campaign, there was somebody inside taking notes and delivering the information to the intelligence agencies. that is going to be knocked down in this report. whether there was surveillance, a wiretap of former trump campaign f adviser, yes, but th idea there was somebody inside the campaign trump has been alluding to for a while, that is not the case. whjohn, if the sondland phon call trump story becomes unwound in a more concrete way, will that cost republicans support? i m not sure that it will cost republicans support in terms of members of congress, brian, but, you know, the veil that the president has over the idea that there was not a quid pro quo, that there wasn t briar r bribery, extortion, that there was not a relationship between what he was seeking and the money held up has all but disintegrated already. that s the one read that exists for them. sondland s call going away would
months, which is that there was a mole inside his campaign. there was somebody inside who was taking notes and then delivering that information to the intelligence agencies. that is not going to be that is going to be knocked down in this report. now, whether there was surveillance there, was a wiretap of a former trump campaign adviser, yes. but the idea there was somebody inside of the campaign which trump has been alluding to for a while, that is not the case. hey, jon, if the sondland phone call with trump story becomes unwound in a more concrete way, will that cost republican support? i m not sure that it will cost republican support in terms of members of congress, brian, but the veil the president has over the idea that there was not a quid pro quo, that there wasn t bribery, extortion, that there was not a relationship between the probes he was seeking and the money he was holding up has all been disintegrated already. that s the one sort of thin reed that exists for him.
african descent. so anybody who is mixed race would be a recipient of money. are we talking about mixed race. mixed race african-americans. they they are all parties to this. what i think we all know, especially our. mixed race did not exempt them from being enslaved or racism. mixed raceness is similarly convoluted it s not a thing straightforward. it s not something we can parse out in any kind of concrete way. judge i us are we talking about repairations or the construction of race. we re talking. as a whole entire conversation. we are talking about both. because you talked about mixed race people and being a descendant of africans. here the point i think perhaps underappreciated it s the degree to which we talk about a policy that requires people who are not a party to particular crimes, particular harms being responsible for paying for those crimes. i, for example, under some schemes wouldn t be entitled to
you know, a major player in the party. is this much ado about nothing? does this have potential to fire people up in a more concrete way? words matter. they carry weight. can set the tone. especially if your words are damping to broad sets of people. they can show what your feeling is, like for the president, the way he speaks about women, the way he speaks about immigrants, but in this case it was a profane word. i don t think that profanity is something we need to be worried about in this case i find the president s actions much more morally rep prehence about what ywhat reprehensible. throwing children in cages, and okay with the murder of a journalist and stuck by the saudi government. i get particular yi frustrated and upset when i hear a lot of republicans, anyone else, taking a moralistic tone about language when there are other things if we really had a sense of morality we would be much more deeply upset by them. i think it qualifies as irony
poppy-cot. it s one thing when you re talking about gorsuch and scalia. this is, as you were saying, the most important seat. every single one of those, you didn t know how he was going to vote at all. you know to replace him with someone who, by all accounts is a lovely man, a principled jurist, but has a very different philosophy, is really to change the composition of the court. not in a theoretical way about originalism and constitutional text or something like that but in a real concrete way. on things that matter to every american. things like, you know, labor unions or environmental protections. the conservatives have one view of this. left want ace ds a different no.