but the united states just seems to have inaction. i think he gave a very full some defense of his meeting at the u.n. it was stated u.s. policy to be in the deal. he wasn t explicitly undermining u.s. policy. he was trying to solidify it. former presidents do interact with other i understand the criticism from trump and trump s people that you are the commander in chief, you are trying to do a negotiation, it s not helpful when a former secretary of state is having these types of conversations. i m dismissive of that. that being said, kerry is within his right to say these conversations are important to have. this is sew l what s wrong with me talking? i m not as totally there is a possibility that out of this
under subpoena. if he refuses the subpoena, then we have to test a proposition in the supreme court of this country. that is, is the president of the united states above the law? for all of our history, the case has been that the answer to that question is no, the president is not above the law. the office, the institution, the presidency is bigger than the man. it s a coequal branch of government between the legislative, the executive and the judicial. so if it goes to the supreme court and the supreme court orders donald trump to testify and he refuses, then we have a lawless president, a lawless administration and we re head long into a constitutional crisis. if the supreme court somehow ruled that the president is above the law, then that means the rule of law in the united states of america is no longer supreme. and the country that we knew, the united states, is no longer
i think what the president s done is isolate us, make it much more difficult. let me give you an example. if your house was on fire today, would you not put out the fire because you re afraid it might light on fire again in 14 years? of course not. that s what the president s done. the president has lit the fire today. we ll see what happens. he announced this has to be the last question. i told them i only had five minutes. he announced today that his brand new secretary of state is about to land in north korea to engage in talks about that country s nuclear program. do you believe that the actions he took today in unilaterally withdrawing from the iran deal strengthened or weakened secretary pompeo s hand in north korea? i think we have to see what happens in the next few days before you kind of draw that kind of judgment. i m very glad the secretary is
island professionally and politically. yeah. and so there s no motive at this point for him. in the accounts we re given were given at the time they took place. and there s a long pattern of projection. usually when trump or a soul mate like rudy calls someone a liar, it s because the president is the liar. what do you make of the fact that they re so triggered? think fear the obstruction case is a lot stronger than the collusion case, i would guess, that they might wiggle out of the collusion case by pushing it off to aides down the line. but they feel like they could wall off trump on the collusion front, but they clearly cannot on the obstruction front because trump is a primary protagonist in the firing of comey. it feels like they re being
points in his prepared remarks today that the iranians were essentially cheating on the deal. the two figures who are ascendant in the president s foreign policy inner circle, they are historically very close allies of israel, very trusting of israeli intelligence. also i would add that our own american officials such as defense secretary jim mattis and also mike pompeo, the secretary of state emerged too. i think that we are going to look back on today as the most isolationist move made by a u.s. president in the postworld war ii order. i think this is a very huge move in terms of the united states literally going at it alone. you pointed out iraq, you pointed out afghanistan. there was multilateral support for those interventions, the aftermath notwithstanding. but this, we are truly just giving the middle finger to our