that warehouse fully engulfed. this is a massive structure. this is a logistical nightmare for investigators to find some clue as to not only how this started, but trying to continue this recovery effort to find out how many victims, how many people they have lined up with the numbers that they have. that s work that s being done right now. you have 50 people in this warehouse last night. the fire breaks out, it s fast moving. the roof collapses on top of people while inside. many people were up in that second floor they find trapped and they find nine people confirmed dead. 25 unaccounted for. that doesn t mean that number is included in the missing and dead. many people may have checked into local hospitals or self-transported to get help. there is work being done through the community on facebook and twitter to confirm, to find loved ones, friends and family.
one party has taken an affirmative action that puts him in breach of the contract. he didn t have to run for president. to the stent he chose to run for president, he should have sat down with gsa in advance to come up with a contingency plan. there s any number of things he could have done and still do. trump could sit down with gsa tomorrow and enter into an agreement with a transfer or novate and transfer the entire contractual relationship to someone like marriott head quartered in the d.c. metropolitan area. the trump organization put no thought into dealing with this whatsoever. what is much more shocking, the gsa doesn t appear to have thought about it whatsoever. even the gsa inspector general s office appears to have had their head in the sand and ignored the train wreck coming down the tracks. briefly, when he says in mid december he will step away from
doubling down on a kind of improvisational or accidental foreign policy. while the long-term diplomatic problem from the call is unclear, we ve got this covered from all angles. we ll start at the white house. what is their view? will it be possible to ascertain whether donald trump is disrupting things on purpose or fumbling his way into a huge diplomatic change? that depends how good your sourcing is up there in trump tower in new york. to the larger question whether or not it s a change in policy, the white house is insisting, no. there is no change in policy towards taiwan. you read that statement and heard that from the nsc. there is going to be a change in policy because there is a new administration coming to town. the white house reiterating their current policy doesn t
administration, but just tough talk and broad pronouncements don t help here. we have to come together in a bipartisan fashion to have a strategy to implement in syria to get this right. because as long as assad is in control, and as long as this policy doesn t seem to be getting to any kind of strategic end, it s only helping isis which has to be the area where we can actually work with the russians, work with others to defeat isis. so we ve got to take care of the syria issue as well. senator, bipartisan agreement have any impact when you have russia, for example in very similar terms that we saw with yew y ukraine and crimea many denying what is the visible and physical proof of its actions in syria? does it matter if congress can come up with a bipartisan agenda when you are dealing with someone that john mccain referred to on the senate floor yesterday as a thug, that being vladimir putin?
may require retraining of officers in the future. so you honed in on a point i d like to pick up on which was the issue of policy here. and even if it was the policy that he was just, you know, executing the law, who should be held accountable here? is it the officer applying the law? is it the district for having that law? and more importantly you talk about the officer exercising common sense. should the officer lose his job over this. the fact it is a policy doesn t make it the law. you can write a policy within the school district or department. that doesn t mean it is a law and it does not override the law. the law in terms of civil rights is one of excessive force. you cannot override that. you may have a situation in a department where you think you can write a particular policy that. may in fact go to the officer s state of mind. on the other hand an officer engaged in the conduct using physical force in effect is hurting a child and causing emotional distress that cannot