on intelligence before they can rule on the lawfulness of his orders. a lot of people in the legal world are saying that s disturbing. we need a definitive ruling here. you need to separate out the merits of this case from what the president did yesterday. the best-case scenario here was this was just one of his twitter cheap shots rather than a well-thought out attack on the legitimacy of the independent judiciary. because if it s the latter, we re starting to see the pattern of a president who wants to delegitimatize anyone who has a check or balance for him. he doesn t have a feel for what an independent judiciary means. that is something to keep in mind. this is not the first time he s attacked a judge. it s not clear that he understands what the constitutional checks and balances of power are in this country and i m guessing that those two words, that so-called that that resonated awfully well within the federal judiciary.
that he s not mentally suitable to make those decisions on a nuclear strike? we actually introduced this bill last year. so we think it should apply to any american president. uh-huh. but certainly the rants by donald trump do make this issue somewhat more urgent. what the issue is is, right now, one person can destroy the whole world. with no checks or balances from the judiciary or congress. that s why our bill, which has now been endorsed by the new york times, says that the president first needs to get a declaration of war from congress before launching a nuclear first strike. got it. representative lieu, one thing that s fascinated me, the clear discomfort of your colleagues on the other side of the aisle, with any criticism of donald trump, even when he says something that directly contradicts of all of the past held positions of the republican party, particularly on russia or anything, do you mind the scenes, are your colleagues on
that s fascinated me, the clear discomfort of your colleagues on the other side of the aisle, with any criticism of donald trump, even when he says something that directly contradicts of all of the past held positions of the republican party, particularly on russia or anything, do you mind the scenes, are your colleagues on the other side of the aisle going, any problem with this? are they as sort of freaked out by some of the things that he does as democrats are? absolutely. and many of them are conveying that privately. but you do have some republican members contradicting the president publicly. as a matter of fact, mitch mcconnell went public and said, no, america and russia are not equivalent. you have more and more members of congress standing up to donald trump because they realize he just makes things up, he lies pathologically and he really does have this disconnection from the truth that is so very dangerous. that almost makes me feel
and we don t know exactly what attack trump thinks that the press has ignored. press secretary sean spicer said the white house plans to provide a list, quote, later. but it s possible he s referring to the so-called bowling green massacre which the media did not report on because no such massacre happened. to be clear, in 2013, two iraqi refugees living in bowling green, kentucky, were sentenced on federal terrorism charges after admitting that they had previously used explosives on u.s. soldiers in iraq and sent money in al qaeda to iraq. but they did not plan any attack on u.s. soil. there simply was no massacre in bowling green. counselor to the president, kellyanne conway, raised a spectacle on a thursday interview here with our own chris matthews. then, when the ridicule poured in, she claimed that she misspoke. but we now know that she had used the phrase before. last sunday, conway brought up,
understands what the constitutional checks and balances of power are in this country and i m guessing that those two words, that so-called that that resonated awfully well within the federal judiciary. matt, why do you suppose more republicans are not condemning this attack on the judge when trump attacked judge curiel who was presiding a case over him. why aren t republicans speaking out? i think in washington there s always a disincentive for one party to criticize someone of the same party. i don t remember democrats criticizing president obama much. but president obama never attacked a judge. that s true. but he had been overturned more by the modern courts. i a agree with charlie. there s a difference between