nice negative 12 who decided his best move was to vote for the president. and fashions himself a conservative individual first and a conservative second. i think 24 national emergencies act is overly broad and i want to fix it, but nancy pelosi doesn t. therefore i m voting against her resolution. one senator who predicted the back lash was john cornyn. i think it s a dachgress step, one was because of the precedent it sets. and two, the president will get sued and it won t succeed in accomplishing his goal. and third because i think ms. pelosi may well introduce her resolution of disapproval that will pass the house come over here and divide republicans. to me it strikes me as not a good strategy.
a no unless you guys can change this because of the precedent that it sets. we ll wait and see how you vote. i want to ask you about north korea. you were with otto warmbier s family when his plane finally landed back in the united states when he was finally released from being held in north korea. when the president says he takes kim jong-un s word for it that he didn t know about otto s condition, do you believe him? it s n not plausible that he didn t know about it. kim describes himself as the supreme leader. otto warmbier was the only american detained at the time this horrible thing happened to him. he was terribly mistreated. what does it do to you hearing that from the president? you know, i ve expressed myself clearly about it saying this guy kim cannot be let off the hook and he can t be trusted. now, it doesn t mean we shouldn t be talking to north korea.
sets. and from texas, review this. all in the box here. as we ve seen many times, when president trump kind of steps in, as you were saying, and articulates some sort of controversial policy initiative, but this is obviously going to be tied up in court and the thing is the president has this as a political argument. all it really is. and so many takeaways from that rose garden speech of 15 minutes off a telteleprompter. arranged tweeting. this one stood out. he s pretty much daring the court to strike this down. it is going to be a real test. i get my numbers from a lot of sources. like homeland security. primarily. and the numbers i have from homeland security are a disaster. you know what else is a disaster? the numbers that come out of homeland security, kirsten, for
it is risky, but less risky than another shutdown. his divided conservatives, many in his own party pleaded not to take this step. leader, mitch mcconnell, standing with him as he announced the move on the senate floor. what s at stake for the republican party? look, if congress wanted to stop this, there is provision to stop it. the national emergency act of 1976 says if two-thirds of both houses of congress vote to say there isn t a national emergency, then that national emergency declared by the president is invalid. what that would take, of course, is a substantial portion of republicans in both the house and the senate to side with the democrats on this. although we have heard some voices who are concerned about this because they are concerned about the precedent it sets, i don t think we see the numbers
you said the president should spend more time reading the constitution, less time on attempts for a power grab. are you concerned for a precedent it sets for future presidents? absolutely. we are a nation governed by the rule of law. this move of president trump yesterday goes above the law. i think it is extremely important we at this time in our democracy stand up for rule of law. you can t just makeup, can t just make things up when you re the president of the united states. it doesn t seem disagreement with the national emergency declaration falls on party lines. there are key gop lawmakers also reacting. take a listen. i continue to believe this is not what the national emergency act was intended to be used for. it was contemplated as a means for responding to catastrophic