40 Burst results for "Donald Trump"
Fresh update on "donald trump" discussed on John Batchelor
"Child that has died after being struck by an armored truck with seven year old girl was with her family when she stepped into an intersection yesterday and was struck by the vehicle had happened near 23rd Street on Bath Avenue around four PM in Bath Beach. The driver remaining at the scene. Three Children remain in stable condition after a fire yesterday morning in the Bronx. FBN Y Fire Chief Daniel McEnroe says the Children were left home alone when the blaze broke out about 9 30 in a second floor apartment on Burke Avenue in the Williams which sexual like they were sleeping. They look like you know, they will hold together. Their baby was sleeping, and then we just move this fast, we can get it. Former Trump attorney Michael Kohn says nothing goes on without Donald Trump's approval, including his tax returns. Speaking on MSNBC yesterday, Cohen said the president actually compromised to the core. He's constantly inflating his net worth of feed his ego. There is nothing that goes on at the Trump organization, including what's going on right now that Donald Trump is not intimately aware of and involved it. Conan did. Trump uses his Mar a Lago golf resort in West Palm Beach, Florida as a replacement for Camp David. To make a profit. Yanks and Indians the wild card opener later tonight in Cleveland, Raphael in Dallas, Serena Williams moving on at the French Open. W B C news, time travel far traffic and transit on the way. Your forecast with Ramsey Subaru Weather Center Overnight cloudy low 70.
Trump paid $750 in US income taxes in 2016, 2017: NY Times report
"Of us have not been able to sleep Because the IRS has been on our case. I've certainly been in that situation. I had to pay back taxes have to a very divisive divorce with child support all kinds of tabloid headlines. The IRS was on my jock strap. Think of the tune of about $35,000. I had to continue to chip away at that. And as one Johnny Legit always told me Make sure the one bill you pay before any other. If you have depleted resource is at that time is the IRS because they can be relentless. In fact, as a worker will call up your HR and they will garnish your wage. Yes. Why? Mongol Lucia, That is not what you get on a plate. When you have out to a timing with that little stake that they charge you reverse mortgage for and then they put that little green leafy vegetable on the side. They say that's the garnish. No. They can be relentless. So now with the release of information procured Sound off was illegal. Legal, Whatever, I I don't know how they got the information. But the New York Times released it in my mind is pretty much what we already knew about the president from the first time he ran. I'll never forget he got up on that stage. And he said, Yeah, I declared chapter 11 5 times because It is what you can do legally when you're having fiscal problems, and I remember I was blown away by that What you convict play chapter 11 5 times and he did. And he spoke about it. Said how he used the system will now, according to The New York Times, Donald Trump paid $750 in federal income tax is, uh, both in 2016 and in 2017 and no income tax in 10 of the previous 15 years. He reported losing Mohr than he made in that time. These men and I are s battle over $72 million, said he got us a tax refund. This is led to and this is what doesn't sound right? A 10 year audit in that process. It's got to be finished sometime. We now know he owns hundreds of million dollars in assets. The Apprentice earned him about $200 million. His endorsement naming rights and licensing deals earned him another $230 million investments in other people's business is earned him about $200 million, But he lost a billion dollars in the 19 nineties, and most of that was on his golf properties like Dorel. Down in Miami. That one alone he lost $160 million so he made and he lost. And Apparently, there's $300 million in loans that will be due soon. What I was interested in it's at least in this account from the New York Times, No money from Russia. Did you hear that? That's right, Justin. Ah, no money came in from Russia Any of his assets already talked about money that he got from licensing deals in close it. Has cheeky son. Many son. I don't know. He's one of those stones. Then it was Turkey anchor a few other locations and normally I think normally I stand to be corrected. I'm not an accountant. I haven't worked for the I R s, but I've had my stones busted by the IRS. Normally you pay about 24%. In federal income taxes so already Already team Biden Has put out shirts and bumper stickers that say I paid more in taxes and trump and this whole place to his campaign of saying, Hey, I represents Quentin. And Donald Trump represents the rich. The wealthy in Park Avenue.
Fresh update on "donald trump" discussed on Lars Larson
"That was the IRS crushing a political movement. Yeah, and now it's being weaponized in another way, Although I'm sure somebody's going to say one of the documents came from one of Donald Trump's accountants or or business owners or not business under business managers. It could have come from those places. But there are two issues that I'm curious about this. This seems especially ironic that it comes during a year where the pandemic has done incredible damage to big companies. And Grover I've cited, for example. Alaska Airlines, which is a major airline. I'm guaranteeing that they're losing money this year. They have a lot of planes, a lot of pilots a lot of expenses, and they're probably gonna have either dramatically lower profits or no profits at all and losses and I would imagine they will carry those losses forward into years where they do make money. Boeing is another company that has lost money, not just on the 7 37 Max. But has lost money because a lot of airline said we're not buying airplanes because we're not flying as much and they may have losses as well, which they will also carry forward and I would imagine everybody who works for them is glad that they have good tax accountants to take account. You know, to take advantage of those things because it's in the law for a reason. If you have losses one year you can carry him forward. You have profits the next year. You can. You can use those tax losses against The profits you make the following year. Most individuals never have that kind of situation. Individuals do If you only work half a year, they don't tax you as if.
Biden campaign jumps on Trump tax-return story
"After The New York Times report detailing President Trump's tax return information for the past two decades. Indicated he paid little or no federal income tax. Mr. Trump called it fake and attacked it on Twitter later as illegally obtained CBS's Ed O'Keefe. Within hours of The New York Times report, The biting campaign was out with a new ad contrasting the tax burden of average working Americans. With the $750 in income tax that the president paid, and they're also out with new campaign buttons that read. I paid more income taxes than Donald Trump. White House correspondent Paula Read tells us small claiming loss is for many of his namesake businesses. Mr. Trump has maintained a lavish lifestyle by taking tax deductions on what some people would consider personal expenses, including housing and $70,000 in hairstyling for television appearances. Correspondent Nancy
Fresh update on "donald trump" discussed on WIBC Programming
"DH. And now all of a sudden, he's the darling of the Democrats because he voted to impeach Donald Trump. We got one more tweet here. This is President Trump talking about Senator Dick Blumenthal, who's really been popping his Gums lately, talking about the Supreme Court nomination now, he says that he's not going to be there. He's not going to speak with the nominee. He's got more important things to do. By saying he was a war hero in Vietnam. But it was never even there in him should not be entitled to a vote on anything of importance. Hanoi Day. That's events of new and that's a dunning dick I thought was the right because had I was reserved for Jane. Fun, Right Handle Jane. Like switching it up a little bit there. Everyone will hit a curve ball. When you're expecting a heater can't believe nobody. I I find it hard to believe that Democrats are going to show up for these. These these hearings just for Ah, chance to get them for nothing else to bash Trump for hours on end, right, get time in front.
Donald Trump 'paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017'
"Of President Trump's tax return info going back over 20 years. And they say, paid $750 in federal income taxes in both 2016 and 2017 and paid no federal taxes in 10 of the past 15 years. The Times also reporting here and at least $434.9 million.2 years ago, but Those tax filings for 2018 show $47.4 million loss. The president at a Sunday White House news conference dismissed the New York Times report said he has paid taxes but gave no specifics, even though he did say his tax info will all come out. He made similar promises during the 2016 campaign but never follow through. Or the union
Fresh update on "donald trump" discussed on WIBC Programming
"Nigel on the 93 W II. PC Masha. It's been a busy weekend for the president. But he has had time to tweet always had time to tweet and ladies and gentlemen here to read some Donald Trump Tweets has verified account or you get Teo upon it. There's a little guy that's Alvin from Alvin and the Chipmunks. He is here and again these air all tweets that came out throughout the course of the weekend. I'm the president of the United States. So, Alvin, put your little chipmunk mouth right next to that microphone. Please read this tweet about Joe Biden. The debate and the drug test. Just enable. Max agreed to a drug test G. I wonder why that's all it said 1000 G..
Trump disputes report that he paid $750 in taxes while in office
"The New York Times says Donald Trump has paid little or no tax for most of the last two decades, just five weeks before he faces the U. S electorate, the newspaper says it has obtained Mr Trump's tax returns, which he has fought to keep private. He called it fake news Peter Bo's reports. The paper says the data shows his finances are under stress, beset by losses, with struggling properties and hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. It reports that Mr Trump aid only $750 in federal income taxes. In the year he won the presidency and another 750 during his first year in office. He paid no income tax it all in 10 of the previous 15 years, according to the paper. This, it says, was largely because he reported losing much more money than he made. New York Times says the records reveal the hollowness but also the wizardry behind the self made billionaire image. Mr Trump's opponents have Bean Swift to condemn his tax arrangements. The speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, said he had taken extraordinary measures to avoid paying his fair share of taxes. The campaign team for Mr Trump's rival Joe Biden, highlighted that teachers, firefighters and nurses all paid much more tax than the president.
Fresh update on "donald trump" discussed on WIBC Programming
"Hardware store corner diner They have an accountant or accountants whose job is to look through the tax code and say You can write this off. This is a tax write off. You don't have to pay taxes on this. You should invest this money over here. There's absolutely nothing wrong with any of this. And this is what The New York Times does in this story. If you read through it as they try to act like there's there's this big rumor and innuendo and this and that So you follow the law. The crux of the story is Donald Trump followed the law, not a hint, not not in a whisper that he did anything wrong. That could be tangibly pointed to, But the headline is he paid $750 in federal income taxes. So what? If that's what he was supposed to pay, That's what he should pay. Our president would be doing a disservice. To the American public. If he paid more in taxes, then he was supposed to You think about that he would be doing a disservice to the American public. If he paid more in taxes. Then he was supposed to Because the president the United States right here, while Trump he's a terrible example. I was being a good example. A good example to the American public is government is inherently evil. It's awful. It's slow. It's inefficient. It doesn't work for the people and don't give them a dime more than they're entitled to. I like that I've never, ever ever understood why, Just because someone is wealthy people feel they should have to pay more in taxes than they're legally entitled to. If you don't like the federal tax code, New York Times, then get the federal tax code changed. We hear this all the time about what people pay in taxes. Now, if you're a Bernie Sanders or Obama or an AOC or Ilhan Omar or people who who worship the ground government walks on and talk about a great government is Yeah, I'm gonna call you out. Because you believe the government should be bigger. So if you're taking the tax breaks if you're the one up there saying, Oh, this is great. Is that okay? That's hypocritical, But for a guy like Trump, he's tried to change things. He's tried to make a difference. He's tried to tell you how awful and evil the government isn't and roll back regulation after regulation and government intervention after government intervention. Doesn't mean he's always been successful. Doesn't mean I agree with every way has gone about it. But there's zero literally zero problem whether you're the richest person in the country or you're the poorest person in the country or any point in between. Taking every legal applicability tax break afforded to you. So in the case of Donald Trump, a rich dude who makes lots of investments based on the U. S tax code, many of those investments he's entitled to write off. Nothing wrong has happened here. Nothing tangible they can point to, because it hasn't has happened here, but they want you to believe all he's skirting the tax code will do. Can you point to think now? But he only paid OK, But if that's what the tax code, but if you don't like the law Change the law, and we can have that conversation. We could certainly have a conversation about the U. S tax code. Whether we need to go to a to a fair tax or flat tax. Hey, I'm all in on that conversation. Let's have that conversation any day of the week about changing the tax code to make it more fair, more equitable. But in terms of the way the laws written, there is nothing. Absolutely nothing wrong with following the law and every American, every Hoosier, every person hearing my voice right now should do everything you can to make sure legally, you don't pay an extra dime to the government..
Trump paid just $750 in US income tax in election year.
"Some who see it as a neo colonial foray. Donald Trump paid just seven hundred and fifty dollars in federal income taxes. The year he ran for president and in his first year in the White House according to a report yesterday in the New York. Times. Trump who has fiercely guarded he's tax filings and is the only president in modern times not to make them public pay no federal income taxes in ten of the past fifteen years. He campaigned for office as a billionaire, real estate mogul and successful businessman. Speaking at a news conference at the White House trump dismissed the report and said he has paid taxes though he gave no specifics. The disclosure which the time says comes from tax return data is obtained extending over two decades comes at a pivotal moment ahead of the first presidential debate on Tuesday and weeks before divisive election against Democrat Joe Biden. The president vowed that information about his taxes will all be revealed but he offered no timeline for disclosure and made similar promises during the two thousand sixteen campaign on which he never followed through. In fact, the president has fielded court challenges against those seeking to access his returns including the
Donald Trump 'paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017'
"Have just become the latest election year controversy. The president has denied a report today from The New York Times the claims he paid virtually no federal taxes over the last 15 years. This after the Times examined Decadesworth of the president's tax returns, the paper says. President spoke at a news conference at the White House shortly before the Times posted that report today. He insists he has paid taxes but claims he still can't share specifics. It's totally fake news made up We went through the same stories. You caressed me. The same questions for years ago had a litigate this and talk about it. The total fake news No actually paid tax butt and you'll see that assumes my tax returns. It's under order. They've been underwater for a long time. He also accuses the I rs of treating him quote very badly. The Times report claims that the reason President Trump hardly paid any federal taxes was largely because his losses were so much more than he took in and when he did pay, it wasn't much of a correspondent Andrew Denberg reported times. Obtaining over two decades of tax return data for President Trump and his business organization showing he paid just $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and $750 more his first year in the White House. According to the Times, the president has paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the last 15 years. Time, says President Trump's tax filings. Show quote Mr Trump has been more successful at playing a business mogul, then being one in real life well, just one day before
Donald Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017
"Trump has not paid any federal income tax in 10 of the last 15 years. And when he did pay like in 2016 and 2017, he only paid $750 not 7500 not 77 500. Just $750. The report indicates that in 2018, for example, Trump announced in his disclosure that he had made at least $434.9 million The tax records deliver a very different portrait of his bottom line. $47.4 million in losses as kind of mutually exclusive. It can't be both. You can't make 434.9 million and also claim you lost 47.4 million
Donald Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016
"Fake news. Say. We went through the same stories. You can arrest me the same questions for Mirza. Go ahead, Litigate this and talk about it. A total fake news President Trump White House news conference tonight about The New York Times reporting that it's gotten a hold of some of President Trump's tax records and reports Mr Trump paid $750 in federal income tax is the year he won the presidency in 2016. He paid another $750. He paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years, Plus, the Trump tax Records show, says the Times he's sold nearly all the stocks that now might have helped him plug holes and struggling properties and within the next four years more than $300 million in loans for which President Trump is personally responsible come due.
President Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett as Democrats threaten to slow down the process
"News in Cleveland. We're live on the campus of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland Clinic, the site of the first debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden moderated by our very own Chris Wallace, who is preparing today. A Supreme Court vacancy. President Trump's third and his selection of Judge Jamie Cockney Barrett as his nominee. At a new twist to Tuesday night's debate will begin with Fox team coverage. Marc Maron is at the White House and Jackie Heinrich and Woman Delaware. Let's start with the latest on the president's Supreme Court pick and what we know about the timeline for a confirmation process, Mark President Trump hopes to fire up his base with his new Supreme Court nominee. But with election day fast approaching, the White House knows getting Judge Baird confirmed by the Senate will be contentious. It is a very proud moment. Indeed, lead Saturday, President Trump made it official. He's nominating seventh Circuit Appeals Court Judge Amy Barrett to the Supreme Court. She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution. A favorite of the conservative establishment is a practicing Catholic graduate of Notre Dame and former clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. History, social philosophy is mined to a judge must apply the law as written. Democrats are outraged. Republicans air pushing barrettes nomination Ford just five weeks before the election after Republicans blocked President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, for the same reason in 2016. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says Democrats are concerned with Barrett's record on abortion and religion. I will strongly strongly strongly oppose his nomination. Two GOP senators say they will not vote on the nominee before the election. But the majority of Republicans appear ready to hold hearings and Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham says his committee old four days of confirmation hearings beginning the week of October. 12th. The president told reporters last night he thinks Barrett's confirmation will move fairly fast and that he believes the confirmation vote. Britt will happen before Election Day. Marc Maron is reporting for the White House. Thank you, Mark. Now let's turn to
Trump nominates Barrett for Supreme Court Post
"The president's pet, she is a woman of unparalleled achievement George. Clooney Eric. I am truly humbled by the prospect of serving on the Supreme Court a pivotal choice in polarized time. They will set policy for fifty years. Republicans on track to confirm Barrett before the election will start the hearings on October the twelfth sparking fierce pushback from Democrats Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump have stolen two judges from the American people expect. Kids to strike down the portable care. ACT The debate ahead with two senators set to question trump's important
Proud Boys rally in Portland draws only about 200 after city braced for thousands
"People gathered in Oregon's biggest city for a right wing rally today, dozens of them wearing militarized body armor was far fewer than the thousands expected to appear. Organizer's described the event as a free speech event to support President Donald Trump and the police and restore law and order. And condemn anti fastest sin What the proud boys called quote domestic terrorism. Thie US has
Less than half of US public believes the election results will be accurate
"That less than half Of the public believes the election tally will be accurate. Less than half So that I'm going to do. The reciprocal is here. Well, then, that must mean a majority things. It won't be. And if that's the case, no matter who wins. If we don't if we do not believe it. Then what happens to our republic? You have tohave. Trust in the fact that the process the system works. So With all of that, and by the way, I've been flipping around on all the various networks today. And The left is apoplectic. They are absolutely come at every topic of every show so far today. About the fact that Donald Trump's not gonna step aside. He's talking to the military about having the military come in. And keep him keep the opposition away and keep him there and and that they're going to make sure that this goes, you know, they're not going to count the balance. There is going to declare that he's the winner and then the Supreme Court will now be in the hands of conservatives, and then they're going to rule in favor of him. But I made her go nuts. Then I looked at the Washington Examiner there right there, Right in the same story in the front of Drudge is writing the same story. So this isn't like some of this is like the elephant in the room that people are afraid to talk about. I really wanna have a conversation with you about this. I don't want people that are just angry. What are you doing, Tom? Why? Why are you talking about President Trump the greatest guy in the whole wide world. I'm not. I'm not talking about who's gonna win or he's gonna lose. I'm talking about the fact that both parties are spending a lot of time undermining the accuracy of the election. Down. Has any election ever been precisely, exactly. 1000% accurate. I doubt it. seen in my lifetime was 2000, Florida. Or I believe it was 508 votes. In favor of George W. Bush. But before this was they went through and recounted and re counted and recounted, And then it went to the courts and the courts ruled about you can't recount Yes, you can recount Okay, Broward, you could recount but Then I went to the Supreme Court. And they finally put a stop to all the recount recount recount. But that did not mean that the New York Times and CBS News We're not still there. Digging with their lawyers. Doing everything they could to figure out what the true account wasn't after. It was a good year, when finally all of the media investigations. Finally came to the conclusion that George W. Bush won by 508 votes. But what's that did was it for the first couple of years of the Bush administration even after 9 11? There was a period where we were all united after 9 11, but but otherwise. It was. He's not a legitimate president. Now that was going all during his first term, And then when he was re elected in 2004 at pretty much, they still did not like him, but they stopped the fact that he wasn't a legitimate president. And so if Donald Trump wins you want this country No matter how much you like him or don't like him, you want the country to know that he is the legitimate president if Joe Biden wins You want to know that as well.
Philadelphia - President Donald Trump Shifts Focus To Pennsylvania To Shore Up Reelection
"After President Trump officially announces his Supreme Court pick from the White House. He hits the campaign trail and heads to the swing state of Pennsylvania. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden released a statement pointing out that 8000 people have died from the Corona virus in that state, and he warned that the president is trying to take away health care for Pennsylvanians when they need it. The most
Florida: The swingiest swing state in the U.S. election
"I want to talk a bit about how we got here and why at least since the the famous near Tie of two thousand does just seem to be Florida or at least partially about Florida. Michael ask, you first win and why did floor to become the key battleground? Republican hasn't won the White House without Florida forever. So that's part of the reason that it's become. So you know everybody desperately wants it and it just seems to be the self-balancing State where it's about twenty percent immigrants. But you know the last the last fifty, million votes that have been cast for presidential candidates in. Florida. Republicans. Democrats, are separated by about twenty thousand and we've had just about every election. Every statewide election seems to come down to one percent and just seems like every time another white person. Republican moves down here from the Midwest another democratic leaning Immigrants May move into central Florida from the Global South and so it's a really seems to be self-balancing. Beyond those demographics that Monolithic is it a case of elderly white pensioners voting for Republicans, and more recent arrivals from elsewhere trading Democrat or is there some kind of overlap between spillage among those groups? As you can probably imagine it's a little bit more complex in that I think that there's didn't kind of increasing awareness for both Democrats and Republicans that some of the key demographics here you know the American immigrants but you know you have the first generation, the second generation you have the newer arrivals you have the. You have the Cubans you have the Puerto Ricans have the Haitians. There's such a mix of people and cultures and experiences, and when you add to that kind of the New Yorkers that are coming to Florida to retire, and you have all these different politics and ideologies of mixed together I think you really get. Such a representation of both the Conservatives and the liberals in both the US. But also in Latin America and I think that when you look at South Florida, you see a lot of those kind of play. You see you know from Columbia, you see the Conservatives from Columbia and you see the progressives from Columbia. So you have such a makes of. Of just these ideologies that really comes to shine like Michael said in the way that people vote. Michael is the a geographic split within Florida as well because it's the general tendency in the United States and elsewhere that cities tend to be more liberal more vaguely left-wing rural parts of a given state or given country tend to be more conservative. Is that clear cut in that respect in Florida? Well, again I think. Could certainly right that it's always a little more complicated but that's generally true I think you know you saw in two thousand sixteen that Hillary Clinton did even better than expected in a lot of the urban areas She Barack Obama won Florida and Hillary Clinton. Did even better in some of the particularly in south Florida in Miami and Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach and some of the more urbanized area. But Donald Trump there was an absolute revolution of essentially white people in the exurbs coming out and voting for trump in the rural and sort of farther away from the cities you don't want to over stereotype. But it certainly true that the Republican coalition has you know the heart of it is older white people who are very reliable voters and the Democratic Coalition relies on younger urban lots of immigrants, lots of minorities who in the past have not been turned out has not been as High Bianca. Those factors taken into consideration that I guess the Republican Party's and democratic parties in Florida will have an amount obviously in common with the National Party and parties elsewhere is there still a distinctive political culture within Florida like basically what I'm asking are Florida Republicans different from other Republicans, into Florida Democrats different from other States Democrats. I think when it gets down to it when you're thinking of. Our Florida Latinos for example, are they always kind of leaning Democrat or you know Florida South Florida Latinos are they always leaning Republican as people kind of think a lot of the time because of the cuban-american population I think that a lot of that is is changing. So at whether whether or not, you're going to see more cuban-americans still voting. Republican. In the way that they usually do a lot of that is kind of breaking and and being undone because of the younger generation, you know really having more of an experience in the. US and seeing the way that their families grew up in thinking about healthcare and climate change as more of priorities to them. So you know I would say that the main difference if there was one is here you can see a lot of distinctive kind of you see mixed political ideologies in families. So I've met even candidates who are you know Democrats were running now for public office in Florida and their families are different completely different ideology from them. So I think that that's what's interesting right and what makes Florida you know such. Unique and fascinating state is that it's changing all the time and it's changing not just because of the of the new kind of waves of immigrants that are coming in but also the new generations that are really having a different kind of awareness than the one their parents did. We'll talk more in the second half of the program about how Florida may have changed in the last four years and what it might be like in this election. But Michael just before we do that I don't like to tempt fate too much by talking about what happened in two thousand when basically an entire parallel history of the twentieth century got chalked off by a margin of a few hundred votes in Florida but. Still. Talk about that election much in Florida and Walton immense sliding doors moment that was not just for the United States. But as it turned out for the entire world, you know I think that's a great way. Great way of putting it because it certainly was I mean you know you wouldn't have an Iraq war if it wasn't for five hundred, thirty, seven votes the other way. And I think it's just a great example of. Of. You know the way these these elections and Florida are always one on the margins. Sort of every community matters again at the margins these things make a huge difference. I think. You know Republicans have been much better organized since two thousand and you saw in two thousand with that Brooks brothers riot But but everyone knows it's going to be close and and that really is a place where every vote counts.
Florida: The swingiest swing state in the U.S. election
"Want to talk a bit about how we got here and why at least since the the famous near Tie of two thousand does just seem to be Florida or at least partially about Florida Michael Ask, you first win and why did floor to become the key battleground Republican hasn't won the White House without Florida forever. So that's part of the reason that it's become. So you know everybody desperately wants it and it just seems to be the self-balancing State where it's about twenty percent immigrants. But you know the last the last fifty, million votes that have been cast for presidential candidates in Florida Republicans, Democrats are separated by about twenty thousand and we've had just about every election. Every statewide election seems to come down to one percent and just seems like every time another white person Republican moves down here from the Midwest. Another democratic leaning immigrants may move into central Florida from the global south, and so it's a really seems to be self-balancing. Beyond those demographics that Monolithic is it a case of elderly white pensioners voting for Republicans and more recent arrivals from elsewhere trading Democrat or is there some kind of overlap between spillage among those groups? As you can probably imagine it's a little bit more complex in that I think that there's didn't kind of increasing awareness for both Democrats and Republicans that some of the key demographics here you know the American immigrants but you know you have the first generation, the second generation, you have the newer arrivals you have the. You have the Cubans you have the Puerto Ricans, have the Haitians. There's such a mix of people and cultures and experiences, and when you add to that kind of the new. Yorkers. That are coming to Florida to retire and you have all these different politics and ideologies kind of mixed together. I. Think you really get. Such a representation of both the Conservatives and the liberals in both the US. But also in Latin America and I think that when you look at South Florida, you see a lot of those kind of play. You see you know from Columbia from Columbia and you see the progressives from Columbia. So you have such a makes of. Of just these ideologies that really comes to shine like Michael said in the way that people vote. Michael is the a geographic split within Florida as well because it's the general tendency in the United, states and elsewhere that cities tend to be more liberal more vaguely left-wing rural parts of a given state or given country tend to be more conservative. Is that clear? Cut In that respect in Florida? Well, again I think. Could certainly right that it's always a little more complicated but that's generally true I think you know you saw in two thousand sixteen that Hillary Clinton did even better than expected in a lot of the urban areas she. Barack. Obama won Florida and Hillary Clinton did even better in some of the particularly in south Florida in Miami and Fort Lauderdale and West, Palm Beach and some of the more urbanized area. But Donald Trump, there was an absolute revolution of essentially white people in the exurbs coming out and voting for trump in the rural and sort of farther away from the cities you don't want to over stereotype. But it certainly true that the Republican coalition has you know the heart of it is older white people who are very reliable voters and the Democratic Coalition relies on younger urban lots of immigrants, lots of minorities who in the past have not been turned out has not been as High Bianca. Those factors taken into consideration that I guess the Republican Party's and democratic parties in Florida will have an amount obviously in common with the National Party and parties elsewhere. Is there still a distinctive political culture within Florida like basically what I'm asking are Florida Republicans different from other Republicans into Florida Democrats different from other States Democrats? I think when it gets down to it when you're thinking of. Our Florida Latinos for example, are they always kind of leaning? Democrat. Or you know Florida South Florida Latinos are they always leaning Republican as people kind of think a lot of the time because of the cuban-american population I think that a lot of that is changing so at whether whether or not, you're going to see more cuban-americans still voting Republican in the way that they usually do a lot of that is kind of breaking and and being undone because of the younger generation you know really having more of an experience in the US. and seeing the way that their families grew up in thinking about healthcare and climate change as more of priorities to them. So you know I would say that the main difference if there was one is here you can see a lot of distinctive kind of you see mixed political ideologies in families. So I've met even candidates who are you know? Democrats were running now for public office in Florida and their families are different completely different ideology from them. So i. think that that's what's interesting. Right and what makes Florida you know such. Unique and fascinating state is that it's changing all the time and it's changing not just because of the of the new kind of waves of immigrants that are coming in. But also the new generations that are really having a different kind of awareness than the one their parents did. We'll talk more in the second half of the program about how Florida may have changed in the last four years and what it might be like in this election. But Michael just before we do that I, don't like to tempt fate too much by talking about what happened in two thousand when basically an entire parallel history of the twentieth century got chopped off by a margin of a few hundred votes in Florida but. People still talk about that election much in Florida and Walton immense sliding doors moment that was not just for the United States but as it turned out for the entire world, you know, I think that's a great way. Great way of putting it because it certainly was i. mean you know you wouldn't have an Iraq war if it wasn't for five hundred, thirty, seven votes the other way. And I think it's just a great example of. Of you know the way, these these elections and Florida are always one on the margins. Sort of every community matters again at the margins, these things make a huge difference I think. You know Republicans have been much better organized since two thousand and you saw in two thousand with that Brooks brothers riot But but everyone knows it's going to be close and and that really is a place where every vote counts.
The Supreme Court Fight
"President. Trump will reportedly nominate Amy Cockney Barrett, a favorite of social conservatives to be the new Supreme Court justice. The president's decision to be officially revealed at the White House later today. Has been confirmed to the BBC's US partners, CBS News and other U S media. She would replace the Progressive Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last Friday. Nomination will set off a bitter Senate fight to get her confirmed as November's White House election looms. Our correspondent in California is David Willis. I asked him about Amy Cockney Barris Bad is a devout Catholic. The mother of seven and assuming her nomination is confirmed by the U. S Senate, she will be the youngest justice on the Supreme Court bench. At the age of 48 was seen as a front runner to succeed Ruth Beta Ginsburg, but she is nonetheless the ideological opposite. Of the woman that she is expected to replace. Miss Ginsberg was the leader of the liberal wing of the court and unequivocally pro choice. Of course, Ms. Barrett has called abortion in moral and since being appointed to the Court of Appeals by President Trump. 2017. She has twice ruled in favor of restricting access to abortion. Hence, liberals see her appointment is a potential threat to row versus Wade. That's the landmark 1973 ruling, which legalized abortion nationwide here. A lot of Republicans are very happy. Yes, Republicans on deed. The president's political advisors hope that this election will energize his conservative political base. Evangelicals, religious conservatives In particular Democrats. For their part, I think there may be hoping that this could inspire liberal voters to take to the polls in defense of amongst other things, Roe vs Wade in the past week. In fact, they pull several polls. Have shown that most Americans, including many Republicans, believe that the next Supreme Court justice should be selected by whoever wins the presidential election here in November, and not by Donald Trump. Before then, on that subject, though, there has been some speculation. Hasn't there that if the result of the November elections is disputed legally, that possibly this new lineup of judges could intervene on the president signed. Well, that's absolutely right. Bear in mind that last other justices have been improved in presidential election years. None has been voted on. After July And four years ago, Senate Republicans refused to even consider then President Obama's nomination on precisely those grounds that should be left to whoever Was chosen as the next president, but as well as key issues such as abortion and immigration, universal health care, the US Supreme Court could, as you say, be called upon. To adjudicate the outcome off this forthcoming presidential election. Should the result be disputed, as they're now seems every chance that it will be President. Trump has repeatedly claimed, of course, that the Democrats that trying to steal the election he seems Poised to challenge any result. Really, that doesn't declare him the winner, and this week he refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses, and that's why And he's made this quite plain. He wants toe rush his nominee through the Senate by Election Day. How large in the psyche of American voters do you think the lineup of the Supreme Court is The Supreme Court is important, whether or not it actually masses a great deal to the average voter is another matter. I mean, they shape large parts. Off life here and, of course, they are appointed for life and its therefore significant that Amy Cockney Barents confirmation would shift The center of gravity on the Supreme Court considerably to the right, giving conservatives six off the nine seats, possibly for many decades, and the replacement of a liberal icon move played against the with an outspoken conservative like Amy. Tony Barrett has been called the sharpest ideological swing in nearly three decades as Faras, the highest court in the land is concerned, so the potential implications of this are significant. How much They actually count as Faras Day to day living. His concern of Americans here I think is another matter. The
Trump expected to announce conservative Barrett for court
"Congressional Republicans say president Donald Trump will nominate federal seventh circuit court of appeals judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Supreme Court justice Ruth pater Ginsburg during a campaign rally Friday night in Newport news Virginia president trump relished the chance to nominate yet another justice to the Supreme Court we don't have to do it by the election but we should be easy really able that would be a great victory going into the election earlier in the day trump told reporters at joint base Andrews I'll be announcing the decision of March very exciting five o'clock at the White House rose garden the likely shift in the courts make up from Ginsburg a liberal icon to an outspoken conservative would be their sharpest ideological swing since Clarence Thomas replace justice Thurgood Marshall nearly thirty years ago I had to acquire
Amy Coney Barrett 'to be picked by Trump for Supreme Court'
"Donald Trump will be announcing his supreme court pick on. Saturday which means that he already knows that the individualism according to sources close to Donald trump his selection will be judge Amy Coney Barrett Their York Times makes a point to mention that she would be the least experienced supreme court nominee however she is a favorite among conservative politicians and conservative voters because of her Christian background but also more importantly and I think this gets left out in a lot of the analysis in the media. She also would immediately invalidate the affordable care act she's on the record. Saying that whereas you know the thing that people seem to be more focused on right now is Roe v Wade which you know obviously I don't WanNa be naive and just assume that she won't touch Roe v Wade but she is on the record saying that she believes in the precedent when it comes to reproductive rights even though she as a devout Catholic disagrees with abortion and all of that but Emma I wanted to get your thoughts. We're talking about this a little bit during the break talk a little bit about what this means for the affordable care, act? Certainly. So that's my concern too. I mean we're both women. We obviously have concerns about our reproductive health but I think there is a hesitance in terms of justices overturning that precedent because of the ripple effects and how massive and that it would be I feel like it's just more of a political talking point for Conservative politicians to score points than it is a judicial reality. That's the only thing saving us here. What should concern everybody is that she's forty eight years old she has a history of pro-corporate positions that side with the with the employer against employee etc I believe and she's sided against. I'm reading some of it here. Things in gun rights she descended in a decision that would disarm felons for example, after they came out of prison, she's pretty extreme when it comes to those issues but for the affordable care. Act's guys if it's six to three if she gets through and it's that solidly conservative, they're going to do away with the affordable care act and then that's a conservative basically supermajority for decades at that point say ideally, we got the Progressive President in twenty twenty four who wants to put Medicare for all through. That's dumb. That's what concerns me most about these decisions are yes. The Supreme Court's been pro-corporate for a very long time for the Romney says, we're a center right country and the courts been leftist for awhile talk to him about Bush. Gore in citizens united whatever. But but but yeah, that's what scares me the most about. This is the complete mixing of any legislation that comes through that could be progressive. That's appealed Conservatives Appeal Appeal Appeal go the Supreme Court and they know. It's just going to be overturned. INCORPORATIONS can have a field day in big Pharma will be doing great. Yeah I am definitely worried about this. You know representative Ro. Khanna introduced a bill that would limit the. Time Supreme Court justice could serve on the Supreme Court to eighteen years. I don't know where that piece of legislation is GonNa go but I I do think that it's important that you mentioned her age as you just did and how. Her influence on the court will have a lasting ramifications on on this country really and yeah, the pro-corporate angle is something that just seems to get lost in the fray lost in the analysis and I'm glad that we're talking about it in a story that will cover later donald trump signed more ridiculous phony executive orders alleging that he's protecting people with preexisting conditions. The truth is those executive orders constitutionally speaking have no teeth but what it does is it messages to his voters that don't worry don't don't be frightened of the repeal of the affordable care act because signed executive orders. They're not going to do anything, but you know it's just enough to cover his ass while also simultaneously causing great harm to honestly all Americans because anything could be considered a pre existing condition. If you tested positive for cove it, that's considered a pre existing condition. So this is going to have. A damaging effect on so many people in this country I wanna read a quote from from this piece in the New, York? Times it's by Aaron. Who's president for the old Alliance for Justice a liberal group. She says, Amy Coney Barrett Meets Donald Trump's to litmus tests. She has made clear that she would invalidate the affordable care act and take healthcare away for millions of people and undermine. A woman's reproductive freedom. Again, I'm not entirely sure that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe V. Wade I know that there's a lot of fear about that. I understand that fear a lot of my fear again has to do with You know corporate shoes that make it to the Supreme Court and what is very likely to happen to the affordable care act at this point and remember the Supreme Court did strike. The healthcare mandate, that's an important part of the affordable care act. That's what kept premiums low, and you know when they undid that, of course, premiums immediately shot up and so we'll see how this all plays out, but it is pretty terrifying.
"donald trump" Discussed on The Sean Hannity Show
"We look at what was going on and we were talking about those kids who were killed. The people were killed. During this year this year, I'm referring to the American Public Gifty, the idea that all this chaos and all these Democrats city areas going on right now they know that the Democrats are at fault. They know the key to this surviving is American institution right now is to keep Donald Trump is in office, and that's why they're trying to lie now that trump is responsible. What that Portland Mayor Did a couple of days ago we held that ridiculous conference. He was talking to himself because antiques plan black lives matter they hate him and the city doesn't get along with him and he's trying to blame trump and they woke up with a bonfire last night. The bottom line is Donald. Trump is going to win this election and the Democrats going to be out again, combining for another four years. Sergeant your take on all of this. You're absolutely right. You. You you. You find very few opportunities to to agree with Leo to Real, and that's my man. But. The bottom line is look this. This is that is right. I mean we. Look I just saw poll along the way eight in ten. Americans. Say That we're we're divided as a nation. You're right when you got you got the these these liberals on the left that a youth this radicalized audiology to divide us as a nation. Of course, we're going to be, of course, that's GonNa be the the. or every time you turn on the news, they're gonNA, continue to talk about that and look at what's happening in Portland I think if if anyone has a complaint about anything that happens in Portland, there should be the readiness that lived there. These people are being run out of their own city by mom. Mom, I mean. You're. GonNa have shootings, industries you're can have people being attacked business can't operate under that. Another type of pressure and law enforcement officers can't even do their job. So I shall we gotta come up with a solution. We gotta get back and control over the system that has that has been turned upside down. Let me tell you some. Sergeant Sixty three days before an election only because as don lemon says, well, the Poles are. Now this is this this lack of safety insecurity in law and order showing up in the polls and focus groups. So. Let's let's let's have an election year conversion and all of a sudden we're going to act like we didn't say all of those things about defunding the police and praising as Comma did the LAPD cuts or Joe saying police become the enemy and of course, he'd reallocate funds away from police absolutely look at the impact..
"donald trump" Discussed on Worst Year Ever
"If only President Obama would put America First. Well this president is all about making America safe again it no president ever accept Donald Trump ever acted faster so those are fun fun and good fun. Good in great interesting that Powerfully erotic powerfully erotic quotes from the powerfully erotic Jesse watters Complaining ABOUT OBAMA IMPORTING Bola Socialism to America. So this is a bit frustrating. I would say Compared to their reaction now to an actual disaster. That's way worse than what they were talking about again. Very few cases in America during the OPOLE outbreak that we're taking care of variously response reading a headline the US cases. Now top nine hundred and fifty. Oh good twice what I said in the right up California good number panicking officials. Anyone not finished because there's so many more than we know we just don't know because we don't have testing yeah just a quick This is a quick quote from Mr Obama after the fact when it was taken care of and sort of the message that he put forth was actually finding good in the twenty first century. We cannot build moats around our countries. There are no drawbridges to be pulled up. We shouldn't try some worried about bringing the disease to our shores that we had to But then he commented that we had to make the decisions based on fear but on science. You recall October three weeks in which all too often we heard science being ignored in cessation. Just it's just very nice to hear a president listen to science and and like Obama. Well I'm here Netflix. No insane nope Obama anyway. The person that was most upset about a bullet during his period as Robert alluded to was Donald J trump. I think it's it can get a little tiresome. There's a tweet for everything and that's because there's a tweet for everything every single every single every single thing. It's like this whole experience. There were having was written by somebody to drive us. Mad Every single thing in Donald Trump's case for this potato specific instance. There are a hundred tweets for this metered about this so much because again he was so obsessed with Jonathan exactly. So I'm just constant tweets. I know for sure that our leaders are incompetent. Obama just appointed in a bowl czar with zero experience in the medical area and disease control a total joke. I wonder who he referred to today about that President Obama has a major meeting on the NYC bowl outbreak with people flying in from all over the country but decided to play golf. He literally did that yesterday. He's needs to relax. You need to go to the club and shake some hands and relax with his Gulf There's just one more tweet from Donald Trump. Because I think it's perfectly. I forgot to read it quote. Ebola has been confirmed. Nyc with officials frantically trying to find all of the people and things he had contact with Obama's fault a total incompetent We we don't need to read more of them. There are and I'm not exaggerating hundred tweets about this exaggerating so Just a little compare contrast on how an actual like competent administration with a scientifically literate considerate president deals with the situation and what the media does and the reaction and now he for that depressing comparisons. We gotta take a quick break. Yes things that we do for these products that unlike the trump administration.
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"Susan Susan Hennessy. Welcome to Rubicon. Thanks for having me. So we're at a bit of a disadvantage in that. We're recording this episode on Thursday but the key vote on whether we're going to have anything anything like a fair trial in the Senate for Donald Trump's impeachment won't happen until Friday and we may not even know how that vote is going to shake out until it actually happens so for the purposes of this conversation I wanNA focus for the most part on the proposition. Trump and his lawyers have put forth and how Republicans in particular Picula have reacted to it because it bottom Republicans seem prepared to accept it whether there are witnesses or not at eventually. The story ends without sixty seven votes to remove Donald Trump from office. How would you characterize the proposition that that? They're preparing themselves to affirm mm-hmm so nobody ever wants to be considered naive in this town. And so I say this with with a risk of being proven wrong in pretty rapid order. I'm still just refuse to believe that the Senate would actually be willing to not even call John in Bolton as a witness because that would be an expression that impeachment is not a genuine constitutional remedy. It's not a real check on executive give power it's just a raw measurement of how many members of the president's own party sit in the Senate and I think what we're seeing play out right now. I'm is the terrible terrible choice. The Republican senators have created for themselves because on one hand they want to be perceived as you undertaking. A legitimate should image investigation a legitimate trial. Even though they know full well that they intend to quit the president at the end of this and and of course I think something like seventy five percent of Americans say `I I they believe that additional witnesses should be called. I'm but the senators have a really big problem because John Bolton has come out and he's said I have a story to tell and it's really bad and it shatters a lot of the implausible deniability that you've been clinging to an. I'm going to tell that story eventually. I'm gonNA tell it in a book. I'm going to tell it in an interview. This this story is coming out and so what Republican Senators have to decide is do they want to be confronted with that story under oath and then have to actually cast a vote wrote not a furrowed brow in a Senate hallway. Not a disapproving tweet about being gravely concerned but an up or down. Vote on the question of whether or not this is acceptable. Whether or not this tolerable and I think if we get down to it and the balance of fears between between Senate Republicans of being perceived perceived as a not undertaking legitimate investigation versus the consequence of undertakings illegitimate investigation. I think that's the anguish that we're seeing. I'm playing out right now I continue to think I too hope that there will be four senators who realized that this is just not not that this that this impeachment trial simply would not be perceived as legitimate by the American public. If John Bolton doesn't come to testify but for the purposes of this recording. I think that we have to you know we're in the dark for the next twenty four hours As to how this is actually going to play out and by the time people listen to this. That question will be answered one way or another Either we're going to be in a world where John Bolton is going to testify or we're going to be in one where this is all gonna and we're going to figure out what his stories later. I just think that whichever happens. There's one more vote after after that. which is a a a quitter convict and even today? I think I count enough. Republican senators who have essentially said. Even if what Bolton's book is purported to to claim is true. I'm we're just not going to convict trump and so if we just Liba ahead to the assumption that he's acquitted what do you interpret Republicans to be saying by having acquitted him. Does that make sense. Yeah I interpret Republicans to be saying that it is tolerable. Acceptable for the president of the United States is to use the powers of his office to extort a foreign leader into becoming an opposition researcher for his political campaign. I I would say that these senators senators are voting to say that it is acceptable to have a president and in this really goes sort of the core argument. We loud in this book but a president in who does not view the interests of the office of the presidency as in any way distinct from the interests of the occupant that those are completely completely merged in political interest in financial interests. And and this really goes to the heart of trump's vision of the presidency this sense that the purpose of the presidency she is to serve the president and it serves the public only coincidentally or when convenient or as an afterthought and that isn't a question of you've expanding the edges of executive power the ordinary sort of areas in which we're used to debating limits of presidential power it it goes to the very core and it says that the president can use the these really astonishingly Empowering Authority ordeal that the constitution vests in him. I'm for his own purposes and not on behalf of the country and and if that is true and if the Senate is willing to tolerate hollering that that has long term structural ramifications across lots of different axes and and the Senate may may try to sort of kid themselves by saying. Oh No. We're making a very narrow vote about the nature of this form of an impeachable offense or that form. But but this is a blunt instrument you're either impeaching and removing the president has an or you aren't and so they really are fooling themselves if they don't think that the ultimate statements that they're making is. This is acceptable acceptable and they are accepting. I'm glad you brought up John Bolton for this reason because you're a you could in theory imagine a situation in which for plus Republican senators not enough to convict him but enough to say. There's a real problem here get together and say look like we're not going to there's no reason to To to draw this proceeding indefinitely but we acknowledge something terrible happened here and so we're interested in is in. What can we do as legislators power to say okay? We're not going to remove him from office office but we are going to take some steps to make sure that this doesn't become the norm at least in our Party and censoring him. Yo ramping ramping. Up a regular oversight activities and that's just not in the cart. Nobody's even discussing that as an option Which is why I feel like take the emergence of Bolton and and and what we believe we know he is in his book is so revelatory Is like most trump scandal seem to follow this pattern where he and all of the principals deny whatever their alleged to have done outright. Then say it didn't it didn't happen but if it did happen it wouldn't be so bad and then finally I did it and it was awesome and to me what striking about the role. The boat revelations have played is how how quickly they moved us from step two to step three where where Republicans and trump's lawyers have been kinda stuck saying could pro quos normal but even here Democrats Kratz haven't proved that trump ever explicitly linked Ukraine aid to Sham Biden investigations. Bolton's you know book the details of what's in Bolton's book book come out and he says that's bullshit and actually trump did exactly that almost overnight. We we get to trump and everyone around him kinda claiming dictatorial power to cheat in his own election which leaves no space for any kind of intermediate remedy. Does that make sense. I think it does look. I think what has been happening. Is You know the idea that there were there were senators who And you know in good faith were looking at the the record produced by the House and they saw this evidence and some of it was somewhat troubling. And Gosh Gosh it really does look like the president did one investigations into his political opponent. Joe Biden and his son or at least the announcement of those investigations. And Gosh. It really does look like the President United States frozen military aid to Ukraine and then lied about it in an head why he did it from Congress but shucks. I just don't know how we could possibly tie those. It's two things together. which by the way what people like? Kurt Volker attempted to testify to a while. We knew there was this one bad thing happening knew there. Was this other bad thing happening. But you're telling me see these two bad things were actually about the same thing or it's a whole game has been this completely implausible story. That's how these two things were not connected. And here's John Bolton coming forward and saying they're connected and I can testify to what the president actually said putting both of these things in the exact same sentence and what that does is it pops sort of implausible deniability that we've seen so many actors operating an in bad faith and we should acknowledge that they're pretending right it's not that they actually. They're actually stunned by this new revelation. They're pretending because they know that they eventually are going to vote to quit. The president of the United States and so the problem is is that that now requires a pivot right. You can't just say well. Of course it would be incredibly disturbing if the president tied military aid to abusive investigations nations. Something that Lindsey Graham and many others actually said at the outset of the revelations of this scandal you know but we're not going to call a witness before for the Senate who is who is a person who's imposition actually. Tie those two things together. You can't make that argument plausibly. And so instead you have to move into this really astonishing initiative constitutional argument and and really that is the heart of the argument. The heart of the argument is that the president of the United States is allowed to use the powers of his office for any purpose. He'd like so long as he can articulate at least some rationale for why it was in fact on behalf of the public interest even if there's also a corrupt motive present present and it doesn't matter how how implausible or contradicted by the documentary record. That sort of that rationale of why he was doing on behalf of the public might be so long as you can say something and really what we're talking about here is is a completely unconstrained unconstrained executive an executive that does not need to in fear impeachment and removal and the exercise of his office so long as he knows that the Senate is controlled by members. I have his own party so in researching on making the presidency. Were you struck by any historical examples of the presidency. Changing alarming ways but in ways. That didn't didn't ever stick in hindsight we can kind of say. We dodged a bullet entered. Johnson is probably the best example of this so Johnson actually is impeach although not removed. She's the first president to be impeached. And he's sort of trumpy figure right he's He's a demagogue. He've he allies. He you you know. He insults his political opponents. He's actually one of the articles of impeachment is. It's for the way he speaks and sort of his language. I'm in search for for being a little bit like a like a trump rally actually was one of the articles of impeachment and of course for ignoring the log knowing the constraints of the law ignoring ignoring the The legislature as a CO equal branch. And he's impeached. And it's kind of a blip People talk about Johnson now but but just as a negative example for rape kind of president that you don't WanNa be and so you know.
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"Hey Rubicon fans. It's Brian if you're listening to this then hopefully already know that we've just launched a new weekly newsletter here at crooked media. It's called big tent. I write it and my goal is to walk with you through the big debates unfolding among Democrats in real time from the campaign trail to the Senate floor to the most productive venues twitter. And I want to do that because the issues we argue about and how we work them out. We'll both shape the future of the progressive movement we share and probably also help determine whether Donald trump gets a second terminate. The first edition just came out on Friday January thirty first. But you can subscribe today at crooked dot com slash big tent I'm really psyched about this. I hope you sign up and encourage people you know to sign up to China.
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"It's complicated because in ordinary trial. You're completely right that the prosecutor would say and you will hear evidence that one thing. The prosecutor can't do in a trial title because it's not lawful is to say in the opening statement in front of the grand jury the witnesses already said thus and such and so therefore the guy is guilty because you can't in ordinary trial refer to evidence that was gathered outside of the trial. The whole principle of due process of law is that the evidence has to be brought to bear right there in front of the jury. So that's not what happens in ordinary trial at all the prosecutors here. The house managers had no choice but to do that because they may not have a chance to call any witnesses but they did have more leeway than an ordinary prosecutor would because they can refer freely to all of the evidence that was gathered in front of the House House which you could not do it in a criminal trial. The Way I think about all this is that there are signals the Senate can and has in the past provided to indicate to the public. I guess that the trial outcome ref would reflect impartial. Justice like one is through. Consensus is if if senators agree on the trial rules. One hundred zero like they did in the in the Clinton case. That's a pretty strong indication that the Senate believes it's equipped to to render judgment fairly and another. would be like the completeness of the record you know if the question is has it received or sought all the information it needs to make decisions about guilt. Answer's yes that's a pretty strong indication that the public whether they're happy with the outcome or not should treated treated as legitimate. Yeah you're right and I know what you're saying which is completely true and correct raises a really fascinating question to me which is is given that the Republicans in the Senate no they ninety nine percent likelihood have the votes to vote not to remove Donald Trump from office purpose and given that they could get the legitimacy you're describing by having farrow and agreed upon procedure and then listening to the witnesses and then voting. Why aren't they doing it? I mean that really is a hard question and I don't mean to ask that in some. You know purely rhetorical by saying. Why aren't they doing that? I'm trying to force them into doing it. I'm actually asking a genuine question. What is it that they're so concerned about? I mean if John Bolton testifies and says his worst do we. I really think that that's GONNA move enough senators to change the outcome to get us to a two thirds majority necessary to remove Donald Trump. I would be stunned if that were the case. Yes so I mean. Imagine the worst thing that John Bolton can say yes I went into Donald trump and I told him. This violates national security and it's an impeachable offense and he said to me I don't care you know I wanna get reelected Ima- imagine that that was the testimony. Do we really believe that would get us. Two thirds majority of centers. I kind of don't and so I don't don't really understand at a deep level. Why the Senate majority is taking the risk of the whole trial being seen as illegitimate? Unless you think that the the answer is that they are so committed to the idea that the whole process is illegitimate. They're so committed to Donald Trump's narrative. The whole impeachment is as he keeps on saying a hoax. Folks you know fake that they think there's nothing wrong with doing it their way as a hoax and as a fake and then they'll just say yeah well they did a hoax. We did a hoax. I do think that Jr on a cer- like working on a on a completely different plane that there is something important about trying to get Congress to win in this basic question of whether these people have to testify whether these documents have to be produced in an impeachment that's in part about obstruction of Congress that that whether it has any bearing on how the senators ultimately vote or if senators enters ultimately vote to acquit on charges. Anyway I if this process ends with the obstruction both having been You know Attempted and then be having been successful and see he gets acquitted. Anyway that's just a roadmap for future presidents to engage in wholesale cover-ups like this and I mean maybe that's Maybe that's a kind of argument that that the house managers should be making about. Why testimony is important even though there's already enough to convict But that's one thing that's actually worried me about how what's going to happen if they get to the end of all this they Vote not to hear any more witnesses see anymore documents and then quit and then I have you know in a in a trial that was about obstructing congress in part. That's a great point and I'm also worried about that. You know one thing that I have been saying. All along about the obstruction of Congress articles of impeachment is the reason you know that it was appropriate to impeach the president as if Congress starts impeachment inquiry in the present. stonewalls says. I'M NOT GONNA cooperate in the end. The only remedy left that saves us from a presidency. That's completely above. The law is impeachment. Like that's the only thing you can do if you're the house right you say you're gonNA impeach and and the President says I won't cooperate you know you can't go to the courts and compel it not realistically and frankly it's entirely possible that the courts would've said not our problem impeachment is your soul power. Not Ours is an all you can do is to impeach under those circumstances and if you know the president is then nevertheless. LS Not removed from office. It does send that message as you say that the president can just get away with it. And that's very worrisome. For the basic structure basic structure of our government. Some future presence might not want to be impeached and I will say that. The second article of impeachment was unnecessary from the president's perspective. Active he could have fought the individual witnesses one at a time without announcing in that grand way that he did that he wouldn't cooperate in any way and if he had done that he would have escaped that second article of impeachment. So you know that was I would call that an unforced error. I actually think he was an unforced error that should be attributed it at least in parts of the White House counsel who wrote that letter and signed that letter and who is now defending the president so apparently the president doesn't think it was an error because he's relying on the same guy right now to defend him. That's a separate question. Like why is that. Okay but bottom line there is a serious serious danger that if president think they can get away with two stonewalling that the congress congressional power to impeach will just eroded to nothing. Let's let's wind down on on that point because I think think it's right to say this will be the first time the Senate has used it so power to try impeachment to conceal rather than consider evidence period. Right I think so. Oh Yeah I mean. I can't think of any prior example. Where they're where they're not trying to get witnesses not trying to get more information so just taking it as a given that impeachment supporters and Democrats and you know hopefully a growing list of people as time goes on Talk about it that way and try to leave an asterisk next to this trial l.. What will the consequences for the impeachment? Power be going forward or can we even say anything about that before the next election. We'll as you say. The election is hugely significant and we will interpret events in light of that election after the fact even if there's no good hard scientific reason to think they ought to be so. If trump is not removed from office as seems probable and is then reelected right we end the judgement of history will be boy. Impeachment has completely lost the Umph that historically had you know the idea that you know bill. Clinton's legacy was seriously tainted anted by impeachment. The idea that Richard Nixon resigned rather than being a running the risk of being impeached not just removed but but impeach that will look like a a very faint relic of a of a lost time if on the other hand trump is not convicted and then loses in the election even if he would have lost the election anyway. You know people will say well you see. Impeachment is vindicated. Maybe you weren't able to remove the president from office but the taint of impeachment was so significant that it had an impact on the presidential election. And we'LL WANNA tell ourselves that story because we want to legitimate our existing institutions creaky old constitution. You know two hundred and twenty five plus plus years old and there's a way in which you know no other country in the world still runs its affairs in this way since we enacted our Constitution. France has been through five reboots right Francis on what they call their fifth republic. That's their five point. Oh their version. Five point oh of their constitution at a time that we're still stuck doc with basically the same thing although with you know at the reconstruction amendments added in but when it comes to impeach him. We've got the exact same creaky thing we've already had always had and it's possible that it just doesn't work anymore and that's something that's painful but we need to confront that reality. I want to offer you a close on on a happier. Thought of you have on for for listeners. Or if if there's any sort of optimistic side to how you you see these events playing out well there is. There is because right right now whether you and I are speaking. We're we're in the middle of events and I think you know it's appropriate for us to be honest. I think you've been and I'm trying to be also about the genuine threat to structure of our institutions that exists but we are not speaking right now at a point where those institutions are destroyed. You know the president of United States took actions agency that to my mind at least are clearly at the core of what the framers thought should be impeachable and he was impeached. So in that sense offense. The institution is working correctly as we speak. The institution is working correctly in that impeachment occurred. The trial may insert raised illegitimate the non-removal of the president. If that's what happens in certain ways be a legitimate. They're all these problems they're real. We've been talking about them but it remains possible still that our democratic institutions will be robust enough to save us. You Know Donald Trump could lose the next election and then we will be able to tell ourselves with some credibility we got through it. You know our long national nightmare there will then in some way over. We shouldn't be naive about it. Even if that happens we should go back and look at what we can do better but that is still a possible outcome..
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"The GAO report that you mentioned earlier. You know this finding finding that yeah the military hold violated the law All of that in a political sense is giving an enormous amount of momentum and I think you know whether it'll break the damn on Senate Republicans holding trump accountable. I mean I still people are pretty pessimistic. But the pressure is just like Ruben. Ratcheted up and ratcheted up. I think way more than had none of this come out in the interim from the time that the articles were voted on and then if they had been transmitted right away I think in the space that was created by Polisi holding them back and the amount of shoes that have dropped in the meantime have you know. Put the pressure on you know just made it feel more urgent and I think for the trump administration must make them feel incredibly really nervous. Because I don't think they know when the next shoe will drop. I think they know what shoes could drop because they know exactly what happened. But they don't know when they'll drop in like for example today Robert Hyde who's this Republican who's running running for Congress in Connecticut who was the one who was texting with I love Parnasse about possibly serving Marie Ivanovich in Ukraine. And you know whether or not they were like contemplating depleting a hit on her as it sounds like but that they've both denied sense His house was raided today by the FBI. So like who knows knows what's coming next is is how I see it i. I'm really glad you put it that way. Because you're scoop underscored to me exactly why. The trump administration obstructed congress in the first place in by Republicans particularly the Senate have done have signaled that the desire many of them have to keep as much new information from coming to light as possible but also I think illustrated a lesser disgust. Piece piece of the wisdom of Nancy Pelosi's decision to hang onto the articles for a few weeks Like we we tended to discuss that tactic through the lens of weather. It would force Mitch McConnell till admit defeat in some way or or or whether Senate Republicans individually would come out and say you know I'm I'm GonNa Not Vote for any motion. That doesn't allow us to call witnesses. And so you know now that the trial is getting underway and you know sure ince's of that sort have been made You see a lot of You Know Post Game Analysis of this decision. The policies gambit failed in some sense. But I think that's totally wrong right In part because this this flood of information that's coming out is is so unsettling that it seems like like it will make it very difficult for fifty one republicans to vote to shutdown new factfinding But also so because Pelosi kind of created as window right like that irrespective of what Republicans were going to do with their votes or how they were going to allow the trial to be structured assured the there was just this opening she created for people with information to to come forward right like. There's a strong indication that the Republicans in the Senate are leaning towards not allowing witnesses not allow documents To to come to light so in this limited period that Pelosi created stuff has started to come out Do you see. Do you see it that way or did you see it when you were reporting out your story that this was like an effect of of her having created some sense of uncertainty about when the trial would be allowed to start. I definitely didn't see it when I was reporting my story. I was sort of head down and you know oblivious because it's the holidays I'd his own I don't I'm not can't get in her head so I don't know how much I mean. She certainly didn't know in to some extent what was coming down the pike. I mean in terms of my own reporting I can see. That's for sure the partners I mean left parts had certainly indicated before that I believe if I'm remembering correctly like I'm GonNa Talk to Congress and I'm GONNA turn stuff. He might have already turned some of his documents over. So I think that and everybody's aware that this documentary evidence is out there So it I mean. In retrospect it seems like it was you know a wise move move on her part Trying to think there was something else you said but I'm now Oh I was thinking about how you said about Mitch McConnell and the Republicans like at this point they basically have to you know. New evidence has come forward and it now when they if they don't call witnesses and if they don't subpoenaed documents you know it'll look like they're not acting upon you know new evidence that's come forward that you really need you know. Oh you should be required to investigate and it reminded me you know on the one hand you think. Well they now have to do that like how could they their backs up against the wall but it reminded me as you're you're talking of the cavenaugh hearings and you know new. Witnesses came forward. And you know there was all this pressure to open up the FBI investigation. And they did did the sham process and call today so it's certainly not beneath them to do so do the question. What's the political cost? I I guess of doing it right right. The I mean the the Parnasse case. I'm I'm glad you mentioned it. I think it's like the most irrefutable refutable testament to the withholding the article strategy. Like he didn't his lawyer produce these incredible documents to the impeachment. Investigators and I think they like literally within hours of the House. Vote to refer the articles of impeachment to the Senate so like barely in time to be included in the factual record. And I wasn't aware that that your article had also gotten looped into the same factual records. So it you know the there. There is a quantifiable amount of information. That just was not known and to the impeachment investigators after they voted to impeach trump that became known to them before the trial began. And I think that makes it like fairly irrefutable refutable that the strategy strengthened the case itself completely apart from the question of how Republicans will vote destructor the trial or whether they'll allow allow any of this new information to affect their strong inclination to acquit trump. Did Gao finding. Today I mean I would put it in the same category gory it. It makes it really uncomfortable for the Republicans know violating the impoundment contract was not part of the you know was not an article of impeachment mint. But you now have this independent body saying the trump administration violated the law in connection to this story and you see already today today. Republicans sort of saying well the GAO's not that independent. which is you know? If that's your argument gets a losing argument And or you see them avoiding reporters they. Don't I want to comment on it. It's too it's too awkward And so the I will say from the time that the that the House voted on the articles to to where we are a day right now it is different information environment and it's a different a different political environment. I think for Senate Republicans that were already feeling a little bit uncomfortable up with just like cleaning their hands and making this go away as fast as they could. Yeah I think it was earlier today. Chuck Schumer tweeted something to the effect or said something to the effect of like you know. God Forbid Republicans. You know try to see all this information Render judgment against trump one way or another based on the incomplete record and then after they've already cast their votes to cover up whatever equipped trump the the whole truth comes out and not only have they voted for the cover it but the cover up fails retroactively and I'm watching. At least the Republican publican leadership grapple with this essential question. Like they must be aware now like it's like I think that they probably thought once the House House had voted to impeach trump that they would have a lot more control over the information environment Then they did when the house was running the show and the last two or three weeks have proven that they really don't right like there are still they're still foy they're still leakers. They're still witnesses. There's court cases that are ongoing and And these bombshells will continue to drop like in in the middle of the trial after the trial and so they are actually weighing this basic question. It's not cover up or no cover up it's it's Should we let all this information. Come out at once in the trial and then rip off the band aid and be done with it or let let it all Kinda dribble out slowly after we've already communicated with our votes our intention to to not let the public see this stuff. Yeah I'm two things I think they have to continue to obstruct because on you know I the information that's coming out is so damning and I can only imagine the information information that's being most closely protected like the Blair Duffy emails or whatever. The State Department e mails show are even worse. Like that's why we haven't haven't seen them And that's why you know the witnesses that haven't been allowed to testify Mulvaney. Blair Duffy John Bolton you know they have the worst stories to tell and so I can't imagine they take all right. Actually you know just that we can control. It will let everything come forward because it's You know it's like president. The president shooting someone Fifth Avenue. Like it's all GonNa be right there for us to see I think the other thing. That's a little tricky maybe for Democrats. It's not tricky but on the one hand there is plenty of evidence to explain what happened. between trump and Ukraine. And and you know him soliciting foreign interference in the election on that phone. Call the ties between asking for that investigation to Joe Biden and holding the military aid. The evidence is there that said. Is there more evidence out there absolutely so I think there's like this. Tricky thing that Republicans are also playing on where it's like. Well if you don't have the complete clete picture how on Earth Are you impeaching him. If there's all this stuff that still remains out there then you didn't do due diligence and so both things can be true. You can both have enough. Evidence is to move forward and there can also be plenty of evidence that still being obstructed and I think some of the allegations that Parnasse has raised just raise completely new questions like up until now the physical safety and the circumstances of Maria von riches being removed from Ukraine weren't part of the story really and as the FBI raid today shows the that's a new avenue investing of Investigation that cannot be you know just ignored or forgotten like we. I think the American public has a right to know Whether she was being threatened and back whom and where did it stop. How high up did it go? So a couple thoughts on that one is the this talking with the Republicans really have taken to about how this information coming to light just underscores that the house didn't do a very thorough job in its impeachment. Went totally allies. The point that trump has been impeached for obstructing the inquiry. Right like there's a reason. The House's factual record is incomplete complete and it's almost entirely because donald trump refused to cooperate with the inquiry. And so now he's they're going to have to vote on that article of impeachment and you the logic of what they're saying is that basically they're going to they're going to neuter their own institution and its power to compel executive branch disclosure of information. And I'm not sure for the trial will allow the impeachment managers to confront Senate Republicans with that contradiction that internal contradiction. And I'm curious to see like how how individual Republicans Republicans as a whole grapple with it The second thing is that I you know the the environment is uncertain enough that the White House is preparing for defections or at least is claiming to be preparing for defections on the question of witnesses and documents and trump himself after kind of pretending for awhile to want a fair trial. Trial now says that he might claim executive privilege if witnesses appear normally fights over that are resolved by AH accommodation between Congress and the executive branch or by courts..
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"I have been directed by the House of Representatives to inform the Senate. The House has passed h read seven nine eight a resolution appointing and authorizing managers but the impeachment trial of Don. John John from he has been held accountable. He has been impeached. He's been impeached forever. They can never erase that. There's conventional wisdom in Washington. That goes like this. Nancy Pelosi delayed the start of Donald Trump's impeachment trial for several weeks to four Senate Republicans. Not to rig it. And since it's Mitch. McConnell didn't agree to hear from witnesses or subpoenaed documents that means she lost but the conventional wisdom is wrong. She one to see why imagine policy referred the articles of impeachment right after the House passed them. McConnell could have buried the trial in the Christmas holiday or convenient right after the New Year Senate. Republicans have dismissed the charges or acquitted trump based on the bad faith argument that the house didn't hear from firsthand witnesses. All of whom of course trump ordered not to testify testify instead Pelosi created uncertainty. There'd be no trial until we know whether Republicans plan to engage in a cover-up or not what and that left every Republican senator hounded by a simple question would they allow witnesses or would they block them. McConnell didn't quote quote Unquote Cave but it sure seems like his members did Maine Senator. Susan Collins told reporters on Friday that she's working with a small group of fellow all over Republicans on ensuring witnesses in the trial. I can't imagine that only two witnesses that our democratic colleagues would WANNA call would would be called. Sally should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment..
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"I am <Speech_Male> not going to depart from <Speech_Male> from <Speech_Male> what past people in <Speech_Male> the <SpeakerChange> Don. <Speech_Female> I just don't know the answer <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> to the problem <Speech_Female> for Roberts <Speech_Female> on the precedent question <Silence> is that their presence <Speech_Female> both ways <Speech_Female> right there really. Isn't <Speech_Female> anything binding politically <Speech_Female> binding legally <Speech_Female> or or so <Speech_Female> forth on him. That <Speech_Female> two point two <Speech_Female> so <Speech_Female> one question is whether <Speech_Female> he's <Speech_Female> still in sometimes <Speech_Female> we think he does. <Speech_Female> I mean most recently <Speech_Female> gave some speech and he said look <Speech_Female> the <Speech_Female> courts not <Speech_Female> partisan and we should <Speech_Female> think about the court in partisan <Speech_Female> terms. Well <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> sometimes <Speech_Female> cheese <Speech_Female> we infer <Speech_Female> partisanship and <Speech_Female> and policy <Speech_Female> agendas from the <Speech_Female> chiefs behavior and sometimes <Speech_Female> yeah <Speech_Female> the <Speech_Female> affordable care act vote. <Speech_Female> He clearly seemed <Speech_Female> care about building. A broad <Speech_Female> coalition <SpeakerChange> and <Speech_Female> not being the <Speech_Female> the institution <Speech_Female> that upset <SpeakerChange> the <Speech_Female> the the policy <Speech_Female> status quo. <Speech_Female> So which <Speech_Female> John Roberts is going to <Speech_Female> show up at that <Speech_Female> trial <Speech_Female> could depend as <Speech_Female> you said on the <Speech_Female> the impact of particular <Speech_Female> rulings at a <Speech_Female> time. <Speech_Female> tie-breaking vote of his <Speech_Female> would have <Speech_Female> could be <Speech_Female> doesn't WanNa make himself the story <Speech_Female> but it could <Speech_Female> be. He sees an opportunity <Speech_Female> to plant. Elliot <Speech_Female> straight down the line <Speech_Female> which <Speech_Female> you know. <Speech_Female> Sometimes <Speech_Female> he's got a record of <Speech_Female> having done that so <Speech_Female> I <Speech_Female> think that's why it's difficult <Speech_Female> to game out. <Speech_Female> How the chief? We'll we'll <Speech_Female> see his <SpeakerChange> role <Speech_Male> in these particular <Speech_Male> instances so <Speech_Male> Do you have <Speech_Male> any closing insights <Speech_Male> that you'd like <Speech_Male> Rubicon listeners. <Speech_Male> To hear before <Speech_Male> a <Speech_Male> cut you loose and <Speech_Male> we await the <Speech_Male> start <SpeakerChange> of this trial <Speech_Female> in the coming days. Well <Speech_Female> it just think <Speech_Female> it. I guess <Speech_Female> I'd leave with two <Speech_Female> thoughts. The <Speech_Female> point that there are a <Speech_Female> lot of procedural hypotheticals <Speech_Female> that that <Speech_Female> could happen <Speech_Female> but <Speech_Female> politically. <Speech_Female> It's in the hands <Speech_Female> of a simple majority <Speech_Female> the Senate and <Speech_Female> I think to some degree. <Speech_Female> We're just <Speech_Female> not used <Speech_Female> to seeing majorities <Speech_Female> the Senate <Speech_Female> partisan majorities <Speech_Female> in <SpeakerChange> the Senate. <Speech_Female> Having to take responsibility <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> for the votes <Speech_Female> they cast because typically <Speech_Female> they duck behind <Speech_Female> super majorities. <Speech_Female> We could do it good. <Speech_Female> It's the other <Speech_Female> party's fault. <Speech_Female> Well <Speech_Female> we'll know who <Speech_Female> to hold accountable <Speech_Female> here this time <Speech_Female> which is somewhat rare <Speech_Female> in the Senate not <Speech_Female> least because they don't do <Speech_Female> anything in the fitted <Speech_Female> anymore <Speech_Female> so for US <Speech_Female> Congress <Speech_Female> watchers. <Speech_Female> Who've Kinda decry <Speech_Female> the fact that the <Speech_Female> Senate is the <Speech_Female> senators don't seem to want <Speech_Female> to be there or <Speech_Female> no one wants to run for I <Speech_Female> know wants to be there <Speech_Music_Female> This <Speech_Music_Female> sort of <SpeakerChange> the spotlight <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> is on them. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> And <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> that's it for this week <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> by next week. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Maybe even before <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> you've listened to this mm-hmm <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> we hope to <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> know what Nancy <SpeakerChange> Pelosi <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> chose to do with the <Speech_Music_Male> articles of impeachment. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Send them to <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> the Senate <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> keep them on her desk. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Hold them <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> all the house. Subpoenas John <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Bolton incision <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> will <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> determine when the trial <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> begins and thus <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> what next <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> week's episode will be about. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> This <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> show is produced by crooked <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> media <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> it's written and hosted by me <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Brian. Boiler <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> Steven Hoffman <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> is our editor and producer. <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> If you <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> enjoyed this episode <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> please subscribe rate <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> and review US <SpeakerChange> wherever you <Speech_Music_Male> <Advertisement> get your podcasts <Music>
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"The story story of the impeachment as as we sit in it will conceptually it makes the this question for the Senate trial of weather? And when Howard whether to call witnesses it removes it from this. Realm of abstraction to there's John Bolton right and he's ready to go and this isn't this longer hypothetical but that at least so so long as McConnell leader has fifty one votes behind him to think he can defer the question of calling witnesses is then even with a live John Bolton Sam I'm here I'm ready. SPINNEY IT undercuts right. The ability of Pelosi try to use that as leverage keeping. Yeah Mine. She's still holding onto the article. And I mean maybe this is a question posed a constitutional lawyer or whatever but having said you know in his statement. I've weighed The competing you know commands on me. And and I if if I have a subpoena from the Senate Command from the White House to defy. I'm going to honor the subpoena having said that if if House Democrats now want to go to court uh-huh and say to a judge. Tell him to testify in the House. I mean they're gonNA have a very strong argument. It it would it. Would it would Extend You you know. Trump's agony about not getting this acquittal. Vote quickly and seems to me like you would maximize the chances that you actually get John. Bolton's testimony because otherwise you're kind of leaving up to fifty one republicans to decide whether anyone else will testify right. Yeah absolutely but I don't get the sense sense that there's a house democratic appetite for re-opening What Nancy Pelosi Democrats soda with impeachment. Last last month I don't like again we're in the well of legally constitutionally politically may be possible but I don't see the appetite on the Democrat side ride for reopening their investigation which in essence is what that would do although certainly in legal terms. I thought the idea that an individual's the the one to decide which is the hell subpoenas. Seems like Topsy Turvy. Bolton is you know say what you will about him and he's a controversial guy but he he's. He's a smart lawyer. Earlier he presumably would have some argument to make that that things are different in the house and the Senate. I don't know I just. I agree with you that the appetite is there air in the house to do more enquiring more of the impeachment inquiry. I just don't totally understand why. Yeah I I think it's a bit of a well. Let's let's put it this way again. Expect Pelosi to prolong it by keeping the articles. But I do think she. She still has a commitment to her her majority makers those Democrats in swing districts with whom without whom she cannot keep majority in twenty twenty twenty. I think there's implicitly if not explicitly a commitment to them to say look. We're GONNA stay focused on the issues that are gonna get you reelected and reopening the impeachment investigation investigation or really the investigation. Generally just it doesn't seem to be on the top of their list of priorities. Now perhaps that changes but I I don't get the sense that that's where they're headed. Okay so eventually the trial will begin. We think and it's shaping up to pit Republicans who want to conceal and seal information has already come out against Democrats who kind of want it all to come out and you know Mitch. McConnell hasn't even really been shy about saying that he's not a partial jury. He he wants to get this in and out of the Senate's quickly possible. He claims he's gathered fifty one votes to begin the trial but put off questions about witnesses and documents for future votes. So what does the resolution of the standoff look like from a procedural point of view Is going to be one vote in the future on whether to shut. Shut down the fact finding purpose of the trial or will be a series of votes how our viewers at home supposed to interpret what they're watching on. TV relative to this question of new information. So here's what we know and what we we don't know so. There is a set of Senate impeachment rules on the books and that McConnell has committed to the following because he can set aside whether or not he could get rid of them. But he's GonNa follow this set of inherited Rules now those are pretty bare bones. Own Own they tell us things about motions and who has rights. Procedure writes in appeals. And the the things the oaths people take but it doesn't have doesn't flush out of trial so meaning being. It doesn't tell us how long the managers have how long the presence lawyers have to defend what are the order in which we take particularly different types of motions. So this is what McConnell has been saying. I have fifty one votes for a set of procedures to elaborate the at least the opening sequence of events in the trial and of course. That's what the Democrats have tried to narrow in on which say let's make this a fair trial Let's hear from witnesses. who were blocked in the house and so forth? So what does McConnell have in mind here for this open resolution well I it would be a resolution that would have to be approved by a majority as he said. I I have fifty one. He has said what's fair is fair. Let's use that opening resolution from the Clinton impeachment trial twenty years ago and let's use it. Roughly he said for this impeachment trial so devils in the details here we can pull up an open. The first resolution that was the supplemental amount of rules for Clinton in one thousand nine and we can know what they said but the question is are they going to follow that to a T.. So a certain number of days and hours for each side to present and then this is what they voted on and nineteen ninety nine. There will be a motion to dismiss and then also on that original agreement emotion. Shall we call witnesses in the abstract. Basically so that's that in essence seems to be what McConnell connel's saying I have fifty one votes for but we don't know for sure but but it matters right. Is there a motion to dismiss locked in right and and will there be any republicans who are willing to vote with the Democrats not to dismiss the trial right which will be within a week or two probably depending on how this plays out. I don't hear a lot of talk about that. But in that's why presumably impart why McConnell has told Speaker Pelosi I'm not showing my resolution apparently the connell if we believe the stories yesterday stole the White House so I'm not showing you my resolution so we need to see what's in there and we need to see it in part to know. How does that trial play out? Procedurally now having said that the barebones own Senate Rules do allow any senator to really offer a pretty wide range of motions in writing. Send it up to the chief not to Mitch McConnell but to send to the chief who then reads the motion in can rule on it or allow the Senate to rule so damn could call for a witness long before we get right in the middle all of the presentation. So and then. That's the uncertainty. Here will their votes on calling witnesses even before the call has said he wants to have those so so I want to get to to the chief justice's role in this In a minute Before that though you know we set aside questions of whether this investigation is inquiry is analogous enough to the Clinton impeachment to merit using the same rules But if McConnell is committing to something along the lines of the Clinton impeachment process yes there'd be a a vote on a motion to dismiss but if if that motion fails there were witnesses called at at that stage of the Clinton impeachment is. He not locking himself into a situation where he's going to have to say. Oh well now we have to. We have to veer off the Clinton Process for whatever reason he needs to come up with to avoid. Oh you for sure. He's not committed to them. Self anyways not said he all his all his said for his own purposes. Here is well last question. We're going to defer to later. And the Clinton trial they did another resolution was a partisan version that couldn't get Democrats onboard for it but that laid out a very limited depositions of of three witnesses so those questions yet to be determined But it's entirely possible. We'll see those votes occurring during even before McConnell in essence of what I what I think I'm hearing from you is that there is no way for McConnell acting on trump's behalf or whoever's behalf to guarantee not that the trial surfaces new facts without making fifty one of his members vote to say you know John Bolton thanks but no thanks will will they would need to fifty one is everything right. He can't he can't he. Can't deter a vote on an early vote on a motion call a witness unless he's fifty one to shut it down so on the one hand right we're not really used to simple majority Senate's right right. We all say cough was just fifty one yards could do whatever they wanted but holding together those fifty one. He he may be able to do it. But I think there'll be a little dicey when it gets to particular questions About particular witnesses so I see this batted around. Democrats need four votes. If they I wanNA have a fair trial. McConnell can lose two and he gets fifty one what happens if three Republicans but with Democrats on these on these procedural questions witnesses and documents and we get a fifty fifty tie so I just assimilate this democrats stay together and they will seems reasonable especially on the witness questions. Joe Manchin is the was the sort of wild card and he was like. How can I have a trial without exactly exactly so fifty fifty so there are two issues here one of which is the chief but will come come to the chief second the first issue? What exactly is the motion right? Because because it's a motion to dismiss and it's fifty fifty that stalemate and stalemate vote loses so three defections on some types of votes this is a losing position for the Republicans a fifty fifty on a on a motion to dismiss. The motion fails sales. If it's left in John Roberts cannot. Aw this is the first edition so the first conditions it matters if the motion is calling witnesses depends on. Who wants who? Who which side is looking looking for fifty one so the first issue? What exactly is is the motion at play here? The second issue then is if it's a tie. Hi What does chief justice do as presiding officer in this is somewhere between. What's what's politically possible? What's in the chief justice's Head and then what's technically legally president here so we have episodes from the Johnson impeachment trial the nineteenth century where they were to opportunities where the chief justice is decided to vote to break a tie and after each one there was a senate motion to prevent the presiding officer or the chief from breaking ties in both of those failed. However the chief got the message we think in the next two opportunities back in the eighteen sixties? He didn't break ties he would he would strain with help. So there's no well there's no yes or no here they're right. He could decide whether or not he's going to break the tie dye. Can we divine anything precedential about those. Those two votes and Salmon Chase was the name of the right of the chief justice way back in the eighteen hundreds when he voted to break the tie was in furtherance of what we kind of conceive of as like moving the Senate trial closer towards what we imagine a courtroom trial be like was more partisan than that what it was his So that's a good question. Which would require me to bury renos back in the peach record to figure out what it what exactly they were? I don't believe they were as quite consequential as some of the potential titles that we're talking about here but I need to go back and figure out what precisely those were but the the question here is for Robert urge sent a lot of people trying to discern what will be his his incentive or his motives are his goals as presiding officer. And I think the answer is as we probably don't know yeah I I'll be responsible and just game out the okay. I mean He. I imagined he'll feel cross pressured. Because if if he's thinking about how his actions will reflect on the Supreme Court He's GonNa WanNa go with public opinion. which is I think? Clearly on the Democrat side in these is fair trial questions but he's also conservative and a Republican and it's no secret how his old party wants this all work out in the end So that's why I asked about past Intrusions by the Supreme Court justice and impeachments because if the idea is is that when the Supreme Court chief justice intervenes in an impeachment trial He does it to advance the cause of public information Then Robert's can just point to that and save precedent Kinda binds me here..
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"Need I mean what sort of What sort of technique are you envisioning? Are you talking about official stuff. I was just hoping you had an answer. Because because for me the the advantage the edge of this idea of holding onto the articles has nothing to do with holding onto him. If you hold onto them long enough Mitch. McConnell would be thrilled he doesn't have to. I don't have to take tough votes. You need to get the articles over eventually. I I worry about the The information environment in general but particularly at a time when people are tuned out because of the holiday and so I could see uh or real advantage in creating the expectation that you're going to have a trial in early January and then you know house. Democratic leaders say Republicans are insisting that they're going to help trump completed cover up and we're not going to send these articles Over until you know until the whole world watching sees that's what they're trying to do probably Mitch McConnell doesn't care and he gets his fifty one votes for the cover up anyway but then at least you've commandeered the You know the the bully pulpit and you've made clear that that's what's happening so that every Republican votes for the cover-up has to pay the price for it. That's the best I can think of but advertising could be a part of the mix Getting the Democratic Radic presidential candidates involved could be part of a mix mass politics can be part of a mix. I mean there were. There were nationwide impeachment rallies on Tuesday night There should be more in bigger ones Particularly around these key votes where Republicans are going to try to short circuit the trial. I mean that's where that's where I would try to take things if I were in charge of a broad left response to impeach man a- and the thing is on the advertising front in particular it's just baffling that. There's not a much more concerted and targeted advertising effort on this stuff. They should be hammering the shit out of these four or five senators right now. I mean it should have been going on for for weeks. Yeah right yeah I mean look at. This is not an easy situation for Susan Collins and Cory Gardner and and and Thom Tillis and Martha mcsally and then of of course you've got the ones that are actually sort of trying to adopt a principled independence from trump like Romney and I don't know if you would go at them I think that backfires Right and it gives them one of the complications to this. That I've I've heard Democrats talk about is and this is sort of an interesting thing to try and debate and figure out. I don't I don't really have a position on it. Yeah but sometimes if the attacks are to direct it gives them away and it. It almost gives like some of the senators. That are kind of on the knife's research easier way out. It's like when when John McCain voted against repealing the affordable care act it. There was this moment in the in the well. Well of the Senate where where a bunch of Democrats wanted to to applaud or just take a victory lap or whatever before before it was is all said and done and Chuck Schumer Shush them. Because right because you know. I don't agree with every strategic decision. Chuck Schumer's ever made but I think he's so wisely. Then that if you gloat when the when the deciding vote hangs in the balance and and you know John McCain and what the fuck does he care like. Don't do that you know in certain in certain cases You know a direct aggressive attack is not necessarily always the best. But I'm I'm thinking less about how you micro target each individual center and more how you tell America that a vote to acquit without any witnesses equals cover up and I. I can see the ways that I listed but if if there or any other if there are any other ideas I want the people listening to hear them I will I frankly feel a little bit A little bit hopeless about this aspect of it. I think that there's not any kind of meaningful way of pressuring the Senate At this point maybe maybe just making those marginals a little uncomfortable rebel but to me like I just hate to return to this but I think the big picture is what happens after this process. I mean I know that's not exactly satisfying but look. Here's the bottom line right. We've always known that this is going to come down to an election right and right and what's going to matter as weather progressive. Democrats mobilize properly no one really interesting thing. I was talking to the Democratic Sharon Wisconsin and they are cheaper focused right now on knocking on doors in Milwaukee right to them. That's the ballgame knocking on doors in Milwaukee and making connections in rural Wisconsin to keep the margins down for trump. And Right now. Oh that's all they're really thinking about. And so you know. I don't know I hate to say this but all we can do is just make our case. I mean this. A lot of this goes back to the problem that you raised earlier. which is that our gatekeepers are screwed up right? The media gatekeepers of the ones. It's not as one Chuck Schumer. Shush Chesa Shusha's down the partisans on his side in order to create space for the McCain's of the world to do the right thing right the things that actually actually gets them to do the right thing are the gatekeepers and if it again this of course goes back to your original challenge. How do you get the gate for two right? Yeah it's it's a bit of a message right I by the way there's one thing we haven't talked about which I think is really important. It's all these spin off investigations. The Gatien's that are going on right now in the southern district and so forth. Yeah I think that's part of it too is like you. Ideally leave the impeachment inquiry open. You promised to keep it aggressive. You do advertising you micro target the individual senators but you create a the climate of fear among Among Vulnerable Senate Republicans that they don't know what they're voting to cover up and And Yeah I think that's a big part of yeah That's sort of like what I would like to see. The broader Democratic Party Democratic Democratic affiliated brain trust thinking about because otherwise you have this situation where You know the process draws to a close and then maybe there's a cacophony of developments down the line and it's not all part of one story where Republicans covered up trump's crimes only to have the cover-up collapsed on them and now now their votes to quit him. are exposed as a cover up of these things that we've right and the thing about that is that that is actually a message that individual members and senators can carry very effectively. It's not something that maybe you would use pay. Dad's Ed's It's not quite clear how you would say you know Susan Collins had better watch out about what's going to emerge later right but that is really a point that I think senators and House members can make very forcefully and interviews. Not something they should say as often as possible right. I mean to to to draw the affordable care. Act back in the discussion discussion Rivera. Remember when in the last days when they were about to take the final vote on it. Mitch McConnell who was minority leader at the time. What like you gave a press conference where he made sure to strike a very ominous tone? Democrats think that they can put this behind them with by taking this final vote and yeah I just want to be very clear that this is all in front of them. They're gonNA take this threat in. Every every Republican running in the United States is going to remind nine voters. What happened When Democrats pass this bill and and and and a similar sort of like forward-looking messaging it didn't stop the affordable care? Act from from passing right and it might not stop trump from being removed from from office. Certainly won't but it but it would sort of channel the way the news media and voters who are very engaged. Think about everything that happens right and that actually. There's a way to do that. That I think supports your earlier. Point about keeping Democrats on much more institute a On a much more of an institutional war footing in the house right What they should be saying to put those two things together is you may vote? You may run a sham trial now which you hear from no witnesses but let me be clear we are going to get those witnesses. We're going to hear from those witnesses Mrs. We're GONNA fight in court until we hear from them. We're GONNA fight in court until we get his tax returns an and his finances and then what we're going to say is here's what you cover it up right. So I think the aggressive institutional war-footing it forms the underpinning of that kind of message that is the hopeful. Note that I think we we should end on it and I hope that Influential people in the Democratic Party are listening and they follow They Do as Greg just he said Greg Sargent thanks for joining us. Thanks Brian that's it. For this week I won't be back until the New Year but in the meantime I'd encourage everyone listening to keep in mind. How straightforward weird things? Look when you peel away. All the layers of obfuscation trump has been impeached for extorting vulnerable foreign government to interfere in the twenty twenty election on his behalf. The evidence that he's guilty is overwhelming and until he became president. Nobody would have disputed. The what he did is an impeachable offense. There are people out there closer to the president who have even more evidence but trump has ordered them not to testify and they have complied with his order. If their testimony were exculpatory skull Tori Republicans would be desperate to put them on the witness stand. Instead they're desperate to keep that information from ever coming to light that makes them accomplices. That's it that's the story. Tell your friends tell your family and if you representatives or new sources tell you otherwise. Tell them they're using their power to spread lies and that you won't forget. This show is produced by crooked media. It's written and hosted by me Brian. Boiler Steven Hoffman is our producer and editor. If you enjoyed this episode please subscribe rate and review US wherever you get your podcasts..
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"Greg Sargent thanks for coming back on the show. Thanks for having me on Brian. So by the time people listened to this episode. Donald Trump will be impeached beached He will probably be very upset about it But because of the holidays will be in this kind of little phase where the process is still underway. But nothing's is happening If you're vulnerable Senate Republican are you happy about the pause or would you rather get it over with sooner rather than later. Well I think a lot depends on how the break goes right. I mean if they start catching hell in their in their states about from constituents who are who are angry about the potential for a sham. I am process Sham trial. Then I think that they hate to have to wait. I mean it's GonNa be on democratic groups and pro rule of law groups to kick up a lot of fuss during that period and get some pressure on them along those lines. Those of us who supported impeachment from the outset have made the argument that there's this value in doing it even if Republicans are going to make sure that trump's days in office Because the process the forcing Republicans in the House and Senate to take votes it all those votes essentially constitute them his corruption their own. How do you think that proposition looks today? Well I think it looks really good and you can see that very clearly in precisely what Mitch McConnell is doing to try and turn this trial Ryland to a very quick little. Donald Trump was out there and I don't really think we should place much stock in this. But he was out there saying oh I want to turn this into a AH a festival of of baying for Hunter. Biden's head on a platter and Mitch McConnell Essentially shut that down pretty quick and said no and I think as you wrote somewhere Mitch McConnell was saving trump from himself. And doing this as well as saving his own marginal members from long drawn out trial. Point being though that Mitch Inch Mitch. McConnell understands as well as anyone else does that the more facts that are brought into evidence the worse it is for the marginal Republican senators and tough places like Susan Susan Collins and main Martha mcsally and errors in Arizona and so forth. I had direct experience of that earlier this week. I was able to get The video of Susan Collins in Nineteen Ninety nine during the Bill Clinton impeachment trial calling for more witnesses and evidence. I am willing to travel. The road owed wherever it leads whether it's to the conviction or the acquittal of the president but in order to do that I need more evidence. I need witnesses and further evidence to guide me to the right destination to get to the truth and I was surprised that they got back to me. Pretty quick with a quote from Senator herself saying I haven't made the decision on the witness issue in this particular case now. This is only a process question. You'd think thank right but it's a tough process question. Do you want to vote for the cover up or do you want to vote for transparency and truth and The fact that Susan Collins this is struggling with this I think shows that even just going through the motions is tough for them. Yeah I mean it's there's you know multiple all steps here right there's Probably going to be some sort of resolution to establish the ground rules of the trial and then at some point votes on witnesses and then the vote vote on whether to acquit or convict. And it's obviously Mitch McConnell's goal to make sure that the Republicans vote to convict and ideally the Republicans ever have to vote for any witnesses at all so that just that means he's going to try to around fifty one votes to basically basically dismissed the charges Before you even get to place where house. Impeach managers can request or demand Mick Mulvaney or John Bolton testify before the Senate every phase of that process the the cost to Republicans I think becomes higher her but that just means that at the at the early phase you know. Are we going to. Are we going to have a fair trial at all Mitch. McConnell can lose two or three senators give them a free free pass to say I want to hear from witnesses but if you get fifty one votes to dismiss they can say look. I tried tried to vote for A process where Where we heard from witnesses? My colleagues disagreed. So now I have to vote With what we have before us from from the articles articles of impeachment in the presentation of them by by the managers. And I don't think there's enough there to convict so I quit. And thus every Republican Senator Votes votes to acquit. And I. I don't think that that's like a highly unlikely outcome And I guess it just it gets to. It gets to my thinking about like like what more Democrats could do. I obviously votes to cover up Trump's crimes you know say no to any witness testimony are going to be bad for whichever vulnerable. Republicans have to take those votes but you know should Democrats have. I've been beating the drum starting in September that that Republicans need to be committing to a fair trial now should Democrats be withholding unrelated legislation education. Like the Defense Authorization Act or the The NAFTA UPDATE and just saying we're not going to play ball with you on on other things if what you're going to do is complete the cover up. Trump is asking you. Well I just want to return to something you said earlier about the scenario a scenario ruin which Mitch McConnell. Let's to two or so of the marginal senators Make fake noises about wanting a real trial and then still oh passing a quick Acquittal with fifty one or passing the initial steps to the acquittal by essentially getting past the process stuff with fifty one votes I think the calculation there becomes complicated for them right because even if they do that even if Susan Collins and Cory Gardner and Martha mcsally or whichever three you pick are allowed to to sort of make their fake noises. If the whole thing is a sham. It's still bad for Senate Republican. That's true right now. The the because I mean in this era of nationalized voting right everything turns on the national narrative and one really interesting thing will to track will be whether they're those marginal senators privately go to McConnell and say we really need a real We need a real proceeding at least something more or than just a quick fifty one vote now right and if that happens of course then they run more risks in addition right. That's that's really the spot they're in so I mean I guess the in terms of messaging it seems like the thing that Democrats can do that could be most effective. Active is just to continue to spotlight the facts right. I mean look how quickly the debate shifted when Schumer just sent that one letter now. I think there's an argument that that shows. They should have been doing it more more aggressively earlier but it just goes to show you that just one. There's if there's one thing that the press can get right on this stuff it's a cover up or not cover. I'm right right do house. Democrats have any substantive role to play with their own powers Going going forward now that they've passed the articles so I think there's all this talk about them holding onto the impeachment and not sending it over one thing one reason I'm a little skeptical optical of that and I'm happy to be told I'm wrong about this you know there's been a lot of criticism of leadership for doing it too quickly for doing it. Too narrowly and so forth. I was for for a broader impeachment. I would've been happy to have a little longer or somewhat longer but I really wonder whether there's a genuine risk of some of these moderate starting to drop off off if it if it drags on right now. I don't know what happens from the point of view of those moderate members. If you pass the articles through the House the impeachments done and then you hold it. I suspect that they'd still not like that right. Because what they want is for took pushed over to the Senate I mean they want the hot potato out of their exact hands. But I'm going to switch metaphors. There's no such thing as half pregnant with impeachment Schmidt right you can't vote for the resolution that sets the rules of impeachment And then learn all this horrible stuff and then vote against impeachment. Which is why you know you? You have a basically unanimous democratic caucus voting for the articles of impeachment. Having voted for them. If more bad news comes to light about trump nick more evidence that he committed further impeachable offenses comes too late. You don't get to you. Don't save yourself anything by ignoring them. You've already voted for the impeachment. If you're scared the the voters in your district are going to be mad at you for that. It's that that ship has sailed it's overwrite so there's an argument that I think leadership should make to them though like we should press what we have to our fullest advantage and if that means is Holding more hearings damage trump. That's good for all democrats If that means You know holding the articles impeachment in order to make a stink about About the fact that the Senate majority leader has already announced. He wants to read the trial. That's all all to the better like the the the hard part is over the you know they are already You know going to be Identified in ads ads or whatever and Republican campaigns in the fall has members who voted to impeach trump. It's already happened so it reminds me in a weird way of back when Congress was debating the affordable care act and in Democrats were agonizing over whether they should do a public option or not or a national exchange versus a state based health insurance exchange and it was just so beside. The point is like it's obamacare either. You're going to vote for Obamacare or against it so stop agonizing over the little details If you decided that you need to vote for this because it's the right thing to do but you're scared about the political consequences down the line. The picayune details details aren't GonNa be what what causes you problem. It's going to be the vote. Will the votes done. So now. Just you know. Make the most of it That's sort of how I see it I I guess. I'm curious for your thoughts on that. Well I just want to try and step back and and raise a bigger point about all of this. I think we're almost pinning too much on some of this process stuff we know he's getting acquitted. Right we know that's going to happen. Okay we would like there to be a trial that's real. I think we don't know whether even if that happened. How much we would get from Bolton and Mulvaney although I would love to see it tried right so I don't? I don't know that that we can actually expect too much of a range of options at the end of this chapter right here right to me what I think really matters. There's more as what happens after the impeachment on the equival. Right if the Democrats continue to prosecute this stuff in court if they try to you know get testimony from people. Oh and by the way to go back to the point you raised before the possibility of other things breaking. You know. There's this I think there's a sort of illusion out there that this ends with trump's trump's acquittal right it doesn't I mean all these Republicans who vote no on the articles in the House and all the Republicans who vote to acquit. The Senate and. I think it's almost certainly going to be near unanimous in both right. Yeah what really is going to end up mattering over the long. Longterm is what comes out after and I think there's a extremely good chance we're GONNA get incredibly big revelations down the line that are at least as bad as the ones we already know the trial unless something unexpected happens and who knows maybe by the time you listen to this We'll be in a very different place but the trials probably going to start Artan early January. So we're talking a couple of weeks to To communicate to as much of the country as possible that Senate Republicans are going to try to short circuit witness testimony to complete a cover up for Donald Trump. How do you get the message out there? If you're the Democratic Party you know everyone's going to scatter the four To the four winds in and people are going to be with their families on Christmas and new years. And how do you. How out of you before before Mitch? McConnell manages to get that vote done. How do you get the word out in this environment on the short timeframe well? I don't really have an answer to that and I don't think anybody does right. I mean the information environment is really screwed up right now unless you're running official proceedings. You can't really get the sort of punch that you need..
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"We need to show that they can get things done in Washington but if you if you if you draw the like that like the fallacy is pretty obvious there right okay. So why don't they just pass everything that Donald Trump wants. It'll prove that they can get things done. Of course that means Donald Trump will become more popular and suddenly their ability to hold on to their districts. Democrats ability to hold the House Democrats ability to beat trump in the election and starts deteriorating right so like at some level down to how much of an emergency do you think we're in right and the frustration. Is that Pelosi and some of these other Democrats crats are not treating this like it's sufficient emergency right. It's an it is to my mind and emergency that overrides. All other policy goals right. We have eleven eleven months to decide whether we're going to continue to be a liberal democracy or not and whether or not you got a better deal in prescription drug prices the prescription drug prices are really important. But they're actually not as important as that. Yeah so I I actually think about this in almost the exact same way is that if Democrats rats are going to like cut if they're going to quote cut deals with trump They really ought to be a one shot deal. You're not gonNA have a second. The second chance to to get this done. That really advanced the ball on some progressive goal and They should also be issues issues. Sort of code as a Democratic Party issues so like I traced out a hypothetical that if trump were willing to pair a big minimum wage hike. Fifteen dollars minimum wage. Whatever in order to get this trade deal done like I'd probably get there? I think that that ends. You know you you get so much out of it that it might be worth it. And it's clear that trump gave some to get some and so it's not just a a straight victory for him but if you don't have that kind of You know situation at hand If the benefits are marginal or if you think that future Democratic president can do as well or better than you just don't do it right like this is not cutting the same trade deal with Mitt Romney it would be totally unremarkable of Democrats. were making this deal with Mitt Romney But in a world with democracy under threat and the US president is the single biggest part of that threat then handing him easily spun on victories. That validate key parts of his message. Seems like such an obvious mistake that I'm kind of stunned and I WANNA go back to this idea of despair that I was talking about about earlier because you know it's it's obviously not just me right. I mean I wrote this thing because I had this sort of ambien sense that it was happening The reaction to it was has got a ton of feedback from other people who are feeling the same thing. Recently I started reaching out to therapists to talk to them about what their patients are saying about trump I lasted this in the run up to the election I started talking to therapists about patients who had a lot of anxiety that trump would win the election. It's kind of heartbreaking. Because one way that they helped them manage that anxiety was to help them. See how unlikely that possibility was. She's obviously not possible anymore. Right so I've been talking to therapists pissed. You know in in blue parts of the country but who say that trump comes up in almost for some of them. Trump comes up in almost every session right and and I was just talking to somebody this morning. Who was telling me that She feels like people have moved from the state of hyper Hyper vigilance to a state of despair and that despair is I mean. It's dangerous for them but it's dangerous for all of us. We cannot ah go into election with are people feeling that By the way she was saying that some of the people that she treats they're having the hardest time with what's happening are are Holocaust survivors. And so I think that our people the people who are going to hopefully have a chance to save democracy In eleven months. They need to feel like they have a champion. They need to feel like there's somebody who recognizes the scale of the emergency who recognizes is. How terrified they are and who can stand up for them and inasmuch as we have everybody focused on this little tiny demographic slivers hours of these front-line districts? I don't think we have that and I think it's it's really really dangerous before wrapping it up. I did want to talk to little bit about the trial. What you anticipate it looking like stipulating that Sitting here we don't think that there's anywhere close to twenty the republican votes to remove him. What do you think it looks like? Are you concerned about these murmurings among moderate Democrats. They might prefer censure rather than impeachment. Of course I'm concerned terrified and I mean it's it's it's so self defeating it makes it makes my head want to explode. I mean I cannot fathom why they think that kind of getting to this point and then let essentially leading donald trump off the hook would be You know an a good idea not just for a good for the country but ultimately a good idea for them but the other thing that concerns me about the Senate trial With Bill Clinton's Senate trial. I think there was three witnesses called. I would be surprised if there's even that many I mean from what I've read there's you know there's trump who wants to turn it into a big circus and try to call hundred Biden and try to call all these other people in some sense. I feel like that would be the better situation for Democrats. Go find you call Hunter Biden but we're also calling Rudolph Giuliani and we're also calling. You know life partners and all these other figures a trial in which kind of nobody's but he's called and it's just kind of a bunch of Senate floor speeches seems really anticlimactic all right. Let's leave it there. Michelle Goldberg. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. That's it for this week. By next week's episode. The impeachment of Donald Trump should be complete and we will be awaiting the trial of Donald Donald Trump in the United States senate. That trial probably won't begin until January But that doesn't mean everything will be on hold until then there's another transcript out there. The Democrats want to see this one between Ukrainian President Vladimir's Alinsky and vice president. Mike pence so the chase is on for that will also likely learn whether and when the supreme cream court will hear arguments over president. Trump's challenges to all these subpoenas of his financial records and one silver lining of a narrow impeachment investigation.
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"Some of you on this committee appear to believe Russia and its security services did not conduct campaign against our country and that perhaps Somehow for some reason you credit. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by Russian security services themselves. And there's a story about impeachment that goes like this. Democrats moved to impeach Donald Trump two months ago because unlike the Russia scandal the Ukraine scandal is simple easy for the public to understand if you've heard that story before you may have heard this one that actually there are no distinct Russia and Ukraine scandals. There's just one scandal through two weeks of impeachment hearings. We learned a lot about the Ukraine backstory. The hoops president trump and his subordinates jumped through before he hopped on the phone with his Ukrainian counterpart Vladimir Zelinski. And said. I would like you to do us a favor though but what the hearings left fairly murky is how and when trump came to view the allied government of Ukraine as a target for and partner in corruption. It's not as though trump had a normal relationship with Ukraine before he became nervous about the twenty twenty election and then pick Zelinski is name out of a hat to understand how we got here. We have to go back to the beginning long before Donald Trump became president. You were reportedly the closest political geyser American Political Adviser to victory on a coach of Ukraine. Frayne who is a close ally Vladimir Putin Russia. If you're listening I hope you're able to find the thirty thousand emails that are missing being. There's been some controversy about something in the Republican Party Platform. That essentially changed. The Republican Party's views when it comes to I Ukraine. How much influence did you have on changing that language? Sir I had none in fact I didn't even hear of it until after I convention was over. Where did it come from then because everybody on the platform committee had said it came from the trump campaign if not you and frankly that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama the people of Crimea me up from what I've heard would rather be with Russia than where they were? Let's talk about this new reporting from the New York Times this morning about Paul Manafort and his dealings in The Ukraine with Viktor Yanukovych. He was a consultant for Victor Yanukovych and apparently the times and investigators have gone back and found these handwritten ledgers breaking news. Here more changes at the very top of the trump campaign. I'm told that this morning. His Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort offered and Donald Trump accepted his resignation. Paul Manafort joined the trump campaign in March of twenty sixteen around the time. The campaign came came to learn that Russia intended to leak dirt had stolen from Democrats at the time. Manafort was deeply in debt to a modeling Russian billionaire named Oleg Der Pasta and yet he agreed to work for trump pro bono. By that point trump had already made a big bazaar showing his admiration for Vladimir Putin but Manafort's unexpected arrival on the scene brought someone who had been at the center of the struggle between Russia and the West over the future of Ukraine into the heart of the trump operation seven and he was firmly on Russia's side between trump's deference to Putin and Manafort's lasting influence trump's relationship with Ukraine crane has never really been on the level last year. The Ukrainian government froze all of its ongoing investigations of manafort including its cooperation. With special counsel. Counsel Robert Muller in an Echo of the current extortion scandal Ukraine took that action just as the US finalized the sale of Javelin missiles to strengthen Ukraine's hand in. It's hot war with Russia. The country's president time was pets report. SHANECO who was once a client of you guessed it Paul Manafort and pour a Shaneco who's going to manufacture dirt on trump's political enemies until he unexpectedly lost the presidency to an anti corruption. Political reformer named Vladimir's Alinsky Alinsky or consider the Russian conspiracy theories that Rudy Giuliani pedaled on trump's behalf about the Biden's and Ukrainian interference in the two thousand sixteen election election. The became the subject of the trump Zielinski call on July twenty fifth. Giuliani pluck those from Russian aligned. Ukrainian oligarch named Dmitri for Tush. who was once business partners with again Paul Manafort and where did for Tosh get those conspiracy theories we'll probably from any number of places but the vector who imported that disinformation into the United States needs no introduction metaphors former or deputy Rick Gates has testified that manafort began pushing it starting before the twenty sixteen election? So this question. Why did trump takes such a predatory Oy posture with the new government of Ukraine? The short answer is simple. He wanted to cheat in the election but why pick on Ukraine in the first place that is part of a much longer story. My guest. This week is frank four. He's written extensively about Manafort and Ukraine in the Atlantic Manic. We'll look back at the origins of the Ukraine scandal and how they disappear into a larger story of corruption Russian election interference and the two thousand sixteen election. I'm Brian Butler. And this is Rubicon. frank thanks for being here pleasure So for a while. Now I've thought that the best way to kind of place. The Ukraine scandal in the wider constellation of trump's corruption is to just try to answer the question. How did the Ukraine scandal start? Because when I tried to pinpoint an origin I realized that the DOTS actually extend way into the past and it didn't just begin at random in May of this year when trump I had a freak out about about his standing in the election and having to run against Joe Biden. So how is he as you understand it. Did the Ukraine scandals start so I go back to this core question that critics have always asked about Donald Trump which is is this guy vulnerable to foreign manipulation and and people ask that question because of the wide array of properties that he owned around the world and the way that his business interests were tangled up in places where you authoritarian governments who just weren't abiding by the same sorts standards that that we abide by it. So I think you kind of have to go go back and look at the long history of people from the former Soviet Union trying to manipulate trump in various area sorts of ways and some of the relation is is willing and trump is fully aware of. What's happened a lot of it is subconscious and I think when you have oligarchs from Russia or Ukraine they look at trump and they say oh? This guy is a totally familiar figure. We understand how his mind works. We understand how he can be. He can be influenced and so people were using various channels to try to to sway way Donald Trump. And you know I think the first time. We really started to acutely conceptualize what was happening. I think is with the Manafort Fort Scandal where you said. This guy came from came from Ukraine. He was working for the Pro Russian party. Why was he why did he descended on the trump campaign? But I look all the way through and I see I see you have oligarchs In Ukraine rain who have constantly been trying to figure out. What's the right channel? Is it the campaign chairman. Is it the personal lawyer They're hiring Fox. News commentators as their lawyers are getting columns placed in the hill by by columnist who they can pretty well be sure is going going to end up in Donald Trump's twitter feed and so there's also the sense of they know exactly how to rile him up. It's a look at that Ukraine scandal. You know the the the narrow question that shift is focus on is. was there a quid pro quo. Was He trying to extort Ukrainians wins in order to get dirt on his political opponent. But I look at it and I say if I look at the transcripts now look at the whole narrative of the scandal. I'd say the president was very actively in successfully manipulated by bad actors in this part of the world who who were very very successful in shifting the foreign policy of the United States to suit their aims. I'm glad you put it that way because you listeners. who heard the INTRO Will suspect that I think Paul Manafort is a big part of the origin story of the of Ukraine scandal. And I definitely believe that but there are these episodes is it. Don't quite fit the picture right like after After trump's been elected and MANAFORT's no longer in the in the middle of trump world. There's there's this story about this Ukraine peace plan right that that makes its way to Mike. Flynn who was then the national security adviser but it doesn't come from manafort directly comes uh-huh maybe not for Manafort at all. It comes from Michael Cohen and and Felix Seder. who were You know in league with the same same sort of shady people that you just described but on a sort of a different channel and even I wonder you know and I'm pretty pretty thick and all this like how critical critical Manafort is to the story. Because if you imagined he'd like never worked for trump Trump was still very much in Russia's debt When the election and ended He was singing Putin's praises long before Manafort joined the campaign. He was working on the Moscow. Tower project independently Manafort and and. It seems conceivable to me that we were always going to end up here. Because Russia help trump win and Russia's leverage over trump and so trump was going to side with the store corrupt factions actions in Ukraine rather than the pro-western reformers. No matter what I think. That's I think this would happen absent. Paul Manafort because you you have a lot of people in so I think that the the actually the crucial thing is the development of the relationship between Ukraine in the United States. It's and I'm just GONNA. I think this is a foreign policy story in addition to being a corruption story which is that Russia is a revolution in Ukraine in two thousand fourteen. The PRO Russian government. The Paul Manafort works for gets swept out of power they get replaced by By by a more liberal democratic regime albeit still oligarch kick and the United States starts spending a lot of money protecting Ukraine and that gives us leverage over Ukraine. So you have somebody. He like Ambassador Marie Ivanovich who's in Ukraine. All American ambassadors always wanted Ukraine to behave in a less corrupt sort of way they've always wanted presidents to challenge Ukraine's oligarchy system. But finally we had all this leverage over the government and the government starts taking actions to clean clean itself up and so you got a lot of oligarchs who were suddenly very much on the defensive. Paul Manafort's clients were on the defensive. You've Rudy Giuliani's kind of new clients and the people that he collaborated with in this extortion scheme were suddenly on the defensive and and so they needed to find a way to undermine the US embassy in Kiev and so they see that Donald Trump was a guy who they could manipulate into doing their bidding. They're and they're the way that they were able to entice. Donald trump to their side was to feed him a lot of bogus. This conspiracy theories that he bought into because they were They all adopted the kind of the memes of Donald Trump. They there were arguments about the deep state. They were arguments about how he was. His opponents. Were manipulating things that were arguments about. How Ukraine was the one manipulating the election? Not Russia and so they knew how they knew how to to to to to go him they knew his psyche..
"donald trump" Discussed on Rubicon: The Impeachment of Donald Trump
"Jurassic. We'll discuss the dots left unconnected by the impeachment been increased so far and what we risked by not connecting them. I'm Brian Butler Quinta Jurassic. Thanks for being here. Thanks for having me so I guess. Let's just start with your global assessment of the impeachment process as it stands in specifically what you thought when you read Gordon. Silence is opening statement and then he washed his hearing and all of the revelations that came out of that Schorr. Well I remember seeing someone roads In the morning before silence hearing that it wasn't going to be very notable unless he went full semi the ball. Sammy the bull vulgar. No the famous mafia figure who flips turned on the Mafia gave testimony against them. And I think it's fair to say that he went full Sammy the He really turned on a dime from what he'd said during his testimony which there plenty of questions about that but he was was incredibly damning what he said about the extent to which everyone was in the loop I think was the exact phrase and that really just knocks down defense after defense after defense the Republicans had been road testing. She wrote a piece for the Atlantic earlier. This month about how it's folly. To assume career government officials will save us from the threat the trump and his supporters pose to democracy and the piece itself off is about I about Robert Muller and later about the diplomats Who testified at the first impeachment? Hearings I wonder how Fiona Hill's testimony that that ended search just before we record this fits into your view of that so my argument and the piece was that the first two civil servants who testified instantly kind of became name of online George Kent had the bow tie. Hi Bill Taylor had this great Walter cronkite voice and they sort of came forward as the voices of almost authority from a different time I'm of you know America Apple Pie and that's really appealing right now. In a sort of the bleak period in which we're living and the danger is that those civil servants are not there to be heroes. They're there to do their jobs. which actually Taylor in Kent kept saying over and over again? You know. I'm I'm nonpartisan. I'm telling you what I know. I've been called to testify and I felt it was my duty. I don't WanNa be here with Fiona Hill. She's a little bit differently differently. Situated than Kent in that she's technically was a political appointee in this administration but I think she does speak to that kind of ethos of public public service in the in the way that she was testifying and in the same way as you saw Taylor can't allow a lot of people right now. Said you know Fiona Hill Forever Fianna Hell Fan the club. You know I've been self you and a hill twenty twenty. It's like no there. Yeah right she unfortunately cannot run for president And there's a similar dynamic. There is the one that I I saw with Kenton Taylor. To that Fiona Hills job was to work in the National Security Council in Europe and Russia matters and her job now as she sees it as clearly to come before Congress and tell Congress what she knows she kept emphasizing again and again. I'm a fact witness. This is my purpose but she's not going to ride in and save the day and what I mean by that specifically is that she's actually she's she's been an incredible witness Just in terms of I mean her own performance. He's given these amazing speeches but however many speeches she gives they're not going to break through to the gym Jordan's of the world and so does it help the Democrats and the impeachment. The effort that they have this amazing witness Fiona Hill that she tells a clear story that matches up with everyone else's strobe -solutely but it's not going to solve the problem that you know at the end of the day Jim Jordan and Devin nunes are still going to be up there yelling about the steele dossier. So I've been struck a few times as the impeachment process. This is unfolded by so the flip side of this like th. They don't have a magic ability to convince Jim Jordan and they might not even feel like It it's their role all to involve themselves beyond whatever legal obligation to Congress is by how this process has revealed. How these conspiracies can fester and develop even as people of genuine integrity witness them unfolding get folded into them and they're still kind of no way for them to to do what we might imagine? The heroic thing is right like I think a Bill Taylor first and foremost in this. Because he knew something was up and he could resign Zayn and he could have blown the whistle but he worked through proper channels to try to stop the conspiracy from taking effect and he tried to help the people of Ukraine and yet from from his perspective. He prevailed right like the. The Republicans are so fond of noting that quid pro quo was never fully consummated and having succeeded why would he then speak up. Lose his post throw the Ukrainians that he clearly cares about to the very wolves he just save. Save Them From and so if it hadn't been for the impeachment process I don't think he would've ever said anything about this and then separately. There's this really dramatic matic testimony from Fiona Hill that we clipped played in the intro. A big part of what I think she was talking about. There was perception right from her perspective. There was this sort of wrong but limited meddling happening in Ukraine policy but then from Gordon silence perspective he was just carrying out policy what he believed the US policy to be and so the whole notion of conspiracy is kind of the wrong language for either of them to describe what's happening and so there's nothing thank really for either of them to do to alert the public right and so it's not just the bureaucrats can't save us because they can convince the broader public or they can't Stop Stop Republicans From acting in their own political interests but they can't save us because sometimes they just can't see that there's anything to save us from they have equities to protect attacked or they're just kind of in the fog of it and blind to all the dimensions of what they're living room. Does that make sense. I think the the best example of someone who's who's struck in the fog seems to have been Kurt Volker and in saying this I'm drawing not only on Volker's own testimony which seemed to me like he may have I've been trying to intentionally obfuscate his understanding of what was going on but The testimony of others including can't Ann Taylor who kind of indicated that they felt Volker may have been drawn a little too far in that. They didn't question his motives but that he was thinking a little too much. Sort of tactically step-by-step. How do I mitigate harm and that lost the sense of when you take a step back? This is really something wrong. That's happening and in that way. Volker is actually a really good example I think of the sort of the corruption of Donald Trump right the the way that people kind of get sucked in and and lose their perspective regarding the other people involved. Here you know Taylor Kent Hill would. Would we be hearing from any of these people. If the whistle blower complaint hadn't been filed. I don't know and I agree. It's a really disturbing bring thought not only because you know how many other instances have there been where a whistleblower complaint wasn't filed and we didn't find out what happened vend but also because I think it goes back to the same issue with Volker. You know this is a case study of how difficult it is has to be a moral person and serve your country which all these people really do seem to have that. We're doing under incredibly difficult. Circumstances in a government run by someone who's actively trying to undermine you they're all these people trying to do the right thing and some of them have even come out of it looking good and at the end of the day. There's just this lurking question of did they let themselves has get drawn into far. I mean we we can zoom back. To other controversies other officials. Who we were told were the adults in the room who were trying to keep trump on the rails keep policy in order in in many cases? It seems like what that ended up forcing them to do was try to cram a corrupt endeavor into a facially legitimate government action try to find a legal pretext text for it. Try to find a policy rationale for it that could be explained to Congress to the public to themselves probably as you know maybe not ideal policy and maybe not wise but acceptable within you know with you know on the rails in some sense and then they leave and we never get the full story because you know either they succeeded in cramming trump's corrupt objectives into whoa facially non-corrupt box in a bail or the try to stop it and they resign and they go back to their private lives and in almost all these cases with like like the one big exception being Jim Komi we just never hear from Jim. Mattis former defense secretary from DNA Powell former deputy national security adviser iser nature. mcmasters another good example of this and it makes me really worry about what happens on the flip side of this impeachment process is that we're going to go back to that. And trump is going to be at the apex of his corruption because he's going to have survived the one confrontation over it. The Democrats were willing to bring against the question should Democrats wrap this impeachment up without making some kind of maybe time-limited but serious effort to compel testimony from the principals. I suppose right. The bureaucrats won't save us with any of the political appointees. Have the information that's needed. If not to remove Donald Trump then to strip away the legitimacy from the things he might do as he abuses his power going forward. So I think that the clear implication of Hill's testimony is that John Bolton knew a lot more about what was happening in real time than she did and he tried to shield the National Security Council from it and Democrats haven't even issued him a subpoena. Is that a mistake Bolton. I don't understand what Game Baltin is playing to be completely honest with you. I mean it really seems like he can't decide Reid who he wants to go to the prom with he he kind of you know. He says he doesn't WanNa testify and then he dangles you know. Well I have all this information that I could give you sort of one step forward one step back so I'm going to be completely honest. I have no idea what game he is playing. I agree with you. That based on Hill's testimony it seems like he has a lot to say. Based on the testimony of two Morrison Hill. Successor is seems like he has a lot to say because Morrison Morrison was an incredibly frustrating witness. Not even talking about the public airing but just by his deposition. If you read the transcript. He basically says John Bolton you know went into this room and had this conversation and then he came out and he's asked what did he say to you and he basically Gli says I don't want to talk about that over and over again and so we get these kind of hints that John Bolton must have known more and must have. You've done more without that ever actually being fleshed out soon away..
"donald trump" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill
"Tremendous respectful women have you ever had have respect for me and i will tell you know i have not it was that denial that comment from donald trump that spurred summers irvoas to speak out about her experiences with him i ran for fifteen minutes you tell mr trump emerged he hadn't sued on i stood up and he came to me and started kissing me open mouth as he was pulling me towards him i walked away down in a chair he was on a less seat across from me and i made an attempt at conversation then asked me to sit next to him i complied he then grabbed my shoulder and began kiss me again very gresley and pays places hand on my breast i pulled back and walked to another part of the room he then walked up grabbed my hand and walked me into the bedroom i walked out he then turned around and said leslie down and watch some telly telly put me in in brave in embrace and i tried to push him away i pushed his chest but space between us and i said come on man get real he'd be repeated my words back to me get real as he began thrusting his genitals he tried to kiss me again with my hands still on his chest and i said do your trip and right now attempting to make it clear i was not interested he said what do you want and i said i came to have dinner he said okay we'll have dinner after service went public donald trump began to systematically lay.
"donald trump" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill
"Yes they're concerned well that's their problem not ours are we going to wind up with with so many people's lives gone in south korea in seoul because we make that move ask you this how do you feel about dead americans john bolton's appointment as the national security adviser comes as wall to all news coverage details the multiple alleged affairs that donald trump had with stormy daniels or special you remind me of my daughter he's like you're smart beautiful and a woman to be reckoned with like you i like you with karen mcdougal he's very proud of ivanka essay shed bay i mean she's a brilliant woman she's beautiful she's you know that's his daughter and he should be proud her he said i was beautiful like her and you know you're smart girl and there's been a lot of comparing but there was some it might be hopeful to recall what happened the last time the country was in a similar situation with a sitting president and that was bill clinton in the late nineteen ninety s i want you to listen to me i'm going to say this again i did not have sexual relations with that woman miss lewinsky i never told anybody to live and not a single time never these allegations are false and i need to go back to work for the american people as the socalled monica lewinsky scandal intensified in nineteen ninety eight and nineteen ninety nine bill clinton seemed to find a new love for lobbing cruise missiles and authorizing bombing campaigns in afghanistan and sudan for seventy eight days at us led nato bombing of yugoslavia and of course iraq in operation desert fox which clinton authorized on the eve of the impeachment proceedings against him earlier today i ordered american forces to strike iraq are missile sent the following message to saddam hussein when you abuse your own people or threaten your neighbors you must pay a price.
"donald trump" Discussed on The Dollop with Dave Anthony and Gareth Reynolds
"Donald trump was elected president on the number eight two thousand sixteen just a couple of months later the court ruled against donald trump's appeal and he was ordered to pay one us in rick as around three hundred thousand dollars so i guess that's america we could erin looking aaron i broke him he broke an how you doing budd okay graf was it worse than you imagine it was a better um it was it was exactly what i expected till the very end i think though the guy the guy voting for as a kid i i think the truth is that it is like you know if i've heard a lot of this just in like you know a vacuum of conversation that you here because now news is so there's so much coming at you so often you already can't absorb it and in a way what he's done is he's overloaded the system with information via there's just too much that so crazy that it's impossible to focus on it i mean if we truly just folk it like if we could just hone in on like say the sexual assault his committed and you just stuck to that potentially that could get legs in that could actually start to become something that can hurt him or the idea that he's you know his business practices the problem is it's almost like a mighty morphin power power ranger of all this different bullshit formed into one big fucking monster it so he he so um uh wrong on so many different level overwhelms a overwhelming an but also like the system the fact that the system that we live in this is legal yeah um that's a problem it's also a problem now because the eu certainly i mean.