and that is why, when pressed, invariably they fall back on their signature argument: racism. border walls are racist. the president went to the heart of what i call his brown menace theory. these migrants, they are dirty people. they bring disease. this border wall thing is about controlling the browning of america. donald trump is fixated on the southern border, as he was b the day he announced his campaign. it s not about securing the borders. it s about xenophobic, racist, bigoted beliefs. he believes and unfortunately maybe the facts will bear this out, his base is scared of anyone who is not visibly white. tucker: his base is scared.ct they always say that. they re scared, the right. they cling to things for comfort. it s just projection. look around. who is angry? who s yelling? who is hysterical?
purely rogue attorney who did all of this with for no reason because there was no affair. utilizing his own funds for a client for no reason. and maya, that goes to the other point, mr. avanatti and i have discussed and debated this legally before, which is what i have pointed out is i think a weakness to their signature argument, that missing a signature alone could invalidate the entire contract. in the absence of a signature, when you have a payment, you say well that is like a contract, just like there s oral contracts. it seems to me that what donald trump just did there whether he realized that or not was knock out that other stool in public, saying, a, there was no agreement, b, there was no payment, no consideration, and c, he was not the source of those funds. so what s left of a legally
sift through. you re getting deep into the contractual language for arbitration and the signature argument would be week, as i have reported, that s just not where she s likely to win. but what do you think that there might be allegedly a lot more of these out there, can these all stay hidden? we know there s another one about jessica drake, that the new yorker reported on week before last. i don t know if that s as weak, because this is not because donald trump didn t sign, it was because donald trump was not willing to submit your name to the contract. if he didn t subm - does it matter that the name is david denison? that doesn t have to matter. remember, john edwards, he didn t pay the money, but someone facilitated on his behalf.
section with the secretary s name typed at the bottom of the page. just as thousands of other cables, typed, text, no signature. clinton never signed it. there s no indication she ever even saw it. the fact checkers at the washington post looked into this theory, too. they agree. four pin noek ohios for issa s signature argument. anything to say about that mr. issa? bless the democrats hearts. they like their report but can t find a factual error to ours. well, looks like we found one. a big one. did congressman issa think that we would sign off on his attempt to take down mrs. clinton? nice try, but we got you.
signature on david denison, a is that an alias for donald trump? how do we know that? because i know that and i m telling you that right now and let someone claim that it s not an alias for donald trump. some confident lawyering. there is still amidst that confidence some bad news right here in this case. but legal experts do tell us that this signature argument alone is unlikely to invalidate an entire contractual agreement. what s the white house saying? spoiler, they say they already won this thing in arbitration. the president has addressed these directly and made very well clear that none of these allegations are true. this case has already been won in arbitration and anything beyond that i would refer you to the president s outside counsel. that claim itself also in dispute. daniels lawyer mocking it, saying, yeah, and trump won the