leg, seeming to contradict what the police say happened in that he was moving toward them when they opened fire. how does this play? you know, ana, this is what we call irrefutable evidence. the police can give a narrative as to what happened. they were fearful, he was approach them, he had his hands up, he was in a stance towards them. but when you see evidence like this, does that not contradict that? and looking at an autopsy, which gives them an indication of exactly where he s hit, how does that jibe or otherwise how is that consistent with the narrative that you felt threatened, that you were in eminent fear? but this wasn t the official autopsy. i get it. would the official autopsy say something different? that s for a trial to decide. but does it make a difference? it makes a difference, because you want to make sure the autopsy can be trusted by people who evaluate this. let me tell you, in addition to
united states. now, obviously there needs to be diplomacy, there needs to be a back and forth between the u.s. and the korean allies. the timeline is short. yes, these events are happening quickly but they re also happening with a lot of consequence. and there isn t a lot of time and space for negotiations. i think the history of this, this is all happening at breakneck speed, but at the same time the new york times is reporting a nuclear reactor near the north korean capital has gone online. how does that jibe with talk of getting rid of nukes? reporter: this is the issue, when you get into the negotiation. how quickly would north korea have to denuclearize? would it have to be overnight like the u.s. demanded from libya or would it be in some sort of tiered or stepped way? the existence, which nbc news has not confirmed, but the existence according to the times of a nuclear reactor, it complicates the issues.
major energy speech and rounded out by holding a news conference before his speech. then all any one wanted to talk about was who was up or down in the polls. policy is not what motivates him, it s personality a little more. paul: how do think he did on framing the immigration issue? he needs democratic votes. they thought it was too much speaking to his own base. he had that jibe in there, americans are dreamers too. the point here is, the dreamers want to become americans. full-fledged americans and trump is offering that but he kinda spoke to his base and didn t try to bring in democrats enough. that is at least the criticism from the left.towhat do you think? as someone who s dedicated to this issue in my heart and policy wise. proud to be a comprehensive immigration reform republican. i believe in immigrants. i am the son of an immigrant. i
house almost everyday and they never talk like this. they just don t. they love the president, they think he s doing a great job. but with every tweet that comes out there s nobody who says oy, geez, is that a good idea? the book talks about people rolling their eyes. earlier when i was praising paul, i m sure paul disagreed with president clinton a couple times when he worked for him over the different years but it was never never became a personal thing, you didn t go bash him publicly. but this goes well beyond just maybe but it seems like the methods, if somebody said to him, oh, this person did this, then he would sort of include that. now, whether that s he ll have to defend his reporting but this does jibe with everyone else s reporting. the secretary of state called the president a blanking moron. was asked if that were true and he refused to deny it. that s as solid a confirmation as you can get.
says oy, is that a good idea? the book talks about people rolling their eyes. earlier when i was praising paul, i m sure paul disagreed with president clinton a couple times when he worked for him over the different years but it was never never became a personal thing, you didn t go bash him publicly. but this goes well beyond just maybe but it seems like the methods, if somebody said to him, oh, this person did this, then he would sort of include that. now, whether that s he ll have to defend his reporting but this does jibe with everyone else s reporting. the secretary of state called the president a blanking moron. was asked if that were true and he refused to deny it. that s as solid a confirmation as you can get. general mcmaster, the national security adviser, has been reported having called the president an idiot. he s in the book called him a dope. the secretary of the treasury in the book calls him an idiot.