spokeswoman right here, a trump appointee who works for jeff sessions. she is a conservative saying, everybody, just take a breath. i think a lot of americans who saw the initial release of text messages were disturbed by what they saw and understandably so. the inspector general s investigating it and i look forward to their report, at which point we can discuss that further. we wait for an inspector general report, who s investigating this. let the inspector general do their job. that s good advice. i should also just note for the record that in the case of peter stroke, when bob mueller found out about these texts, which show, whether they show bias or not, we don t know. they do show bad judgment, but he immediately removed him from the investigation. one fast last point. it is not just us talking about how this is a distraction for the gop. this morning the top house gop super pac issued a memo saying to incumbents, please, talk about the tax cut bill. we could not hold the
friday, you know, uscis, you know, it takes 60 to 90 days on these application processes. and once you get to march 6th, you re losing 1,200 a day. you re looking at 35,000 d.r.e.a.m.ers per month. that could be over 100,000 by the time actually stop the politics. can democrats want it, republicans want it. bring a bill up on tuesday. sensible border protections, and protect the d.r.e.a.m.ers. the head of the center for american progress action fund, put out a memo saying, the fight to protect d.r.e.a.m.ers is not only a moral competitive, it s a critical component of the democratic party s future electoral success. you re the former leader of the admirable national party. for democrats, which is the bigger risk politically, just the politics of it? not doing everything they can to paycheck a deal to protect the d.r.e.a.m.ers, including things they don t like, some changes to immigration, border wall money, or doing everything they can to make it a clean bill. which imperative is m
republicans want it. bring a bill up on tuesday. sensible border protections, and protect the d.r.e.a.m.ers. the head of the center for american progress action fund, put out a memo saying, the fight to protect d.r.e.a.m.ers is not only a moral imperative, it s a critical component of the democratic party s future electoral success. you re the former leader of the admirable national party. for democrats, which is the bigger risk politically, just the politics of it? not doing everything they can to make a deal to protect the d.r.e.a.m.ers, including things they don t like, some changes to immigration, border wall money, or doing everything they can to make it a clean bill. which imperative is more important? do you know what i m saying? first of all, the most important imperative the to protect these d.r.e.a.m.ers? even if it means swallowing some things we don t like? there s some things we can do on sensible border protection. i just finished four years as governor, we had a
from the past. this agency is the only thing standing between consumers and a lot of abuses. strikes me that the democrats have chosen to fight this battle which ultimately they will lose, ultimately the president will get someone he wants to run it, whether it is today or two months from now, we don t know. you have this fight where the democrats feel it is worth dying on this hill. add it to tax reform, to the government shutdown, to the dreamers issue that will come up this month. we have 30 days, 12 of which congress will be working, where they fight each and every day over each and every issue. yes. and i would just add to the question over the cfpb, their own general counsel issued a memo saying that the president, this is his purview, he gets to appoint the acting director, the senate will have to confirm, give advice and consent to full time director. i think donald trump is right on this one. i think that democrats are
presumably underneath that is a sort of subliminal message that i know how to run things and finally we have someone who knows how to run things here and the degree of management ineptitude is like nothing the federal government has ever seen. are you telling me if i m an employee of the department of agriculture i m not permitted to utter or print the words climate change, and if so, why not? so they never explained why not. i will offer a guess why not. but when the first person a month after the election who rolls into the department of agriculture has a, he has apparently one real interest, i was told by people inside the department of agriculture. it s rooting out people who had worked on the climate change. the same thing happened in the department of energy. where the one guy who rolled in there asked for a list of anybody associated with climate change things. so and then they sent out a memo saying, don t use the phrase climate change. you ve got to use other things.