK A LOT OF VIEWERS WILL THINK A LOT OF VIEWERS WILL AGREE WITH ME WHEN I SAY THIS, AGREE WITH ME WHEN I SAY THIS, THANK YOU, JOHN HEILEMANN. THANK YOU, JOHN HEILEMANN. I COME DOWN AND HEILEMANN’S I COME DOWN AND HEILEMANN’S APPROACH TO THIS, I FIND A HARD APPROACH TO THIS, I FIND A HARD TIME ACCEPTING YOU MIGHT PROVIDE TIME ACCEPTING YOU MIGHT PROVIDE REDEMPTION FOR NEVERTHELESS REDEMPTION FOR NEVERTHELESS TRUMP REPUBLICANS BUT THE TRUMP REPUBLICANS BUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AT THIS MOMENT. REPUBLICAN PARTY AT THIS MOMENT. THIS IS A CRITICAL MOMENT WE THIS IS A CRITICAL MOMENT WE NEED SOMEBODY TO DRAW STARK NEED SOMEBODY TO DRAW STARK CONTRAST TO DONALD TRUMP. CONTRAST TO DONALD TRUMP. TO YOUR CANDIDACY AND HOW WE TO YOUR CANDIDACY AND HOW WE EVALUATE CANDIDATES, NICOLLE EVALUATE CANDIDATES, NICOLLE ASKED WHY DIDN’T YOU KNOW WHEN ASKED WHY DIDN’T YOU KNOW WHEN HE CAME DOWN THE ELEVATOR AND HE CAME DOWN THE ELEVATOR AND CALLED MEXICANS RAPISTS AND CALLED MEXICANS RAPISTS AND CRIMINALS? CRIMINALS? I THINK ONE OF THE HARD I THINK ONE OF THE HARD CONVERSATIONS WITHIN THE CONVERSATIONS WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS THOSE OF US REPUBLICAN PARTY IS THOSE OF US WHO HAVE DECIDED TO LEAVE, THOSE WHO HAVE DECIDED TO LEAVE, THOSE OF US WHO CREATED MUCH MORE OF US WHO CREATED MUCH MORE DISTANCE BETWEEN THIS PRESIDENT DISTANCE BETWEEN THIS PRESIDENT AND THIS PARTY THAN YOU HAVE, WE AND THIS PARTY THAN YOU HAVE, WE KIND OF FEEL LIKE WE MADE THE KIND OF FEEL LIKE WE MADE THE RIGHT DECISION AT THE RIGHT RIGHT DECISION AT THE RIGHT TIME. TIME. WHEN DONALD TRUMP IS GONE AND WHEN DONALD TRUMP IS GONE AND EVERY REPUBLICAN THAT REMAINS EVERY REPUBLICAN THAT REMAINS SILENT, AND I’M TALKING ABOUT SILENT, AND I’M TALKING ABOUT PAUL RYAN, MITCH McCONNELL, JEB PAUL RYAN, MITCH McCONNELL, JEB BUSH, ALL OF THOSE ON STAGE, WHO BUSH, ALL OF THOSE ON STAGE, WHO REMAIN SILENT, THAT IS A MOMENT REMAIN SILENT, THAT IS A MOMENT WHERE WE GET TO JUDGE THEIR WHERE WE GET TO JUDGE THEIR DISCERNMENT AND THEIR DISCRETION DISCERNMENT AND THEIR DISCRETION AND THEIR OWN JUDGMENT BECAUSE AND THEIR OWN JUDGMENT BECAUSE IF YOU’RE ASKING TO BE IN THE IF YOU’RE ASKING TO BE IN THE OVAL OFFICE WHERE YOUR JUDGMENT OVAL OFFICE WHERE YOUR JUDGMENT HAS TO BE IN A MOMENT’S NOTICE, HAS TO BE IN A MOMENT’S NOTICE, SOMETHING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SOMETHING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN TRUST, HOW DO WE TRUST YOUR CAN TRUST, HOW DO WE TRUST YOUR JUDGMENT IF YOU WEREN’T SAYING JUDGMENT IF YOU WEREN’T SAYING THESE THINGS TWO YEARS AGO AND THESE THINGS TWO YEARS AGO AND JUST SAYING THEM NOW WHEN YOU JUST SAYING THEM NOW WHEN YOU DECIDED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT? DECIDED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT?>>HOLD ON A MINUTE, DAVID.>>HOLD ON A MINUTE, DAVID. THEN WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE THEN WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE PEOPLE WHO LEFT TRUMP TWO MONTHS PEOPLE WHO LEFT TRUMP TWO MONTHS AFTER HE GOT ELECTED? AFTER HE GOT ELECTED? OR THE PEOPLE WHO LEFT TRUMP SIX OR THE PEOPLE WHO LEFT TRUMP SIX MONTHS AFTER HE GOT ELECTED? MONTHS AFTER HE GOT ELECTED? OR THE PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO LEFT OR THE PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO LEFT TRUMP AFTER HELSINKI, DO WE JUST TRUMP AFTER HELSINKI, DO WE JUST SAY THEY’RE NOT ON OUR SIDE. SAY THEY’RE NOT ON OUR SIDE. WE DON’T WANT THEIR HELP AND WE DON’T WANT THEIR HELP AND THEIR SUPPORT BECAUSE THEY THEIR SUPPORT BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T THERE AT THE ESCALATOR, WEREN’T THERE AT THE ESCALATOR, IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE SAYING? IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE SAYING? THAT DOESN’T SEEM FAIR. THAT DOESN’T SEEM FAIR.>>NO.>>NO.>>LET ME SAY THIS AND IT’S ALL>>LET ME SAY THIS AND IT’S ALL YOURS. YOURS.>>SURE.>>SURE.>>IT WOULD SEEM TO ME WE WOULD>>IT WOULD SEEM TO ME WE WOULD WELCOME CONVERTS AT EVERY STAGE WELCOME CONVERTS AT EVERY STAGE ALONG THE WAY IF WE THINK ALONG THE WAY IF WE THINK THEY’RE AGAIN UGENUINE. THEY’RE AGAIN UGENUINE. DAVID, IF YOU DON’T THINK I’M DAVID, IF YOU DON’T THINK I’M GENUINE, IT DOESN’T MATTER WHERE GENUINE, IT DOESN’T MATTER WHERE I CAME ACROSS. I CAME ACROSS. JOHN HEILEMANN, IF YOU THINK I’M JOHN HEILEMANN, IF YOU THINK I’M RACIST, IT DOESN’T MATTER IF I RACIST, IT DOESN’T MATTER IF I CHALLENGE TRUMP. CHALLENGE TRUMP. I EITHER CONVINCE YOU THAT I’M I EITHER CONVINCE YOU THAT I’M NOT OR CONVINCE YOU I’M GENUINE NOT OR CONVINCE YOU I’M GENUINE OR NOT BUT THAT’S YOUR CALL. OR NOT BUT THAT’S YOUR CALL.>>GO AHEAD, DAVID.>>GO AHEAD, DAVID.>>CONGRESSMAN TO YOUR POINT,>>CONGRESSMAN TO YOUR POINT, IT’S NOT MY PLACE TO SAY WHETHER IT’S NOT MY PLACE TO SAY WHETHER YOU’RE BEING SINCERE OR NOT. YOU’RE BEING SINCERE OR NOT. I WOULD SAY YOU HAVE A I WOULD SAY YOU HAVE A COMPELLING THERE TO SOMEBODY WHO COMPELLING THERE TO SOMEBODY WHO SAID I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT. SAID I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT. THE QUESTION IS, IS IT THE QUESTION IS, IS IT COMPELLING ENOUGH OF A NARRATIVE COMPELLING ENOUGH OF A NARRATIVE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR IS IT UNITED STATES, OR IS IT COMPELLING ENOUGH OF A NARRATIVE COMPELLING ENOUGH OF A NARRATIVE TO SIMPLY SAY WITHIN THE TO SIMPLY SAY WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WE HAVE TO REPUBLICAN PARTY, WE HAVE TO HAVE A FAMILY MEETING AND CHANGE HAVE A FAMILY MEETING AND CHANGE OUR BRAND. OUR BRAND. THE PARTY SUFFERS FROM A BRAND THE PARTY SUFFERS FROM A BRAND CRISIS RIGHT NOW, AND WHOEVER CRISIS RIGHT NOW, AND WHOEVER EMERGES IN THE FUTURE CAN’T HAVE EMERGES IN THE FUTURE CAN’T HAVE THE BAGGAGE YOU SEEM TO HAVE IN THE BAGGAGE YOU SEEM TO HAVE IN THIS MOMENT. THIS MOMENT. I THINK YOU’RE GOING TO HEAR I THINK YOU’RE GOING TO HEAR FROM A LOT OF VOTERS. FROM A LOT OF VOTERS.>>HOW ABOUT SOMEBODY IN THIS>>HOW ABOUT SOMEBODY IN THIS MOMENT WHO HAD, AS YOU HAVE MOMENT WHO HAD, AS YOU HAVE RIGHTFULLY IDENTIFIED AS SOME RIGHTFULLY IDENTIFIED AS SOME BAGGAGE, AND IS TRYING TO REDEEM BAGGAGE, AND IS TRYING TO REDEEM HIMSELF OR MOVED BEYOND THAT HIMSELF OR MOVED BEYOND THAT BAGGAGE? BAGGAGE? TRUMP’S VOTERS WERE MY VOTERS. TRUMP’S VOTERS WERE MY VOTERS. TRUMP’S VOTERS ARE MY LISTENERS. TRUMP’S VOTERS ARE MY LISTENERS. I MOVED AWAY FROM THEM. I MOVED AWAY FROM THEM. I DON’T KNOW. I DON’T KNOW. IT’S AN INTERESTING — IT’S AN INTERESTING –>>LISTEN — GO AHEAD, DAVID.>>LISTEN — GO AHEAD, DAVID.>>CONGRESSMAN, QUICKLY, ONE>>CONGRESSMAN, QUICKLY, ONE THING I WILL SAY IS GOING TO BE THING I WILL SAY IS GOING TO BE VERY INTRIGUING ABOUT YOUR VERY INTRIGUING ABOUT YOUR CANDIDACY THAT WE NOT SEE FROM CANDIDACY THAT WE NOT SEE FROM BILL WELD, YOU ARE COMING FROM BILL WELD, YOU ARE COMING FROM THE RIGHT. THE RIGHT. I IMAGINE WHEN IT COMES TO THE I IMAGINE WHEN IT COMES TO THE AGREEMENT AND WALL AND OBAMA AGREEMENT AND WALL AND OBAMA CARE, ALL OF THESE OTHER ISSUES, CARE, ALL OF THESE OTHER ISSUES, YOU’RE COMING AT TRUMP FROM THE YOU’RE COMING AT TRUMP FROM THE RIGHT WHERE WELD IS COMING FROM RIGHT WHERE WELD IS COMING FROM THE BEGINNING. THE BEGINNING.>>YES.>>YES. NICOLLE? NICOLLE?>>I THINK WHAT’S IMPORTANT TO>>I THINK WHAT’S IMPORTANT TO GET ON THE RECORD AT THE GET ON THE RECORD AT THE EARLIEST POINT THAT YOU CAN IS EARLIEST POINT THAT YOU CAN IS WHAT ARE YOUR PROOF POINTS TO WHAT ARE YOUR PROOF POINTS TO YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE CAUSE? YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE CAUSE? I THINK WHAT DAVID IS SPEAKING I THINK WHAT DAVID IS SPEAKING TO IS FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO TO IS FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO TOOK TRUMP ON WHEN THERE WERE 17 TOOK TRUMP ON WHEN THERE WERE 17 REPUBLICANS RUNNING AND HE WAS REPUBLICANS RUNNING AND HE WAS ONE OF 17. ONE OF 17. IT BECAME MORE DAUNTING AS HE IT BECAME MORE DAUNTING AS HE EMERGED. EMERGED. THE KINDS OF ATTACKS OF PEOPLE THE KINDS OF ATTACKS OF PEOPLE WHO WERE ONCE IN THE REPUBLICAN WHO WERE ONCE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY GET FROM THE RIGHT FROM PARTY GET FROM THE RIGHT FROM PEOPLE IN POSITIONS LIKE YOURS PEOPLE IN POSITIONS LIKE YOURS ARE VICIOUS. ARE VICIOUS. YOU’RE ABOUT TO GET THEM. YOU’RE ABOUT TO GET THEM. SO LET ME PUT ON MY STRATEGIST SO LET ME PUT ON MY STRATEGIST HAT, I THINK IF YOU REALLY HAT, I THINK IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN THIS CAUSE, AND I BELIEVE IN THIS CAUSE, AND I WILL COME BACK TO THIS, THE WILL COME BACK TO THIS, THE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST PLACE TO INTELLECTUALLY HONEST PLACE TO LAND AFTER PRAYER OR THOUGHT OR LAND AFTER PRAYER OR THOUGHT OR TALK WITH YOUR FAMILY IS SAY I’M TALK WITH YOUR FAMILY IS SAY I’M SO COMMITTED, I WILL SUPPORT SO COMMITTED, I WILL SUPPORT ELIZABETH WARREN OR BERNIE ELIZABETH WARREN OR BERNIE SANDERS. SANDERS. I WORKED FOR GEORGE W. BUSH AND I WORKED FOR GEORGE W. BUSH AND JOHN McCAIN. JOHN McCAIN. THAT ISN’T ABOUT THEIR POLICIES. THAT ISN’T ABOUT THEIR POLICIES. THAT’S ABOUT MY BELIEF ABOUT THAT’S ABOUT MY BELIEF ABOUT DONALD TRUMP. DONALD TRUMP. I GUESS I WOULD ASK IF YOU’RE I GUESS I WOULD ASK IF YOU’RE READY TO SAY TODAY RIGHT NOW READY TO SAY TODAY RIGHT NOW THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT ELIZABETH THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT ELIZABETH WARREN OR BERNIE SANDERS TO KEEP WARREN OR BERNIE SANDERS TO KEEP DONALD TRUMP FROM BEING DONALD TRUMP FROM BEING RE-ELECTED? RE-ELECTED?>>I’M ALMOST THERE.>>I’M ALMOST THERE. I CAN’T SUPPORT TRUMP. I CAN’T SUPPORT TRUMP. I KNOW YOU WANT A BETTER ANSWER I KNOW YOU WANT A BETTER ANSWER THAN THAT. THAN THAT. FOR TWO YEARS I HAVE BEEN IN FOR TWO YEARS I HAVE BEEN IN CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO, 95% OF CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO, 95% OF THE PEOPLE WHO LISTEN TO ME LOVE THE PEOPLE WHO LISTEN TO ME LOVE DONALD TRUMP AND I CRITICIZE DONALD TRUMP AND I CRITICIZE DONALD TRUMP EVERY DAY. DONALD TRUMP EVERY DAY. I’M NOT COMING TO THIS GAME I’M NOT COMING TO THIS GAME TODAY. TODAY. MAYBE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IS A MAYBE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IS A FAIRLY AUDACIOUS THING TO DO TO FAIRLY AUDACIOUS THING TO DO TO APOLOGIZE AND TRY TO REDEEM APOLOGIZE AND TRY TO REDEEM MYSELF BUT DAVID, JOHN, NICOLLE, MYSELF BUT DAVID, JOHN, NICOLLE, HOW COME NOBODY ELSE HAS STEPPED HOW COME NOBODY ELSE HAS STEPPED UP TO MAKE THE MORAL CASE? UP TO MAKE THE MORAL CASE?>>THEY’RE GOING TO GET YELLED>>THEY’RE GOING TO GET YELLED AT BY THE THREE OF US. AT BY THE THREE OF US. I HOPE WE CAN KEEP HAVING THIS I HOPE WE CAN KEEP HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. CONVERSATION. THERE’S A LOT TO TALK ABOUT. THERE’S A LOT TO TALK ABOUT. I’M TELLING YOU, IF YOU SORT OF I’M TELLING YOU, IF YOU SORT OF MARSHAL ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, MARSHAL ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, DAVID BROOKS WROTE IN 2017 ABOUT DAVID BROOKS WROTE IN 2017 ABOUT A GROUP OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS A GROUP OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS WITH MEDIEVAL TRUMP BECAUSE HE WITH MEDIEVAL TRUMP BECAUSE HE DISPLAYED EARLY SIGNS OF DISPLAYED EARLY SIGNS OF ALZHEIMER’S. ALZHEIMER’S. IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPORTING OF IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPORTING OF THIS TRIP, REPORTING ON THE THIS TRIP, REPORTING ON THE SPEECH, THE RALLY WHERE HE SPEECH, THE RALLY WHERE HE FORGOT WHAT HE SAID. FORGOT WHAT HE SAID. I’M NOT A DOCTOR BUT IF YOU WANT I’M NOT A DOCTOR BUT IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT CASE AND DO THE TO MAKE THAT CASE AND DO THE WORK OF PUTTING TOGETHER ALL OF WORK OF PUTTING TOGETHER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, IT’S A COMPELLING

Right-Wing Revolt: Walsh Says He’ll ‘Punch’ Coward Trump Daily | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC


A LIBERAL ECONOMIST SHAPING RACIAL JUSTICE POLICY FOR 2020 RACIAL JUSTICE POLICY FOR 2020 DEMES IS RIGHT ON “THE BEAT.” DEMES IS RIGHT ON “THE BEAT.” WE BEGIN WITH THE ALARM BELLS WE BEGIN WITH THE ALARM BELLS RINGING ALL OVER WASHINGTON, RINGING ALL OVER WASHINGTON, SIGNS THAT DONALD TRUMP IS SIGNS THAT DONALD TRUMP IS RATTLED AND SOME REPUBLICANS ON RATTLED AND SOME REPUBLICANS ON EDGE. EDGE. “NEW YORK TIMES” REPORTING “NEW YORK TIMES” REPORTING FORMER TRUMP OFFICIALS WORRIED FORMER TRUMP OFFICIALS WORRIED ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR, RISING ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR, RISING PRESSURE ON TRUMP CLEARLY WITH PRESSURE ON TRUMP CLEARLY WITH THE ECONOMY AND HIS JITTERS OVER THE ECONOMY AND HIS JITTERS OVER RE-ELECTION. RE-ELECTION.>>ANY JEWISH PEOPLE THAT VOTE>>ANY JEWISH PEOPLE THAT VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT I THINK IT SHOWS FOR A DEMOCRAT I THINK IT SHOWS EITHER A TOTAL LACK OF KNOWLEDGE EITHER A TOTAL LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR GREAT DISLOYALTY. OR GREAT DISLOYALTY.>>ISN’T THAT ANTI-SEMITIC?>>ISN’T THAT ANTI-SEMITIC?>>IT’S ONLY ANTI-SEMITIC IN>>IT’S ONLY ANTI-SEMITIC IN YOUR HEAD. YOUR HEAD.>>WE’RE TALKING ABOUT INDEXING.>>WE’RE TALKING ABOUT INDEXING.>I’M NOT LOOKING TO DO>I’M NOT LOOKING TO DO INDEXING. INDEXING.>I’VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT>I’VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT PAYROLL TAXES. PAYROLL TAXES.>>WE DON’T NEED IT.>>WE DON’T NEED IT.>>BRING UP BACKGROUND CHECKS>>BRING UP BACKGROUND CHECKS LIKE WE’VE NEVER HAD BEFORE. LIKE WE’VE NEVER HAD BEFORE.>>WE HAVE VERY, VERY STRONG>>WE HAVE VERY, VERY STRONG BACKGROUND CHECKS RIGHT NOW. BACKGROUND CHECKS RIGHT NOW.>>THE PRIME MINISTER’S>>THE PRIME MINISTER’S STATEMENT THAT IT WAS ABSURD, IT STATEMENT THAT IT WAS ABSURD, IT WAS AN ABSURD IDEA, WAS NASTY. WAS AN ABSURD IDEA, WAS NASTY. YOU DON’T TALK TO THE UNITED YOU DON’T TALK TO THE UNITED STATES THAT WAY. STATES THAT WAY. AT LEAST TO ME. AT LEAST TO ME. EXCUSE ME, SOMEBODY HAD TO DO EXCUSE ME, SOMEBODY HAD TO DO IT. IT. I AM THE CHOSEN ONE. I AM THE CHOSEN ONE.>>TRUMPOLOGISTS SAY THIS IS ALL>>TRUMPOLOGISTS SAY THIS IS ALL GETTING WORSE THAT IS IT LOOKS GETTING WORSE THAT IS IT LOOKS WACKY BECAUSE IT IS INCREASINGLY WACKY BECAUSE IT IS INCREASINGLY WACKY. WACKY. THAT’S NOT JUST CRITICS BUT HIS THAT’S NOT JUST CRITICS BUT HIS OWN PEOPLE. OWN PEOPLE. FEWER AIDES AROUND HIM WILLING FEWER AIDES AROUND HIM WILLING OR ABLE TO CHALLENGE HIM MUCH OR ABLE TO CHALLENGE HIM MUCH LESS RESTAIN THIS LESS IMPULSIVE LESS RESTAIN THIS LESS IMPULSIVE INSTINCTS. INSTINCTS. WHICH MIGHT EXPLAIN WHY SOME WHICH MIGHT EXPLAIN WHY SOME OTHER CONSERVATIVES ARE STEPPING OTHER CONSERVATIVES ARE STEPPING UP, TALK OF AN ANTI-TRUMP UP, TALK OF AN ANTI-TRUMP COALITION ON THE RIGHT, LOOK COALITION ON THE RIGHT, LOOK OVER AT THE FAR RIGHT WHERE OVER AT THE FAR RIGHT WHERE FORMER REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN FORMER REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN JOE WALSH, A TEA PARTY JOE WALSH, A TEA PARTY CONSERVATIVE IS TESTING THE CONSERVATIVE IS TESTING THE WATERS FOR HIS OWN PRIMARY WATERS FOR HIS OWN PRIMARY CHALLENGE TO TRUMP WHICH COULD CHALLENGE TO TRUMP WHICH COULD BE DIFFERENT THAN PRODUCT RATS BE DIFFERENT THAN PRODUCT RATS SAY MARK SANFORD OR BILL WELD SAY MARK SANFORD OR BILL WELD WHO HAS BEEN RUNNING BECAUSE YOU WHO HAS BEEN RUNNING BECAUSE YOU HAVE A TOUGH-MINDED RIGHT WING HAVE A TOUGH-MINDED RIGHT WING RADIO HOST TALKING ABOUT TAKING RADIO HOST TALKING ABOUT TAKING ON TRUMP. ON TRUMP. THE POLITICAL QUELL IS NOT THE POLITICAL QUELL IS NOT WHETHER HE WOULD WIN THE PRIMARY WHETHER HE WOULD WIN THE PRIMARY AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT OR AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT OR BECOME PRESIDENT HIMSELF. BECOME PRESIDENT HIMSELF. THE QUESTION IS NARROWER. THE QUESTION IS NARROWER. COKNOCK HALF A POINT OR A POINT COKNOCK HALF A POINT OR A POINT OFF DONALD TRUMP’S SUPPORT? OFF DONALD TRUMP’S SUPPORT? CONSIDER DONALD TRUMP COULDN’T CONSIDER DONALD TRUMP COULDN’T SPARE A SINGLE POINT IN HIS SPARE A SINGLE POINT IN HIS SUPER NER NARROW PATH TO THE SUPER NER NARROW PATH TO THE WHITE HOUSE. WHITE HOUSE. TAKE A LISTEN TO BE MR. WALSH TAKE A LISTEN TO BE MR. WALSH TODAY. TODAY.>>TRUMP’S A BULLY.>>TRUMP’S A BULLY. AND HE’S A COWARD. AND HE’S A COWARD. AND THE ONLY WAY YOU BEAT A AND THE ONLY WAY YOU BEAT A BULLY AND YOU BEAT A COWARD IS BULLY AND YOU BEAT A COWARD IS TO EXPOSE THEM. TO EXPOSE THEM. IS TO PUNCH THEM. IS TO PUNCH THEM. THE ONLY WAY YOU PRIMARY DONALD THE ONLY WAY YOU PRIMARY DONALD TRUMP AND BEAT HIM IS TO EXPOSE TRUMP AND BEAT HIM IS TO EXPOSE HIM FOR THE CON MAN HE IS. HIM FOR THE CON MAN HE IS. I’D PUNCH HIM EVERY SINGLE DAY. I’D PUNCH HIM EVERY SINGLE DAY.>>A LOT OF PEOPLE FELT LOOK, IT>>A LOT OF PEOPLE FELT LOOK, IT SEEMS LIKE TRUMP GETS AWAY WITH SEEMS LIKE TRUMP GETS AWAY WITH EVERYTHING AND HIS SIDE FORGIVES EVERYTHING AND HIS SIDE FORGIVES EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. BUT MAYBE IT WOULD ADD UP. BUT MAYBE IT WOULD ADD UP. TRUMP WAS PUNCHED BY MICHAEL TRUMP WAS PUNCHED BY MICHAEL COHEN. COHEN. HE’S BEING PUNCHED THIS WEEK HE’S BEING PUNCHED THIS WEEK ANTHONY SCARE MEW CHILL. ANTHONY SCARE MEW CHILL. HE’S BEEN GETTING PUNCHED FROM HE’S BEEN GETTING PUNCHED FROM BILL WELD BUT MANY REPUBLICANS BILL WELD BUT MANY REPUBLICANS DISMISS HIM AS A MASSACHUSETTS DISMISS HIM AS A MASSACHUSETTS MODERATE TONIGHT YOU HAVE TEA MODERATE TONIGHT YOU HAVE TEA PARTIYER JOE WALSH COMING AT PARTIYER JOE WALSH COMING AT TRUMP FROM THE FAR RIGHT AND TRUMP FROM THE FAR RIGHT AND MAYBE ALL THE PUNCHES DO ADD UP. MAYBE ALL THE PUNCHES DO ADD UP. CONSIDER ACCOUNT NEW NUMBERS IN CONSIDER ACCOUNT NEW NUMBERS IN AN A.P. REPORT THAT NOTES 62% OF AN A.P. REPORT THAT NOTES 62% OF AMERICANS DISAPPROVE HOW TRUMP AMERICANS DISAPPROVE HOW TRUMP HANDLES HIS JOB AND THAT TRUMP HANDLES HIS JOB AND THAT TRUMP IS, LET THIS SINK IN, “THE ONLY IS, LET THIS SINK IN, “THE ONLY PRESIDENT WHOSE RATING HAS NEVER PRESIDENT WHOSE RATING HAS NEVER BEEN ABOVE 50% IN THE HISTORY OF BEEN ABOVE 50% IN THE HISTORY OF POLLING.” POLLING.” THAT’S NOT GOOD. THAT’S NOT GOOD. THE A.P. ALSO NOTES A DROP DOWN THE A.P. ALSO NOTES A DROP DOWN TO SEVEN IN TEN REPUBLICANS TO SEVEN IN TEN REPUBLICANS APPROVING OF HIS HANNING OF GUN APPROVING OF HIS HANNING OF GUN CONTROL POLICY, HIS LOWEST CONTROL POLICY, HIS LOWEST RATINGS ON THAT ISSUE FROM RATINGS ON THAT ISSUE FROM REPUBLICANS. REPUBLICANS. SO EVEN ON GUNS, TRUMP IS LOSING SO EVEN ON GUNS, TRUMP IS LOSING THREE OUT OF TEN OF THEM. THREE OUT OF TEN OF THEM. HIS NEWLY VOCAL CRITICS AND HIS NEWLY VOCAL CRITICS AND OPPONENTS SEEM TO HAVE SOMETHING OPPONENTS SEEM TO HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON. IN COMMON. THEY APPEAR TO BE PLANNING THEY APPEAR TO BE PLANNING WHATEVER YOU THINK OF THEIR WHATEVER YOU THINK OF THEIR AUTHENTICITY, THEY APPEAR TO BE AUTHENTICITY, THEY APPEAR TO BE PLANNING FOR A WORLD WHERE PLANNING FOR A WORLD WHERE DONALD TRUMP LOSES. DONALD TRUMP LOSES. THEY COULD BE WRONG. THEY COULD BE WRONG. IT’S HARD TO BEAT AN INCUMBENT IT’S HARD TO BEAT AN INCUMBENT PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT. THAT’S JUST A HISTORICAL TREND. THAT’S JUST A HISTORICAL TREND. BUT IT’S INTERESTING BECAUSE BUT IT’S INTERESTING BECAUSE THESE NERVES AND THE WORRIES ARE THESE NERVES AND THE WORRIES ARE NOT JUST COMING FROM FRUMP NOT JUST COMING FROM FRUMP INSIDERS. INSIDERS. IT’S SPILLING OUT TO SOME OF HIS IT’S SPILLING OUT TO SOME OF HIS ENABLERS AND SOME OF THE MOST ENABLERS AND SOME OF THE MOST POWERFUL PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON POWERFUL PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON LIKE MITCH McCONNELL. LIKE MITCH McCONNELL. THE CONTEXT IS YOU HAVE 22 THE CONTEXT IS YOU HAVE 22 REPUBLICAN SEATS UP IN 2020 REPUBLICAN SEATS UP IN 2020 DEMOCRATS NEED THREE OR FOUR TO DEMOCRATS NEED THREE OR FOUR TO WIN BACK THE SENATE WHICH COULD WIN BACK THE SENATE WHICH COULD EXPLAIN SOMETHING YOU DON’T SEE EXPLAIN SOMETHING YOU DON’T SEE EVERY DAY, MITCH McCONNELL OUT EVERY DAY, MITCH McCONNELL OUT HERE ON THIS HOT SUMMER WEEK HERE ON THIS HOT SUMMER WEEK WITH AN OP-ED ON ITS FACE FIGHTS WITH AN OP-ED ON ITS FACE FIGHTS TO DEFENDS THE RIGHTS OF THE TO DEFENDS THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY IN THE SENATE WHICH MINORITY IN THE SENATE WHICH MEANS ADVOCATING FOR A SENATE MEANS ADVOCATING FOR A SENATE TACTIC CURRENTLY EXERCISED BY TACTIC CURRENTLY EXERCISED BY DEMOCRATS. DEMOCRATS. REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE SENATE. REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE SENATE. WHY IS HE WRITING’SCIES ABOUT WHY IS HE WRITING’SCIES ABOUT THIS TOOL THAT HIS PARTY DOESN’T THIS TOOL THAT HIS PARTY DOESN’T NEED RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY’RE NEED RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY’RE IN CHARGE? IN CHARGE? THAT THE SENATORS AND THE THAT THE SENATORS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NEED, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NEED, THE FILIBUSTER? FILIBUSTER? MAYBE HE HAS SOMETHING IN COMMON MAYBE HE HAS SOMETHING IN COMMON WITH THOSE OTHER PEOPLE WHETHER WITH THOSE OTHER PEOPLE WHETHER YOU THINK THEY’RE IN IT FOR YOU THINK THEY’RE IN IT FOR THEMSELVES OR NOT. THEMSELVES OR NOT. MAYBE MITCH McCONNELL IS WORRIED MAYBE MITCH McCONNELL IS WORRIED THIS IS A TOOL REPUBLICANS WILL THIS IS A TOOL REPUBLICANS WILL NEED SOON IF THEY FACE A ROUT IN NEED SOON IF THEY FACE A ROUT IN 2020. 2020. I’M JOINED BY “NEW YORK TIMES” I’M JOINED BY “NEW YORK TIMES” COLUMNIST MICHELLE GOLDBERG, COLUMNIST MICHELLE GOLDBERG, WENDY TOER AND AMY ALLISON, WENDY TOER AND AMY ALLISON, PRESIDENT OF THE GROUP DEMOCRACY PRESIDENT OF THE GROUP DEMOCRACY IN COLOR AND THE FOUNDER OF SHE IN COLOR AND THE FOUNDER OF SHE THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE. NICE TO SEE EVERYBODY. NICE TO SEE EVERYBODY.>>HEY, ARI.>>HEY, ARI.>>JUANITA, DO YOU SENSE A>>JUANITA, DO YOU SENSE A PATTERN? PATTERN?>>I MEAN YES.>>I MEAN YES. I THINK MEMBERS OF THE GOP SEE A I THINK MEMBERS OF THE GOP SEE A WEAKNESS HERE, ESPECIALLY AS THE WEAKNESS HERE, ESPECIALLY AS THE CAN BES EVOLVE RELATED TO THE CAN BES EVOLVE RELATED TO THE ECONOMY AND THE FACT THAT ALMOST ECONOMY AND THE FACT THAT ALMOST 50% OF TRUMP SUPPORTERS FROM 50% OF TRUMP SUPPORTERS FROM 2016 WOULD BLAME TRUMP FOR THAT. 2016 WOULD BLAME TRUMP FOR THAT. NOT ONLY IS TRUMP REACTING BUT I NOT ONLY IS TRUMP REACTING BUT I THINK THAT’S WHERE THESE THREATS THINK THAT’S WHERE THESE THREATS TO HIS BEING PRIMARIED COME TO HIS BEING PRIMARIED COME FROM. FROM. YOU HAVE SCARAMUCCI LOOKING TO YOU HAVE SCARAMUCCI LOOKING TO SAVE OFF 5%, 6% OF THE VOTE AND SAVE OFF 5%, 6% OF THE VOTE AND WALSH HERE ALSO LOOKING TO RUN A WALSH HERE ALSO LOOKING TO RUN A PRIMARY WHERE HE’S MAKING A PLAY PRIMARY WHERE HE’S MAKING A PLAY TO HOLD TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE, TO HOLD TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE, SOMETHING WE HAVE NOT SEEN DONE SOMETHING WE HAVE NOT SEEN DONE WELL FROM THE GOP AT ALL. WELL FROM THE GOP AT ALL. SO IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE SO IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW VOTERS WHO CAN’T STOMACH HOW VOTERS WHO CAN’T STOMACH SUPPORTING TRUMP EVEN THOUGH THE SUPPORTING TRUMP EVEN THOUGH THE REPUBLICANS REACT TO THAT AS AN REPUBLICANS REACT TO THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE. ALTERNATIVE.>>I DON’T THINK THESE>>I DON’T THINK THESE DEFECTIONS ARE GOING TO WEAKEN DEFECTIONS ARE GOING TO WEAKEN TRUMP SO MUCH AS I THINK THESE TRUMP SO MUCH AS I THINK THESE ARE A SIGN OF TRUMP’S GROWING ARE A SIGN OF TRUMP’S GROWING WEAKNESS. WEAKNESS. RIGHT? RIGHT? THEY EITHER SORT OF SMELL BLOOD THEY EITHER SORT OF SMELL BLOOD IN THE WATER OR AREN’T WILLING IN THE WATER OR AREN’T WILLING TO GO DOWN WITH THE SHIP. TO GO DOWN WITH THE SHIP. IT HAS A LOT TO DO, IT’S HARD IT HAS A LOT TO DO, IT’S HARD FOR ME TO SAY WHETHER TRUMP HAS FOR ME TO SAY WHETHER TRUMP HAS BECOME MORE ERRATIC OR MORE BECOME MORE ERRATIC OR MORE UNHINGED BECAUSE IT’S NOT LIKE UNHINGED BECAUSE IT’S NOT LIKE HE WAS EVER PARTICULARLY HINGED HE WAS EVER PARTICULARLY HINGED TO BEGIN WITH, RIGHT? TO BEGIN WITH, RIGHT? HE’S NEVER. HE’S NEVER.>>JUANITA, YOU AGREE WITH>>JUANITA, YOU AGREE WITH MICHELLE HE’S BEEN STEADILY MICHELLE HE’S BEEN STEADILY UNHINGED. UNHINGED.>>IT’S BEEN PRETTY STEADY SINCE>>IT’S BEEN PRETTY STEADY SINCE HE DESCENDED THAT GOLDEN HE DESCENDED THAT GOLDEN ESCALATOR. ESCALATOR.>>HE’S ALWAYS BEEN ERRATIC AND>>HE’S ALWAYS BEEN ERRATIC AND INEPT. INEPT. HE’S ALWAYS BEEN GIVEN TO CRAZY HE’S ALWAYS BEEN GIVEN TO CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORIES BE AN WILD CONSPIRACY THEORIES BE AN WILD HYPERBOLE AND RACIAL INSULTS. HYPERBOLE AND RACIAL INSULTS. I THINK MAYBE IT COULD BE I THINK MAYBE IT COULD BE GETTING WORSE AND IT COULD BE GETTING WORSE AND IT COULD BE BEING THROWN INTO HIGHER RELIEF BEING THROWN INTO HIGHER RELIEF AS HIS POLL NUMBERS GO DOWN, AS AS HIS POLL NUMBERS GO DOWN, AS THE ECONOMY WEAKENS AND AS THE ECONOMY WEAKENS AND AS MULTIFAIRIOUS FOREIGN POLICY MULTIFAIRIOUS FOREIGN POLICY KRYSS THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE KRYSS THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE BACKGROUND HAVE ARE COMING TO BACKGROUND HAVE ARE COMING TO FRUITION ALL AT ONCE SO THAT YOU FRUITION ALL AT ONCE SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE CHAOTIC CONSEQUENCES CAN SEE THE CHAOTIC CONSEQUENCES OF LACK OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP OF LACK OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP ALL OVER THE PLACE. ALL OVER THE PLACE.>>THAT MAKES SENSE.>>THAT MAKES SENSE. AMY, THERE’S ALSO THE ISSUE OF AMY, THERE’S ALSO THE ISSUE OF THE FIGHTS THAT HE PICKS. THE FIGHTS THAT HE PICKS. THE BEEF WITH THE DANISH PRIME THE BEEF WITH THE DANISH PRIME MINISTER. MINISTER. AGAIN, I TAKE JUANITA’S POINT. AGAIN, I TAKE JUANITA’S POINT. THERE’S ALWAYS BEEN REALLY PETTY THERE’S ALWAYS BEEN REALLY PETTY STUPID FIGHTS FOR NO REASON. STUPID FIGHTS FOR NO REASON. YET, SOME OF THEM WERE WITH YET, SOME OF THEM WERE WITH DOMESTIC POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND DOMESTIC POLITICAL OPPONENTS AND THE PRESS WHICH HAS SOME YOU THE PRESS WHICH HAS SOME YOU KNOW SOME VIBES THAT ARE SIMILAR KNOW SOME VIBES THAT ARE SIMILAR TO OTHER POLITICAL TRICKS. TO OTHER POLITICAL TRICKS. WHEN YOU’RE BEEFING WITH THESE WHEN YOU’RE BEEFING WITH THESE FOREIGN LEADERS THEY HAVE THEIR FOREIGN LEADERS THEY HAVE THEIR OWN POWER BASE AND THEIR OWN OWN POWER BASE AND THEIR OWN CONSTITUENTS. CONSTITUENTS. IT DOESN’T NECESSARILY END WELL IT DOESN’T NECESSARILY END WELL HE WAS SORT OF PUNKED BY HE WAS SORT OF PUNKED BY DENMARK. DENMARK. WE WERE SPEAKING JUST ON THE WE WERE SPEAKING JUST ON THE SHOW WITH BARBARA REZ WHO USED SHOW WITH BARBARA REZ WHO USED TO WORK WITH HIM ABOUT THIS. TO WORK WITH HIM ABOUT THIS. I ASKED HER WHY HE’S SO I ASKED HER WHY HE’S SO SENSITIVE ON THESE MATTERS. SENSITIVE ON THESE MATTERS. TAKE A LOOK. TAKE A LOOK.>>IS HE A SNOWFLAKING?>>IS HE A SNOWFLAKING?>>OH, ABSOLUTELY.>>OH, ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. HE DOES THE WORST THINGS AND HE DOES THE WORST THINGS AND THEN WHEN SOMEBODY JUST DOES A THEN WHEN SOMEBODY JUST DOES A LITTLE THING, HOW DARE THEY? LITTLE THING, HOW DARE THEY? THIS IS THE UNITED STATES THIS IS THE UNITED STATES THEY’RE INSULTING. THEY’RE INSULTING. IT’S RIDICULOUS. IT’S RIDICULOUS. HE WASN’T THAT BAD THEN. HE WASN’T THAT BAD THEN. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE STARTED TO YOU KNOW, PEOPLE STARTED TO THINK HE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A THINK HE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A JOKE BUT LATER ON, “THE JOKE BUT LATER ON, “THE APPRENTICE,” THAT TO ME AND MANY APPRENTICE,” THAT TO ME AND MANY PEOPLE WAS HE’S LIKE A CARTOON PEOPLE WAS HE’S LIKE A CARTOON AT THAT POINT. AT THAT POINT.>>AMY?>>AMY?>>YEAH, WHAT WE’RE LOOKING AT>>YEAH, WHAT WE’RE LOOKING AT IS A SERIES OF ATTEMPTS BY TRUMP IS A SERIES OF ATTEMPTS BY TRUMP KIND OF LIKE TEST BALLOONS TO KIND OF LIKE TEST BALLOONS TO SEE WHAT’S GOING TO MOVE HIS SEE WHAT’S GOING TO MOVE HIS APPROVAL NUMBERS. APPROVAL NUMBERS. REMEMBER, THIS IS A GUY MORE REMEMBER, THIS IS A GUY MORE THAN FROM BUSINESS, HE’S FROM THAN FROM BUSINESS, HE’S FROM ENTERTAINMENT AND TRYING TO ENTERTAINMENT AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SAVE HIMSELF. FIGURE OUT HOW TO SAVE HIMSELF. ALL THOSE OTHER THE TALK ABOUT ALL THOSE OTHER THE TALK ABOUT CUTTING PAYROLL TAXES WHICH HE CUTTING PAYROLL TAXES WHICH HE RESCINDED AND ATTACKING OF A RESCINDED AND ATTACKING OF A WOMAN LEADER OF A EUROPEAN WOMAN LEADER OF A EUROPEAN COUNTRY WHICH YOU KNOW, HE’S COUNTRY WHICH YOU KNOW, HE’S NOT — HE’S BEING OUT-FOXED AND NOT — HE’S BEING OUT-FOXED AND OUTCLASSED RIGHT AND LEFT. OUTCLASSED RIGHT AND LEFT. THE ONLY PLAYBOOK THAT REALLY THE ONLY PLAYBOOK THAT REALLY WORKS WITH HIS BASE IS RACISM WORKS WITH HIS BASE IS RACISM AND SEXISM. AND SEXISM. WE’RE GOING TO SEE HIM COME BACK WE’RE GOING TO SEE HIM COME BACK TO THAT WILL AGAIN AND AGAIN IN TO THAT WILL AGAIN AND AGAIN IN HIS ATTACKS. HIS ATTACKS. IT’S AN ORGANIZING COORDINATING IT’S AN ORGANIZING COORDINATING PRINCIPLE IN HIS CAMPAIGN. PRINCIPLE IN HIS CAMPAIGN. AND I THINK THE GOP AND JOE AND I THINK THE GOP AND JOE WALSH TRYING TO RUN FROM THE WALSH TRYING TO RUN FROM THE RIGHT YOU KNOW, HAVE AT IT. RIGHT YOU KNOW, HAVE AT IT. IT’S A DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS IT’S A DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS IS AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO IS AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO THINGS. THINGS. IT DEMONSTRATES TRUMP’S IT DEMONSTRATES TRUMP’S WEAKNESS. WEAKNESS. BUT I’M REALLY INTERESTED IN BUT I’M REALLY INTERESTED IN WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING, HOW WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING, HOW THEY RESPOND. THEY RESPOND. WE CAN BE WHIPLASHED AND TRY TO WE CAN BE WHIPLASHED AND TRY TO FOLLOW THE NONLOGIC OF AN FOLLOW THE NONLOGIC OF AN INCREASINGLY BIZARRE BEHAVIOR OF INCREASINGLY BIZARRE BEHAVIOR OF A GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE OR WE A GUY IN THE WHITE HOUSE OR WE CAN ORGANIZE OUR OWN TROOPS AND CAN ORGANIZE OUR OWN TROOPS AND OUR OWN FORCES WITH A CLEAR OUR OWN FORCES WITH A CLEAR MESSAGE. MESSAGE. I THINK I’M LOOKING AT THE I THINK I’M LOOKING AT THE DEMOCRATS AND I’M LOOKING AT THE DEMOCRATS AND I’M LOOKING AT THE ORGANIZERS ON THE GROUND AND ORGANIZERS ON THE GROUND AND SAYING HOW ARE THEY TAKING SAYING HOW ARE THEY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE MOMENT, THE ADVANTAGE OF THE MOMENT, THE FACT THAT THERE’S SO MUCH CHAOS FACT THAT THERE’S SO MUCH CHAOS COMING FRA THE WHITE HOUSE AND COMING FRA THE WHITE HOUSE AND NO ONE SEEMS TO BE ABLE TO QUELL NO ONE SEEMS TO BE ABLE TO QUELL IT. IT. HE’S ALSO ENJOYED GREAT BENEFIT HE’S ALSO ENJOYED GREAT BENEFIT FROM HAVING ALMOST UNIVERSAL FROM HAVING ALMOST UNIVERSAL BLOCKING ABPROTECTION ON THE BLOCKING ABPROTECTION ON THE PART OF THE GOP. PART OF THE GOP. AND I’M REALLY LOOKING AT THE AND I’M REALLY LOOKING AT THE DEMOCRATS TO HOLD NOT ONLY TRUMP DEMOCRATS TO HOLD NOT ONLY TRUMP BUT ALL THE REST OF THE BUT ALL THE REST OF THE REPUBLICANS ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOU REPUBLICANS ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOU KNOW, THE CRIMES AND THE KNOW, THE CRIMES AND THE ACTIVITIES AND THE MISBEHAVIORS ACTIVITIES AND THE MISBEHAVIORS THAT THEY HAVE PROTECTED. THAT THEY HAVE PROTECTED.>>YEAH, YOU MENTIONED ALSO THE>>YEAH, YOU MENTIONED ALSO THE SEXISM AND RACISM THAT HE SEXISM AND RACISM THAT HE REACHES TOWARDS. REACHES TOWARDS. JUANITA, THE FIGHTS, HE SORT OF JUANITA, THE FIGHTS, HE SORT OF IMPROVISES HIS WAY IN. IMPROVISES HIS WAY IN. I’M NOT SURE HOW FAMILIAR HE WAS I’M NOT SURE HOW FAMILIAR HE WAS WITH THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP OF WITH THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP OF DENMARK WHEN HE WAS HUNTING FOR DENMARK WHEN HE WAS HUNTING FOR GREENLAND. GREENLAND.>>FOREIGN RELATIONS IN GENERAL,>>FOREIGN RELATIONS IN GENERAL, RIGHT? RIGHT?>>BUT THEN HE FIGURES OUT HO,>>BUT THEN HE FIGURES OUT HO, OH, HE’S DEALING WITH A FEMALE OH, HE’S DEALING WITH A FEMALE HEAD OF STATE A POWERFUL WOMAN HEAD OF STATE A POWERFUL WOMAN AND HE DOES WHAT HE’S DONE AT AND HE DOES WHAT HE’S DONE AT OTHER TIMES. OTHER TIMES. WE PUT THIS TOGETHER. WE PUT THIS TOGETHER. TAKE A LOOK. TAKE A LOOK.>>THE PRIME MINISTER’S>>THE PRIME MINISTER’S STATEMENT THAT IT WAS ABSURD STATEMENT THAT IT WAS ABSURD THAT IT WAS AN ABSURD IDEA WAS THAT IT WAS AN ABSURD IDEA WAS NASTY. NASTY.>>I THINK SHE’S A DISGRACE.>>I THINK SHE’S A DISGRACE. SHE’S A NASTY VIN TICKTIVE SHE’S A NASTY VIN TICKTIVE HORRIBLE. HORRIBLE.>>MOVE TO CANADA IF YOU GOT>>MOVE TO CANADA IF YOU GOT ELECTED. ELECTED.>>I DIDN’T KNOW SHE WAS NASTY.>>I DIDN’T KNOW SHE WAS NASTY.>>WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS>>WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS REPLENISH. REPLENISH.>>SUCH A NASTY WOMAN.>>SUCH A NASTY WOMAN.>>JUANITA?>>JUANITA?>>I MEAN IT’S THE PLAYBOOK,>>I MEAN IT’S THE PLAYBOOK, RIGHT? RIGHT? HE’S PULLING OUT ALL OF HIS HE’S PULLING OUT ALL OF HIS SEXISM AND PUTTING IT ON FULL SEXISM AND PUTTING IT ON FULL DISPLAY FOR HIS BASE TO BE DISPLAY FOR HIS BASE TO BE REACTING TO, BUT HERE’S THE REACTING TO, BUT HERE’S THE THING. THING. WHILE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT WHILE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT GREENLAND, WHILE WE’RE TALKING GREENLAND, WHILE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HIM BEING THE CHOSEN ONE, ABOUT HIM BEING THE CHOSEN ONE, WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ALL THE WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ALL THE THINGS HAPPENING IN THE NEWS THINGS HAPPENING IN THE NEWS CYCLE AND PACKETING OUR ECONOMY CYCLE AND PACKETING OUR ECONOMY LIKE THE FACT THAT THE U.S. LIKE THE FACT THAT THE U.S. DEFICIT IS SOARING BECAUSE OF DEFICIT IS SOARING BECAUSE OF HIS DEAL. HIS DEAL. SO YOU HAVE COAL MINERS WHO SO YOU HAVE COAL MINERS WHO VOTED FOR HIM IN ’16 LOOKING VOTED FOR HIM IN ’16 LOOKING LIKE THIS IS ANOTHER BROKEN LIKE THIS IS ANOTHER BROKEN PROMISE. PROMISE. YOU’RE NOT LOOKING OUT FOR ME. YOU’RE NOT LOOKING OUT FOR ME. I’M FIGHTING TO LIVE. I’M FIGHTING TO LIVE. WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR ME. WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR ME. HE’S GOING TO BE HAVING TO FIND HE’S GOING TO BE HAVING TO FIND AN ANSWER THAT IS GOING TO MAKE AN ANSWER THAT IS GOING TO MAKE SENSE 0 THOSE FOLKS WHO SENSE 0 THOSE FOLKS WHO SUPPORTED HIM IN 2016 BECAUSE SUPPORTED HIM IN 2016 BECAUSE DEFLECTION IS ONE THING. DEFLECTION IS ONE THING. WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SHOW WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SHOW BUT A LONG LIST OF BROKEN BUT A LONG LIST OF BROKEN PROMISES ON TAXES THAT DID PROMISES ON TAXES THAT DID NOTHING FOR AMERICAN WORKERS BUT NOTHING FOR AMERICAN WORKERS BUT EVERYTHING FOR THE WEALTHY, ON EVERYTHING FOR THE WEALTHY, ON HEALTH CARE WHICH TRUMP IS HEALTH CARE WHICH TRUMP IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY PEOPLE’S TRYING TO TAKE AWAY PEOPLE’S CARE ESPECIALLY INDIVIDUALS CARE ESPECIALLY INDIVIDUALS LIVING WITH PRE-EXISTING LIVING WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS RIGHT NOW AS WELL AS CONDITIONS RIGHT NOW AS WELL AS ON JOBS. ON JOBS. WHEN YOU HAVE FOLKS IN THE AUTO WHEN YOU HAVE FOLKS IN THE AUTO INDUSTRY JOBLESS RIGHT NOW INDUSTRY JOBLESS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THOSE FACTORIES DID BECAUSE THOSE FACTORIES DID LEAVE THE COUNTRY HE HAS NOTHING LEAVE THE COUNTRY HE HAS NOTHING TO SHOW FOR HIMSELF. TO SHOW FOR HIMSELF. USE THE BLAI PLAYBOOKING. USE THE BLAI PLAYBOOKING.>>THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU FOR>>THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU FOR JOINING US TONIGHT. JOINING US TONIGHT. MICHELLE STAYS. MICHELLE STAYS. I WANT TO DO ONE MORE THING I WANT TO DO ONE MORE THING WHICH IS MR. WALSH. WHICH IS MR. WALSH. YOU KNOW, THE TALKING ABOUT YOU KNOW, THE TALKING ABOUT DEFYING DEVENTANCY DOWN. DEFYING DEVENTANCY DOWN. IT IS STRIKING I DON’T THINK IT IS STRIKING I DON’T THINK ANYONE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED FIVE ANYONE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED FIVE YEARS AGO INCLUDING PEOPLE ON YEARS AGO INCLUDING PEOPLE ON THE POLITICAL RIGHT THAT JOE THE POLITICAL RIGHT THAT JOE WALSH WOULD BE ACCORDING TO AT WALSH WOULD BE ACCORDING TO AT LEAST SOME CONSERVATIVES, THE LEAST SOME CONSERVATIVES, THE MORE REASONABLE SAVIOUR AGAINST MORE REASONABLE SAVIOUR AGAINST DONALD TRUMP OR AT LEAST WOULD DONALD TRUMP OR AT LEAST WOULD BE THE TOOL. BE THE TOOL. SO WHILE WE’RE MENTIONING THIS SO WHILE WE’RE MENTIONING THIS TAN AS YOU SAID IT MAY REFLECT TAN AS YOU SAID IT MAY REFLECT THE WEAKNESS PEOPLE SEE OUT THE WEAKNESS PEOPLE SEE OUT THERE, WE WOULD BE REMISS IF WE THERE, WE WOULD BE REMISS IF WE DIDN’T HOLD MR. WALSH DIDN’T HOLD MR. WALSH ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS OWN ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS OWN STATEMENTS. STATEMENTS. AS HE BECOMES THE NEXT POTENTIAL AS HE BECOMES THE NEXT POTENTIAL REPUBLICAN FOE IN THE MEDIA REPUBLICAN FOE IN THE MEDIA SPHERE, WE KNOW TRUMP DOESN’T SPHERE, WE KNOW TRUMP DOESN’T LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE SAY THIS LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE SAY THIS STUFF ON TV, HERE IS WHAT IS JOE STUFF ON TV, HERE IS WHAT IS JOE WALSH. WALSH. TAKE A LOOK. TAKE A LOOK.>>YOU KNOW WHAT, MR. PRESIDENT,>>YOU KNOW WHAT, MR. PRESIDENT, IT MIGHT NOT BE A BAD IDEA AND I IT MIGHT NOT BE A BAD IDEA AND I WONDER HOW MANY OF THESE WONDER HOW MANY OF THESE ALLIGATORS IT WOULD TAKE TO ALLIGATORS IT WOULD TAKE TO SECURE THE BOARDER? SECURE THE BOARDER?>>IF I WANTED PEOPLE TO TAKE UP>>IF I WANTED PEOPLE TO TAKE UP ARMS, WHY WOULD I RECOMMEND ARMS, WHY WOULD I RECOMMEND PEOPLE TAKE UP AN ANTIQUE LIKE A PEOPLE TAKE UP AN ANTIQUE LIKE A MUSKET? MUSKET? I MEAN, SERIOUSLY. I MEAN, SERIOUSLY. IN 2016, I WANT PEOPLE TO GO OUT IN 2016, I WANT PEOPLE TO GO OUT AND FIND A MUSKET? AND FIND A MUSKET?>>THEY WANT THE HISPANIC VOTE,>>THEY WANT THE HISPANIC VOTE, THEY WANT HISPANICS DEPENDENT THEY WANT HISPANICS DEPENDENT UPON GOVERNMENT JUST LIKE THEY UPON GOVERNMENT JUST LIKE THEY GOT AFRICAN-AMERICANS DEPENDENT GOT AFRICAN-AMERICANS DEPENDENT UPON GOVERNMENT. UPON GOVERNMENT.>>IS HE A CONTRAST TO TRUMP OR>>IS HE A CONTRAST TO TRUMP OR IS HE JUST SORT OF ANOTHER IS HE JUST SORT OF ANOTHER TRUMP? TRUMP?>>I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO>>I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO LOOK, LOOK I’M NOT GOING TO VOTE LOOK, LOOK I’M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR JOE WALSH. FOR JOE WALSH.>>I THOUGHT YOU WERE.>>I THOUGHT YOU WERE.>>IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE FIRST>>IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE FIRST OF ALL HE HAS APOLOGIZED FOR THE OF ALL HE HAS APOLOGIZED FOR THE ROLE THAT HE PLAYED IN ROLE THAT HE PLAYED IN INTRODUCING A TRUMP-LIKE INTRODUCING A TRUMP-LIKE POLITICS INTO THE UNITED STATES. POLITICS INTO THE UNITED STATES. RIGHT? RIGHT? SO THAT I THINK ALREADY GIVES SO THAT I THINK ALREADY GIVES HIM MORAL AUTHORITY OVER TRUMP HIM MORAL AUTHORITY OVER TRUMP WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY SAYING WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY SAYING THAT MUCH. THAT MUCH. SO I THINK THAT THE REASON THAT SO I THINK THAT THE REASON THAT HE IS A POSSIBLE CONTRAST TO HE IS A POSSIBLE CONTRAST TO TRUMP OR AT LEAST A POSSIBLE TRUMP OR AT LEAST A POSSIBLE FOIL TO TRUMP IS BECAUSE HE FOIL TO TRUMP IS BECAUSE HE CLEARLY DOES SHARE THE SAME CLEARLY DOES SHARE THE SAME UNDERLYING COMMITMENTS. UNDERLYING COMMITMENTS. I THINK I’VE SAID THIS ON YOUR I THINK I’VE SAID THIS ON YOUR SHOW BEFORE THAT OFTEN PEOPLE SHOW BEFORE THAT OFTEN PEOPLE WHO BECOME DEFECTORS FROM A WHO BECOME DEFECTORS FROM A MOVEMENT ARE THE ONES WHO ARE MOVEMENT ARE THE ONES WHO ARE TRUE BELIEVERS. TRUE BELIEVERS. IF THE TRUE BELIEVERS FEEL TRULY IF THE TRUE BELIEVERS FEEL TRULY DISAPPOINTED AND TRULY BETRAYED DISAPPOINTED AND TRULY BETRAYED WHEN THE IDEASALS OF THE WHEN THE IDEASALS OF THE MOVEMENT THEY WERE PART OF TURN MOVEMENT THEY WERE PART OF TURN OUT TO BE — AREN’T LIVED UP TO, OUT TO BE — AREN’T LIVED UP TO, RIGHT? RIGHT? SO THAT’S WHY YOU SEE SOMEBODY SO THAT’S WHY YOU SEE SOMEBODY LIKE JUSTIN AMASH WHO WAS VERY, LIKE JUSTIN AMASH WHO WAS VERY, VERY CONSERVATIVE BECOME THE VERY CONSERVATIVE BECOME THE ONLY PERSON TO LEAVE THE ONLY PERSON TO LEAVE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN CONGRESS REPUBLICAN PARTY IN CONGRESS OVER TRUMP, RIGHT? OVER TRUMP, RIGHT? MARK SANFORD IS EXTREMELY MARK SANFORD IS EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE. CONSERVATIVE. JEFF FLAKE WAS ONE OF THE MOST JEFF FLAKE WAS ONE OF THE MOST CONSERVATIVE SENATORS AND WAS A CONSERVATIVE SENATORS AND WAS A KIND OF TEA PARTY DARLING BEFORE KIND OF TEA PARTY DARLING BEFORE HE GOT ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HE GOT ON THE WRONG SIDE OF TRUMP. TRUMP. SO IN A WAY, IT’S THE PEOPLE WHO SO IN A WAY, IT’S THE PEOPLE WHO CARE ENOUGH ABOUT THE PURPORTED CARE ENOUGH ABOUT THE PURPORTED IDEALS OF THE CONSERVATIVE IDEALS OF THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT TO BLANCH WHEN BETRAYED MOVEMENT TO BLANCH WHEN BETRAYED THAT ARE GOING TO LAUNCH — THAT THAT ARE GOING TO LAUNCH — THAT ARE GOING TO LAUNCH A CHALLENGE ARE GOING TO LAUNCH A CHALLENGE TO TRUMP. TO TRUMP.>>YOU JUST PUT YOUR FINGER ON>>YOU JUST PUT YOUR FINGER ON SOMETHING IMPORTANT WHICH IS FOR SOMETHING IMPORTANT WHICH IS FOR ALL THE ENERGY OF THE RESISTANCE ALL THE ENERGY OF THE RESISTANCE WHICH HAS A LOT OF A MORAL WHICH HAS A LOT OF A MORAL DIMENSION, IT ISN’T ENOUGH TO DIMENSION, IT ISN’T ENOUGH TO JUST TELL THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT JUST TELL THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP HE’S THE WORST AND DONALD TRUMP HE’S THE WORST AND YOU’RE THE WORST AND YOU’RE YOU’RE THE WORST AND YOU’RE LATE. LATE. WHAT’S NOT A WINNING WHAT’S NOT A WINNING COALITION-BUILDING STRATEGY. COALITION-BUILDING STRATEGY. SO THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO FIGURE SO THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO FIGURE OUT IF PART OF THE ARGUMENT IS OUT IF PART OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT HE’S A CON, HOW DO YOU TELL THAT HE’S A CON, HOW DO YOU TELL PEOPLE THAT WITHOUT INSULTING PEOPLE THAT WITHOUT INSULTING THEM BECAUSE IT SUGGESTS THEY’VE THEM BECAUSE IT SUGGESTS THEY’VE BEEN COULDN’T. BEEN COULDN’T.>>YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT HE’S A>>YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT HE’S A CON AND SAYS YOU KIND OF THE CON AND SAYS YOU KIND OF THE COROLLARY OF THAT IS YOU HAD A COROLLARY OF THAT IS YOU HAD A RIGHT TO EXPECT BETTER. RIGHT TO EXPECT BETTER.>>RIGHT.>>RIGHT. AND THERE’S BROKEN PROPSES.