foundation, millions of dollars that went to a moroccan king. we didn t know about a lot of that until we saw the e-mails. the substance of the e-mails were not pretty for the clinton team. right. what you re saying, ed, is that stealing somebody else s private information, you know, the ends justify the means, right? you know, i actually heard very little on this and other networks about what we call a classic textbook pay for play, which is donald trump giving money to the attorney general of florida so that she could shut down an investigation of trump university. all this stuff about morocco, incidentally, there was zero, zero that came out from wikileaks or anything else that tied any official actions by hillary clinton to anything done by the foundation. she was disassociated from the foundation. we can relitigate it. what congressman franks is saying, the media should be stealing information from whoever they want and putting it out there.
congressman franks was a perfect example how this issue is tying republicans in knot s now. there is no good answer. president obama hasn t said trump would have lost without this. nobody said that so directly in arguing this is important, but it s kind of inherent in the issue. donald trump won by less than 1% in the three states that mattered in this election. you can t have this conversation sand and say it mattered without it essentially making a difference. seeing congressman franks and congressman yost you talked to yesterday saying it wasn t a big impact and just true information coming out. rebecca, before we go, get inside the head of donald trump a moment, if you can. why not? does donald trump not believe that russia s behind the hacking? generally doubt it, or is he most concerned about the pla
your republican colleagues was on the program yesterday. 24 hours ago. trent franks from arizona. he said if russia succeeded in giving the american people information that was accurate then they merely did what the media should have done. it was a comment that raised eyebrows. i want to know if you agree with congressman franks. i think it is an outrageous statement that you would celebrate the interference of a foreign government in our elections. we can have spirited campaigns but we should never invite or condone foreign interference in our elections, particularly an adversary country ruled by a brutal dictator, a thug that engaged in actions against political opponents, journalists. that s a disgraceful statement trent franks made. thank you very much for being with us. time for the last microsoft
mcconnell. where i come from, you honor the flag. i d be ofafraid for their own safety, but we appreciate the first amendment. in s. so you don t like it but you believe it s protected under the first amendment? that s what the supreme court has upseld. the supreme court has held that that activity is a protected first amendment right. a form of unpleasant speech and in this country we have a long tradition of respecting unpleasant speech. i happen to support the supreme court s decision on that matter. so what is trump up to here? barney frank and michael steele and eli stokels. congressman franks, great to have you on. tell me, what do you think about this morning glory of trump s this morning? well, it s a diversionary tactic.
among women by ten points. he s losing white women by 20 points. that s a crucial group that generally votes republican. that should alarm you, if you want him to win. i m not alarmed. i m very encouraged. he s behind three points in the fox poll. cnn just moved two states leaning blue into the battleground column. this is a tightening race. the media narrative isn t working. it just isn t. i just interviewed congressman franks and he said that the reason that some republican women are being driven by the party is because democrats have painted themselves as the party of children. did you understand what he meant by that? i think and that was difficult part to follow, one of many, but i think he was trying to say that democrats have more effectively made emotional arguments, some might call it pandering, to sort of frame these issues as more emotionally compatible with liberal