Three Years Into Office, Where Is Trump’s Domestic Policy Agenda? | The 11th Hour | MSNBC


WHY THE PEOPLE OF INTEREST TO THE PRESIDENT ARE GETTING A THE PRESIDENT ARE GETTING A SPECIAL BREAK IS SOMETHING SPECIAL BREAK IS SOMETHING THAT’S GOING TO BE TOUGH TO THAT’S GOING TO BE TOUGH TO EXPLAIN. EXPLAIN.>>PHIL, IN A NORMAL WEST WING,>>PHIL, IN A NORMAL WEST WING, IN A NORMAL POLITICAL SHOP, THE IN A NORMAL POLITICAL SHOP, THE DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER MAY COME DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER MAY COME UP WITH A POLICY INITIATIVE TO UP WITH A POLICY INITIATIVE TO PIVOT OFF OF POST-IMPEACHMENT PIVOT OFF OF POST-IMPEACHMENT FOR A PRESIDENT. FOR A PRESIDENT. IS THERE ANY SUCH MECHANISM, ANY IS THERE ANY SUCH MECHANISM, ANY SUCH PLAN IN THE WEST WING YOU SUCH PLAN IN THE WEST WING YOU COVER? COVER?>>I MEAN, BRIAN, IF THERE IS, I>>I MEAN, BRIAN, IF THERE IS, I HAVE NEVER — I HAVE NOT HEARD HAVE NEVER — I HAVE NOT HEARD OF IT. OF IT. WHAT WE SEE IN THIS WEST WING, WHAT WE SEE IN THIS WEST WING, IT’S WHAT WE HAVE SEEN FOR THREE IT’S WHAT WE HAVE SEEN FOR THREE YEARS, IS A CONSTANT CHURN FROM YEARS, IS A CONSTANT CHURN FROM CRISIS TO CRISIS. CRISIS TO CRISIS. A PRESIDENT SCRAMBLING EVERY DAY A PRESIDENT SCRAMBLING EVERY DAY FOR SURVIVAL. FOR SURVIVAL. HE IS FIXATED ON THE NEWS CYCLE, HE IS FIXATED ON THE NEWS CYCLE, FIXATED ON WHAT’S HAPPENING AT FIXATED ON WHAT’S HAPPENING AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. IF THERE’S A BROAD DOMESTIC IF THERE’S A BROAD DOMESTIC LEGISLATIVE AGENDA UNDERWAY, THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA UNDERWAY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T REALLY AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T REALLY KNOW ABOUT IT. KNOW ABOUT IT. THE PRESIDENT IS DOING VERY THE PRESIDENT IS DOING VERY LITTLE TO PROMOTE THAT. LITTLE TO PROMOTE THAT. HE IS, WE SHOULD POINT OUT, HE IS, WE SHOULD POINT OUT, GOING TO BE IN DAYTONA BEACH GOING TO BE IN DAYTONA BEACH OVER THE WEEKEND AT THE DAYTONA OVER THE WEEKEND AT THE DAYTONA 500. 500. THERE ARE REPORTS THAT HE MAY THERE ARE REPORTS THAT HE MAY TAKE THE MOTORCADE ON A LAP OF TAKE THE MOTORCADE ON A LAP OF THE RACETRACK. THE RACETRACK. HE IS FIXATED ON CAMPAIGN EVENT HE IS FIXATED ON CAMPAIGN EVENT LIKE THAT AND TRYING TO PROMOTE

‘Not Fit For Office’: George H. W. Bush Lawyer And Barr Colleague Slams Barr For ‘Undermining’ DOJ


AND TODAY IT IS HIMSELF.>>REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT, AND>>REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT, AND AS A PROSECUTOR, I AM HAPPY TO AS A PROSECUTOR, I AM HAPPY TO HAVE YOU. HAVE YOU. I HAVE A SPECIAL GUEST, DONALD I HAVE A SPECIAL GUEST, DONALD AYRE. AYRE. HE’S KNOWN DONALD TRUMP FOR MORE HE’S KNOWN DONALD TRUMP FOR MORE THAN HAD TWO DECADES. THAN HAD TWO DECADES. IF HE WAS UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH. IF HE WAS UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH. WE ARE EXCITED TO HAVE YOU. WE ARE EXCITED TO HAVE YOU. YOU’RE A SEASONED VETERAN. YOU’RE A SEASONED VETERAN. THANKS FOR BEING ON “THE BEAT” THANKS FOR BEING ON “THE BEAT” TONIGHT. TONIGHT.>>THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU. GOOD TO BE HERE. GOOD TO BE HERE.>>ON THE SUBSTANCE, WHAT DO YOU>>ON THE SUBSTANCE, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF WHAT MR. BARR IS SAYING THINK OF WHAT MR. BARR IS SAYING AND WHAT HE IS, AT THE SAME AND WHAT HE IS, AT THE SAME TIME, DOING IN THIS CASE THAT TIME, DOING IN THIS CASE THAT TOUCHES SO CLOSELY TO THE TOUCHES SO CLOSELY TO THE PRESIDENT? PRESIDENT?>>I THINK THE TWO OF YOU HAVE>>I THINK THE TWO OF YOU HAVE NAILED THE POINT THAT NOTHING HE NAILED THE POINT THAT NOTHING HE SAYS CHANGES ANYTHING. SAYS CHANGES ANYTHING. WE NEED TO TAKE A COUPLE STEPS WE NEED TO TAKE A COUPLE STEPS BACK AND FOCUS NOT JUST ON THE BACK AND FOCUS NOT JUST ON THE RECENT EVENTS BUT TO FOCUS ON RECENT EVENTS BUT TO FOCUS ON THE WHOLE PATTERN OF EVENTS THAT THE WHOLE PATTERN OF EVENTS THAT HE’S ENGAGE IN THE SINCE HE CAME HE’S ENGAGE IN THE SINCE HE CAME IN AS ATTORNEY GENERAL. IN AS ATTORNEY GENERAL. WE’RE COMING UP TOMORROW ON THE WE’RE COMING UP TOMORROW ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF HIS TERM AS ANNIVERSARY OF HIS TERM AS ATTORNEY GENERAL. ATTORNEY GENERAL. THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE WORST EXAMS OF INTERFERING. WORST EXAMS OF INTERFERING. BY CLEARLY TAKING ACTION OUT OF BY CLEARLY TAKING ACTION OUT OF REGULAR COURSE OF THE ROUTINE REGULAR COURSE OF THE ROUTINE AND THE PROCESS THAT THE AND THE PROCESS THAT THE DEPARTMENT FOLLOWS, BUT IF YOU DEPARTMENT FOLLOWS, BUT IF YOU GO BACK — GO BACK –>>LET ME ASK BUT THAT FOR YOUR>>LET ME ASK BUT THAT FOR YOUR PREFERENCE OF THE JUST FOR PREFERENCE OF THE JUST FOR PREFERENCE AND CONTEXT OF THE PREFERENCE AND CONTEXT OF THE YOU’RE SAYING THIS IS ONE OF THE YOU’RE SAYING THIS IS ONE OF THE WORST EXAMPLES. WORST EXAMPLES. YOU SERVED AT A HIGH LEVEL UNDER YOU SERVED AT A HIGH LEVEL UNDER THE BUSH SENIOR ADMINISTRATION. THE BUSH SENIOR ADMINISTRATION. DO YOU SEE THIS AS WORSE THAN DO YOU SEE THIS AS WORSE THAN ANY MEDDLING EXPOSED IN THE LAST ANY MEDDLING EXPOSED IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE ADMINISTRATIONS? TWO OR THREE ADMINISTRATIONS? WHEN YOU SAY WORST, HELP US WHEN YOU SAY WORST, HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN. UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN.>>WHAT I’M WILL FOCUSED ON IS>>WHAT I’M WILL FOCUSED ON IS THE WHOLE PATTERN OF CONDUCT THE WHOLE PATTERN OF CONDUCT HE’S ENGAKTD IN SINCE HE CAME. HE’S ENGAKTD IN SINCE HE CAME. IN IT INVOLVES INTERVENING OUT IN IT INVOLVES INTERVENING OUT OF USUAL COURSE TO PROTECT OF USUAL COURSE TO PROTECT DONALD TRUMP HAVE THE FIRST DONALD TRUMP HAVE THE FIRST EXAMPLE THAT WE ALL REMEMBER WAS EXAMPLE THAT WE ALL REMEMBER WAS WHEN HE WENT BEFORE, HE WROTE WHEN HE WENT BEFORE, HE WROTE THE LETTER AND WENT BEFORE THE THE LETTER AND WENT BEFORE THE CAMERAS TO SAY THAT THE MUELLER CAMERAS TO SAY THAT THE MUELLER REPORT DIDN’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE REPORT DIDN’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION. OF OBSTRUCTION. OR DIDN’T SHOW A PERSUASIVE CASE OR DIDN’T SHOW A PERSUASIVE CASE OF OBSTRUCTION. OF OBSTRUCTION. THAT WAS HIS PUBLICITY OF IT. THAT WAS HIS PUBLICITY OF IT. THEN WHAT CAME OUT, INDEED, IT THEN WHAT CAME OUT, INDEED, IT CONTAINED POWERFUL EVIDENCE. CONTAINED POWERFUL EVIDENCE. WE HEARD HIS COMMENTS TRYING TO WE HEARD HIS COMMENTS TRYING TO OVERRULE THE DECISION OF THE OVERRULE THE DECISION OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HORWITZ WHO INSPECTOR GENERAL HORWITZ WHO CAME IN WITH THE FBI CAME IN WITH THE FBI INVESTIGATION. INVESTIGATION. HE FOUND IT WAS PROPERLY HE FOUND IT WAS PROPERLY PREDICATED AND THERE WAS NO PREDICATED AND THERE WAS NO BIAS. BIAS. IMMEDIATELY BILL BARR AND HIS IMMEDIATELY BILL BARR AND HIS APPOINTED PROSECUTOR MR. DURHAM APPOINTED PROSECUTOR MR. DURHAM CAME OUT AND. CAME OUT AND. WE DISAGREE WITH THAT. WE DISAGREE WITH THAT. WE HAVE THE WHOLE PATTERN OF HIS WE HAVE THE WHOLE PATTERN OF HIS CONDUCT COMMENTING ON THE FBI CONDUCT COMMENTING ON THE FBI SPYING BACK BEFORE THE SPYING BACK BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WELCOME INVESTIGATION WELCOME CONSUMMATED. CONSUMMATED.>>SINCE YOU MENTION THAT, LET>>SINCE YOU MENTION THAT, LET ME PLAY SOME OF THE SPYING AND ME PLAY SOME OF THE SPYING AND THE OTHER COMMENTS HE’S MADE THE OTHER COMMENTS HE’S MADE AGAINST BACK DROP OF HIM KNOWING AGAINST BACK DROP OF HIM KNOWING BETTER. BETTER. HIS OWN STATEMENT. HIS OWN STATEMENT. YOU DON’T DO THIS. YOU DON’T DO THIS.>>I THINK SPYING DID OCCUR.>>I THINK SPYING DID OCCUR. YES. YES. IT IS THE LEFT THAT IS ENGAGED IT IS THE LEFT THAT IS ENGAGED IN THE SYSTEMATIC SHREDDING OF IN THE SYSTEMATIC SHREDDING OF NORMS, AND UNDERMINING THE RULE NORMS, AND UNDERMINING THE RULE OF LAW. OF LAW. THE EVIDENCE DEVELOPED IS NOT THE EVIDENCE DEVELOPED IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN PRESIDENT COMMITTED AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OFFENSE. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OFFENSE.>>WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL THAT,>>WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL THAT, AND HE SHOULD NOT BETTER, GIVEN AND HE SHOULD NOT BETTER, GIVEN HIS EXPERIENCE, WHAT DO YOU MAKE HIS EXPERIENCE, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF WHAT HE IS DOING? OF WHAT HE IS DOING? AND DO YOU THINK HE IS STILL FIT AND DO YOU THINK HE IS STILL FIT FOR THIS OFFICE? FOR THIS OFFICE?>>I DON’T THINK HE IS FIT FOR>>I DON’T THINK HE IS FIT FOR THE OFFICE. THE OFFICE. I THINK WHAT HE HAS DONE IS TO I THINK WHAT HE HAS DONE IS TO UNDERTAKE A CAMPAIGN TO UNDERTAKE A CAMPAIGN TO UNDERMINE THE DEPARTMENT OF UNDERMINE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AS IT WAS REFORMED AND JUSTICE AS IT WAS REFORMED AND AS WE’VE LIVED WITH FOR THE LAST AS WE’VE LIVED WITH FOR THE LAST 45 YEARS. 45 YEARS. AT THAT TIME, THE ATTORNEY AT THAT TIME, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ESSENTIALLY COINED OF GENERAL ESSENTIALLY COINED OF GAVE INSTRUCTIONS AND FOUGHT GAVE INSTRUCTIONS AND FOUGHT THROUGH PROCESS BY WHICH THE THROUGH PROCESS BY WHICH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GIVEN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GIVEN THE POWER THAT IT HAS, NEEDS TO BEND POWER THAT IT HAS, NEEDS TO BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO ESTABLISH OVER BACKWARDS TO ESTABLISH PUBLIC TRUST AND WHAT IT IS PUBLIC TRUST AND WHAT IT IS DOING. DOING. SO YOU HAVE THE PROCESS OF SO YOU HAVE THE PROCESS OF SEPARATING THE POLITICAL FORCES. SEPARATING THE POLITICAL FORCES. CERTAINLY IN THE CRIMINAL AREA. CERTAINLY IN THE CRIMINAL AREA. YOU HAVE PROCESSES OF REVIEW. YOU HAVE PROCESSES OF REVIEW. I THINK AS WAS TRUE WITH THESE I THINK AS WAS TRUE WITH THESE SENTENCING RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY SENTENCING RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY WENT THANK YOU PROCESS. WENT THANK YOU PROCESS. THEY WENT FORWARD. THEY WENT FORWARD. THEY FOLLOWED GUIDELINES. THEY FOLLOWED GUIDELINES. WHATEVER PEOPLE THINK OF THEM, WHATEVER PEOPLE THINK OF THEM, HEAVY OR NOT HEAVY, THE HEAVY OR NOT HEAVY, THE GUIDELINES WERE PUT IN PLACE TO GUIDELINES WERE PUT IN PLACE TO TRY TO MAKE SENTENCING FAIR AND TRY TO MAKE SENTENCING FAIR AND UNIFORM. UNIFORM. AND ALL OF. AND ALL OF. GOT REVIEWED AND ALL OF A GOT REVIEWED AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, AT THE TIME THE SUDDEN, AT THE TIME THE PRESIDENT SPEAKS UP, MR. BARR PRESIDENT SPEAKS UP, MR. BARR STEPS IN. STEPS IN. THE PROBLEM IS, THAT WE’RE THE PROBLEM IS, THAT WE’RE LOSING AN ABILITY TO HAVE LOSING AN ABILITY TO HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THE DEPARTMENT CONFIDENCE THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT GOING TO BE INFLUENCED BY IS NOT GOING TO BE INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER FORCES. IMPROPER FORCES. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT SOMEONE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT SOMEONE GOES EASY ON SOMEONE BECAUSE GOES EASY ON SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY’RE THE PRESIDENT’S FRIEND. THEY’RE THE PRESIDENT’S FRIEND. WHAT ABOUT THE PROBLEM OF GOING WHAT ABOUT THE PROBLEM OF GOING HARD ON SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY’RE HARD ON SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY’RE HIS ENEMY? HIS ENEMY?>>RIGHT.>>RIGHT. AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THE BACK AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THE BACK DROP OF THE PRESIDENT HAVING DROP OF THE PRESIDENT HAVING PUBLICLY DEMANDED INVESTIGATIONS PUBLICLY DEMANDED INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS RIVALS AND WHERE HIS OF HIS RIVALS AND WHERE HIS DEMOCRACY IS AT AND WHO WILL DEMOCRACY IS AT AND WHO WILL SPEAK UP AND YOU BEING SOMEONE SPEAK UP AND YOU BEING SOMEONE WHO WORKED FOR MR. BARR.

Should We Pay People to Move to Mars? (feat. Nasa)


– Woo, howdy, partner! Hop on board, we’re headin’
out to settle the frontier except this time, the frontier is on another planet.
(mellow twang music) Okay, don’t panic. I’m not really on Mars. Plus. This thing smells funny. (sighs) The point is that
according to the Mars Society, Earth is old news. The real party is here
on the Red Planet, baby! So if our species is
truly going to be in it for the long haul, we gotta
figure out how to live in places like here,
but are you interested? How much longer until we’re
not a single planet species? – Well, I hope that we can
get to Mars in my life time. (mellow music) We’re looking to be in the 2030’s to start the Mars missions timeframe. – That’s Marshall Smith,
and he’s the head director of Human Lunar Exploration
Programs at NASA. His job is to lead the
teams that are working to get humans to the moon by 2024, and then to Mars in the 2030’s. What is moon to Mars,
and why have these plans been expedited?
– This has been in our long term plan for quite awhile. We had a plan that was
to get us to the surface of the moon in ’28, we’ve
accelerated it to ’24. – So NASA’s plan to get back to the moon has been accelerated to 2024
by the order of the President, and from there, they’ll develop
sustainable human presence on the moon by 2028. So in 10 years, when
you look up at the moon, there will be people living there. And after all of that, the
infrastructure developed from these trips will
help NASA get to Mars in our very near future.
– We did Apollo in nine years. And that would probably not have happened if we didn’t have that
commitment from the President and the administration. We’ve got that same commitment
now from the President and the administration to
go forward and expedite, and let’s take the next step.
– Okay, let’s put this into perspective, a trip to the moon could take up to three
days while a trip to Mars can take up to a few months. And the full journey could take astronauts a full three years before
they get back home. A few years ago, the Mars
One Project made news by creating sort of a reality show that planned very literally
to establish a Mars colony by 2032, the only catch
for the participants? It was gonna be a one-way ticket, and once you got there,
it was pretty certain that something at some
point was going to kill you. And probably in a pretty awful way. It’s an interesting idea. Let’s find some brave
pioneers who are willing to take the greatest of all risks. The question is how do you motivate people to make that kind of leap? Well, last time we did
something like this, it was pretty simple. We paid them. A few hundred years ago,
the American frontier wasn’t that different from Mars. It was rugged, it was unpredictable, and there were plenty of
things that could kill you. (upbeat music) (mellow music) – But here’s the key. For the government, it
was essential that lots and lots of people take the risk. So they had to figure
out what sort of award was worth this risk. – The United States government
gave away free or cheap land to encourage settlers to
move and set up homesteads out in the West. Now, we’d be remiss if we didn’t bring up that colonization is a
continually dark chapter in the history of indigenous peoples, from which European
settlers have profited. Mars, as you can guess, is
probably a tougher sell. Farmland? Nope, not yet. Religious freedom? I guess, maybe, if you find a way to build a Mars church or something. And a chance to live however you want. Sure, just don’t take off your helmet or forget to clean your
carbon dioxide scrubbers three times a day. All I’m say is that it’s probably going to take more incentives
than it did last time. Could you see that happening with Mars? In an advent where it’s
like, hey nobody really wants to go out there, potential
death could happen at any point in time. Could you see people
getting large sums of money to possibly go out to Mars to inhabit it? – And you say it’s part of
NASA’s spirit to explore. If Mars is an inhabitable planet, at one point do you
believe, in your opinion, that it would turn from exploration to potential colonization or civilization in NASA’s mission, or would
that never be NASA’s mission and that would take some
outside type of entity to make that happen?
– I don’t know the answer to that question, it’s
a good policy question for people above my pay
grade, but I could tell you that those are the things
that we think about. What are the next steps?
– But NASA doesn’t like using the word colonization. They’re not looking into a
continuous human presence in deep space, but they
are interested in building an infrastructure for private companies to enter into that field. They described it like
building the railroads for settlers to move out West. For you and NASA, what
are we hoping to learn or get out of going to
Mars, like what is the point of the journey?
– We know that there’s flowing water on Mars, we’ve
seen it, we’ve documented it. There are things like Mars quakes. We understand in the geology of Mars as Mars is a planet that was, we think, maybe Earth-like some long time ago. And so, studying that might help us understand the future of Earth. – There’s one other
historical parallel we need to consider here, the last
time there was this much land settled in our country, there
were major players involved, including Britain,
France, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. And as we know, to the
winner went the spoils. Today, there’s a similarly
complicated power struggle forming in space, with
China, Russia, India, Israel, not to mention the private sector. All doing what they can to
claim a piece of the pie. Last time, the winner would
get to become the ruler of the free world. Tomorrow, maybe the winner will become ruler of the free solar system. – We’ve definitely been working closely with our international partners. Matter of fact, I have a meeting today with a country that’s coming up that wants to participate in this endeavor, I know somebody that says if
you wanna go fast, go alone. If you wanna go far, go together. – So this is a lot different
than the Space Race? – Well, 50 years ago, we were
in a race with the Russians, and now they’re one of our partners on the International Space Station, and as we move forward, we’re
in discussions with them about how they want to participate
in how we move forward. So yeah, so it’s definitely
a different flavor. – The real question is
beyond the dollars and cents, is it worth it? There was a time when
the American experiment depended on lots of
fresh blood and muscle. The argument today is
that our collective future may depend on a new type of expansion between overpopulation, climate change, and maybe simply running
out of space on Earth. So if we don’t figure it out,
this old dog and pony show known as humanity, it’s all for nothing. Though it may not be part
of NASA’s current mission, is it important for humans to be able to live on other planets?
– I personally think so. I read a lot of science fiction,
mainly because I like it, but I see these civilizations that are multi-planet civilizations and I think, if we’re
gonna always be on Earth, I think Earth has got its set
of resources and that’s it. Other planets have other resources. To me, today, we’re taking the baby steps, the initial steps, to
expand our human presence beyond the Earth permanently,
and where’s that leave us? Do we go to the asteroids next? Do we go to planets surrounding Jupiter? Those are the kinds of
things that I think we need to take the steps for today
to make happen in the future. – So here we are. Potentially, there’s a
future where we’ll need to pay people to rocket
off to their deaths, or maybe, just maybe, to rocket off to something
closer to a Utopian, science fiction wonderland
where the future really is limitless. And that’s why we wanna hear from you. If America was ours to make today, would we consider paying the
families of Mars colonists, and how much should we pay them? Or is this all nonsense? Let us know.
(trippy music) PBS is bringing you the
universe with Summer of Space, which includes six incredible
new science and history shows streaming on PBS.org
and the PBS Video app. Along with lots of spacey episodes from PBS Digital Studios creators. Follow me over to Reactions to check out their Summer of Space episode on what the moon smells like. Woo-hoo! (Toussaint mumbles) Cheese and rice. (Toussaint clears throat)
(Toussaint sighs) Woo, howdy, partner! (bright music)

White House Says It’s Time For People To Pay For Impeaching Trump


Well now that Donald Trump has officially
been acquitted by the Senate and he has already started his little victory lap with his speech
yesterday, the White House is preparing to start going after some of Donald Trump’s enemies
who are responsible for him being impeached, or at least that’s what Stephanie Grisham,
Donald Trump’s press secretary, thinks should happen. In a recent interview with Fox news, and this
was actually prior to Donald Trump’s speech yesterday, Grisham said the following, she
said, I think he’s going to talk about just how horribly he was treated and, you know,
that maybe people should pay for that. People should pay for that, Stephanie Grisham
says, and I don’t think she’s meaning they need to cough up a couple of bucks. I think Stephanie Grisham is letting us know
without a doubt that this White House is about to go scorched earth on anyone they perceive
as an enemy. Obviously, we’ve discussed earlier in this
week as Gabriel Sherman pointed out over at Vanity Fair, Donald Trump is allegedly, according
to Republican lawmakers, compiling an enemies list that includes people like Adam Schiff
and Jerry Nadler. And at this point I’m willing to bet that
enemies list also includes Mitt Romney. Donald Trump, really this past week since
the acquittal has really gone after Mitt Romney more so than anybody else. Shortly after the vote, he actually tweeted
out a video of Mitt Romney being defeated on election night and then towards the end
of the video, it switched to Donald Trump’s results coming in on election night, 2016
and winning. Trump has always, always taken digs at Romney
over win, losing, excuse me, in 2012 even though Barack Obama was the heavy favorite
to win that, and he pulled it off pretty much exactly as expected. But nonetheless, Grisham’s trying to give
us a warning here. If you went against Donald Trump, if you said
something he didn’t like or if you were one of the Democrats responsible for this, get
ready for hell. And that is what Democrats do need to get
ready for and people like Mitt Romney too. It’s coming. You’re not going to stop this man. He feels a renewed sense of invincibility
at the moment and he is going to use that to his advantage. He is going to come after each and every one
of you with everything he has. And when he has nothing, he’s just going to
make things up. We’ve seen him do it in the past and that’s
what’s going to happen to Democrats now. So they need to be prepared for this. They need to be able to counter this, and
it better be something more than, well, the trial was rigged. We all know the trial was rigged. So you better stock up with some better ammo
than that because this man is about to go pure crazy in a way we have never seen throughout
his administration.

Republicans Are Privately Admitting Trump Is Unfit For Office


Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown pinned in
op-ed for the New York Times that ran yesterday where Brown stated that, Republican senators,
you know, his colleagues in the Senate, they talk privately a lot about the fact that Donald
Trump is unfit for office. In fact, this is exactly what Brown said. He said, in private, many of my colleagues
agree that the president is reckless and unfit. They admit his lies and they acknowledge what
he did was wrong. They know this president has done things Richard
Nixon never did, and they know that more damning evidence is likely to come out. Fantastic. So. Don’t get me wrong, I love Sherrod Brown. I think he is a wonderful Democratic Senator
and to be honest, I was a little disappointed he didn’t throw his hat into the presidential
ring. But this op-ed is a big so what? Right? We have seen reports from day one of this
administration that, oh, behind the scenes, Republicans say they don’t like Trump. They vote with him all the time. They just voted to acquit him even though
they admitted he committed crimes publicly, not even just in private, some publicly. So what good do these op-eds do? We know Republicans know that this guy is
unfit, but at the same time he is delivering every part of the Republican agenda that they
have ever wanted. So of course they’re not going to do anything
about it. They’re going to sit there, hand him a new
stack of right-wing judges to nominate. He’ll nominate them, they’ll approve him,
they’ll then hand him the next tax cut that they want, he’ll approve it. Then they’ll hand them the entitlement cuts
they want to make. He’ll approve it and life goes on. They’ll tell him what regulations to cut and
he’ll do it. He is their puppet, not the other way around. And that’s why they tend to defend him so
much because he is a know nothing president. He didn’t come from politics. He doesn’t know how things work. And, you know, we have seen a lot from people
over the years saying that Trump is the one pulling the strings on these Republican senators. But honestly folks, it’s backwards. They’re the ones pulling one over on him. They’re the ones telling him what to do because
he has done nothing different than what any other Republican president would have done
with the possible exception of the trade war. Other than that, why would Republicans buck
the system? We don’t need to hear what they say behind
closed doors, I’m sure behind closed doors, some Democrats were talking bad about Obama
and Republicans were talking about about Bush and Democrats were talking bad about Clinton
and so on and so forth throughout all of history. We don’t need another op-ed telling us and
then Sharrod Brown goes on and makes another horrible point where he says, history does
not look kindly on politicians who cannot fathom a fate worse than losing an upcoming
election. That’s simply not true. That’s simply not true. Members of the George W. Bush administration,
you know, the ones who illegally spied on American citizens. The ones who launched a war based on lies,
killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of us troops, all based on lies. The ones who illegally tortured detainees
who had not been accused of any crimes. Yeah, remember those folks? Remember how we thought back then, oh, history
is going to torch these folks? They’re doing fine. Every one of them is doing fine. The lawyers who wrote those legal memos justifying
torture, they got cushy huge contracts at multibillion dollar defense law firms. They’re doing fine. Condoleezza Rice is heavily involved in college
football now. So yeah, her career’s just fine. George W. Bush’s image has been rehabilitated
because he gave a Michelle Obama some candy and watched a football game with Ellen. History forgets a lot faster than we think
it does, and it’s a hell of a lot kinder to criminals, including war criminals, than we’d
like it to be. So let’s stop making the argument that history
is not going to be kind to these people because no, if there’s one thing history is capable
of, it’s white washing somebody’s activities to make them look better than they actually
are.

Trump proposes Palestine capital in East Jerusalem as part of Middle East peace plan


US President Donald Trump has proposed a
peace plan for Israel and Palestine now Israel hailed the decision but
Palestinians weren’t so happy about it our young man tells us more president Ramez unveiled his Middle East
peace plan between Israel and Palestine in an attempt to end their decades-long
conflict during his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the
White House on Tuesday President Trump laid out his plan that allows the
creation of a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem under the
agreement Israel will freeze its new settlement activity for four years
during negotiations with Palestine terms that the u.s. bill recognized Israeli
settlements in the occupied West Bank Netanyahu backed the plan saying it
presented a realistic path to achieve regional peace and because I believe
your peace plan strikes the right balance where other plans have failed
I’ve agreed to negotiate peace with the Palestinians on the basis of your peace
plan however it triggered a fierce backlash from the Palestinians who were
absent at the scene when the plan was unveiled we will do everything that is
in our power as national and Islamic factions to fail this plan we hold
America and design is occupation responsible for any retaliations and
unrest in the region president Trump touted his peace plan as
a roadmap for a realistic Tuesday solution and is fundamentally different
from past attempts that failed critics however say that the plan is a
non-starter saying Trump has been friendlier to Israel than previous US
presidents US officials that they recognized the Palestinian skepticism
but hoped they will agree to negotiate overtime talks between Israel and
Palestine broke down in 2014 you Joe mean at wrong news