2016 nomination but trump thoroughly defeated him again because ted of the week is the sniveling coward and not the man that ran to cabo and blamed it on his kids during an epic snowstorm, no. the republican party is in a place if you don t down play or straight up deny the insurrection, in other words, if you refuse to be a sniveling coward and trump boot licker, you re not welcome. we ve gone over little kevin mccarthy s spineless hypocrisy numerous times from saying trump bears responsibility from january 6th to whining democrats are supposedly using the anniversary as a partisan. on january 7th, last year trump s favorite caddy lindsey graham was condemning his boss man for pushing the idea the vice president could and should disinfranchise 150 million voters but within months, he was back to graveling, too and portraying trump as the savior of the party. all i can say is count me
extremist. despite that, last year trump s department of homeland security got rid of a group of intelligence analysts who specifically focused on domestic terrorism and in addition down graded the position of the nation s top counterterrorism adviser. i got one question in this segment. why? joining me now, democratic strategist and former senate leadership aide and a former white supremacist now activist and founder of the free radicals project, also the author of white american youth my descent into america s most violent hate movement and how i got out. christian, let s start with you. according to the new york times, in the last 18 months, white extremists active shooters have been responsible for 65 deaths. is this problem escalating or are we just paying more attention to it? we ve had a problem in our country for 500 years. people have been murdered for their race, their religion since
so the interpreter for the u.s. president would be responsible for interpreting what the president says into the other language. while the interpreter of the other leader, world leader, that does not speak english, would be responsible for interpreting from that language into english. okay, so barry just walked us through what happens in basically every other traditional setting. and that sort of sets the stage for us to go through why this is so odd. i want to bring in msnbc national security analyst jeremy bash. you served on several national security capacities. when you hear barry walk through what the traditional process is, you re nodding your head saying this is how it works. compare that to the fact our president spoke to the russian president without any other american there. yes, so what s concerning about the president s secret diplomacy is a couple things. first, i think with respect to
was talking polling information, needed owed derepaska $19 million. why wouldn t the president or giuliani say we had nothing to do with what paul manafort did? he was on his own? all we ve heard them say about manafort from the president, he s a really good guy who doesn t talk. i think because the ground is literally shifting beneath their feet in this investigation. you know, look, giuliani has told our colleague this was an inadvertent slip. but he also stood by it. he said i can only speak for the president. i can t speak for the campaign. there s a giant joint defense agreement. rudy giuliani is learning from other lawyers what wimtnesses are telling the mueller grand jury and mummer so he s learning potentially where other people are incriminalitied and perhaps he feels like he can t say any more that members of the campaign and we ve already got the public evidence that manafort was turning over polling information to essentially a russian intelligence operative so clearl
sometimes he s just ripping in an interview back and forth and it s not as thought out. having said that, if he had other good lawyers around him, you might want to clean this up and be like, no, no, we still stand by no collusion. donald trump is the president. when he says no collusion, that is a bodier denial than i didn t personally collude. now you have the lawyer basically narrowing it. so to put it in very basic perry mason terms, the client ace s sg nobody was murdered. the lawyer s now saying well, if somebody was murdered, my client didn t do it. very different. we ll see whether they clean it up. here s where it doesn t make sense to me. giuliani is making the argument maybe there was collusion but it wasn t none tch wof it was d why the president. why haven t they gone at paul manafort? if the argument is manafort is some rogue guy, a grifter who