things. i think there s carryover from the campaign. how dwi divisive. the relationship with the media wasn t strong. i think some of those things ae carrying over. some in the media see it as their task and job to hold the administration accountable. i think that s the nature of the first amendment and our democracy. and i think people in the media should continue to do their job in that respect, but, again, it comes back to the perception of the media among many americans. certainly many people who supported donald trump don t have a particularly positive impression of the media. and i think this is all part of a strategic effort to emphasize how the president is not satisfied with a status quo. he s going to do what he needs to do to get his message out there. okay. there was a stunning moment on the floor of the u.s. senate a few hours ago. elizabeth warren was speaking out against the nomination of jeff sessions for attorney general. she was reading from a letter written from t
of this program. overwhelming majority of the people say do not repeal, just make improvements. let s look at the numbers from the poll from not long ago. 21% said they want to see it repealed. they want it gone. 55% said it should be replaced with something. it shouldn t just go away. 22% don t want it repealed at all. his claim is shrewd. senator cruz made a claim about how governments sometimes gets in the way of health care. in the last 20 years, the fda approved only three child cancer drugs because the burdens are so great. that s a big claim. getting any drug approved can be costly and difficult. here s the specific thing you want to know.
claire, here s your name your price tool. -oh, thanks, flo. -mm-hmm. jamie, don t forget to clean the fridge when you re done. she seems nice. she seems nice. [ door closes ] she s actually pretty nice. oh. yeah. abdominayou may have ibs. ask your doctor if non-prescription ibgard is right for you. ibgard calms the angry gut. available at cvs, walgreens and riteaid.
steve: don t have a right to get in to our country. the issue is not whether or not they have rights. it s whether or not the president is following the law. and, look, you know, our judiciary which should be independent, i don t think my brother or you, steve, or any american with good sense would think that the president should be attacking judges personally like he did all weekend. they will make the decision but the president cannot usurp the laws there is a law passed 50 years ago say you cannot discriminate on immigrants based on their nation of origin. that s exactly what this ban does, also discriminates them based on their religion. steve: you know that is not true. you were talking about the judge and trump. he did tweet this out yesterday, i believe just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such
feel a visceral reaction to something. unconstitutional is a wholly different area and form of analysis. the office of legal counsel at the justice department reviewed it and they apparently, you know all these lawyers at the justice department, this unit, didn t think it was unconstitutional. i understand sally yates was the acting attorney general, she had your viewpoint, of course, she has been fired. i thought it was terrible two of your people who have green cards, legal residents of the united states, detained, for a short time not allowed in. what wrinkles get taken out where the people have a legal right to be here, what about those people who don t have a right to be here? well, that will be dealt with appropriately and you know, we ve had a process for that, but let me tell you the effect of the order. you can tell me i understand that lawyers at the white house reviewed it, those lawyers sure wouldn t be working in my at justice. at justice. at justice. they wouldn t