taxes. he s got that on his website. they re fairly significant. paul ryan says they have to be revenue neutral. he wants to replace obama care with something elsewhere people still get coverage. he wants to spend on infrastructure, spend on a wall. i can tell you this. i ve done reporting on this. i don t think you can do all of those and stay and keep the budget deficit with not imploding. neil: isn t it a given that the deficit will get worse? just by osmosis alone it will get worse. you re right about that. if you lower taxes in and of itself, theoretically before this apply side revenues kick in later on, it s going to get worse. paul ryan has said he s on the record with this. we called his office. we asked him to rationalize this. he pointed us to his speech where he said this stuff will have to be revenue neutral. it will be interesting how you achieve revenue neutrality not adding to the deficit and do all
condone the statements, some backing off their endorsements. that s significant. this is the last trot for a lot of republicans. it seems that donald trump is operating somewhat detached of the political world around him. this is a candidate for the moment right now is saying no, my supporters support me. they get it. they understand. no, i don t need to show contrition. it seems like right now at looets publicly he least he s putting a public face on it. there s an avalanche effect. when you have kelly ayotte and john thune saying he should step down. it makes it tougher, the question becomes more pointed for other republicans. pat toomey, if this is a breaking point for kelly ayotte, why isn t it a breaking point for you. the calculation is so difficult. because if they break from trump they risk alienating his base. if they don t, they risk ali
race? it is very hard to see how the grand jury would not indict on the evidence everybody has seen. i mean, all of the commentators are saying that. but i think the race piece is important. and i want to see if i can get into that with you. particularly because let s do that. but let me ask you quickly before we go to that. sure. why do we go there? why don t we just say under your argument that the police overreacted to put it charitably, why isn t it a case about excessive law enforcement about excessive force as opposed to a race thing? oh, because it s a case about both. there are two pieces of this. there s the excessive law enforcement and the prosecution. and then there s the reason why this grand jury and why this prosecutor presented evidence in such a way that was likely to not get an indictment. this one here in staten island? yes. this one here in staten island. so on the first piece it is as clear as day, as clear as the blue as the blue sky, there
grand jury failed in staten island, how did they arrive at their decision? vincent warren is the executive director of the center for constitutional rights and a former attorney for the aclu. in a moment we will also be joined by former police commissioner bernard carric. the question tonight is whether there s any reason to believe that perhaps this grand jury could have reached its decision based on something other than race? it is very hard to see how the grand jury would not indict on the evidence everybody has seen. i mean, all of the commentators are saying that. but i think the race piece is important. and i want to see if i can get into that with you. particularly because let s do that. but let me ask you quickly before we go to that. sure. why do we go there? why don t we just say under your argument that the police overreacted to put it charitably, why isn t it a case about excessive law enforcement about excessive
movement in the united states was immense, very threatening to establishment institutions here. that was key in freeing south africa and nelson mandela. is there a way in which, for the generation of young people president obama in that generation, you know, obviously me at the back end of that generation, who find our first footing in the question of anti-apartheid movement, isn t it a part because we thought we could already fix the u.s. or because it had a kind of policy orientation that was clear, whereas the inequality is still persisting in the u.s. at that time or maybe harder to get your hands around as a matter of policy and protest? i think, you know, the 60s is a movement, the years of civil rights movement, the 80s, south africa, anti-apartheid activism, i think there was both but it was so riveting and real. even back to sharkville and the killing of 69 people, the kids