the president has brought up sanctuary cities over and over. specific to california, they just passed something to try to make the state a sanctuary state. the president has had ten or a dozen tweets on sanctuary cities. i have never heard the president use this charged language that folks are trying to put in his mouth. or make it sound like he is making a racist concept. he moved on and didn t think about it and that is my opinion on it. this whole debate, debate about sanctuary city, it is almost bril generliant that the president has developed this in a national security. you can use racially charged language and envelop in this larger argument of sanctuary
been given a great deal of latitude on capitol hill. he s been emboldened to test waters, put owl the trial balloons about considering firing mueller to see if republicans would take any kind of action. it is note panel even as mitch mcconnell was force envelop expressing the integrity of the special counsel, he also said there s no need to frequent special counsel. both of them, they only speak about it when they re asked. they don t go out and aggressively make a statement. let me talk about the president saying why are you congratulating? this was a sham election. what are your thoughts? one quick thought. we had five weeks ago, the department of justice indict 15 russians. and saying the russians tried to
there is some real problems here. and the democrats at this point can just wait. we ll give the majority by attrition at this point. it is not just that you re going to go out and compete. republicans are leaving their seats behind. yamich, january is not over. we can see another half dozen that either do full retirement or an up or out. when i heard about darrell issa, the thing struck me, he was a very outspoken republican. he was out there talking about the republican agenda with someone who was very force envelop his defense of the party. when you see someone like that, jeff flake, bob cork he, people who are very vocal saying, okay, i don t want to talk about this anymore. i don t want to defend this party. that s a real bad sign for republicans and i think democrats have been saying it. while they said they would have all these different messages, at the end of the day, donald trump
this is a case where we ve long had a doctrine where if you provide information to a third party, you lose your reasonable expectation of privacy. one very good analogy is if i send you as a messenger to go across the street and deliver an envelope, i may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that envelop. but i don t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in somebody watching you the street and go up the elevator and visit an office to drop off an envelope. the contents remain private. but that s what this could be analogized to in a digital world. the fact that i m sending that information out and it must pass through an intermediary. once it does so, i lose my expectation of privacy. based on past decisions by this high court, can we use that to glean what they might rule this time? and what would be the practical effect? you never know for sure. but if i were to say a favorite in this case, it would be the
john f. kennedy, the head of the irs, it was very help envelop going after bad guys, criminals. just like they got al capone on tax evasion. according to the report over the weekend, that bob mueller is using tax information to question whether there was any criminality by this president. what do you know about that? i can t speak to what bob mueller may or may not have been investigating. but i think say the scope of the jurisdiction is broad enough to include any financial entanglement between russians and the trump organization. it is among the most serious allegations that we need to be investigating as well. because this is, i think, the most powerful potential form of compromise. not the salacious video which i think has limited power, given how limited the access hollywood tapes, what limited effect head. if the russians were engage in the business transactions, let alone illicit ones like money