that. every precaution and the number of attacks that were ordered. the silence of those attacks it means something too. it is difficult to prove that negative. does that wash? of course it doesn t but here is the deal. the reason they do this is the press lets them get away with it. when you watch the news conference today when something went wrong or the situation at the border when they banned oversight of flights. the press isn t going into an uproar. when i was in office there was instant support, it was emotional, from the heart, a feeding frenzy, they were practically out of their seats screaming mad. here it is one and done. they dutifully ask the question and move on to the next topic, the first question wasn t about the airstrike or general milley. that is what happens when you have a democratic administration.
spying on, wiretapping of its political opponents., if that s not a scandal i m not sure what qualifies as one. you think about all of the years after 9/11 we had these huge debates about this surveillance power that was given the federal government and obviously that was targeting non-u.s. persons operating overseas. this question wasn t what if this amazing power was someday turned on the political adversaries of the party in power? now it s happened and everyone seemed satisfied i noticed everyone but much of the media is more concerned with how president trump is tweeting about it and on the fact is tucker: can i say one thing? that debate.e. if you remember if you raised her hand and said exactly what you said, what if the government turns its power on its internal opponents, new member thet response you got from people? you re crazy. that was the nightmare scenario. tucker: exactly.
attorney general s explanation just a few minutes ago that he interpreted the question to mean did you talk to the russians as a surrogate for the campaign about the campaign. the answer was no. question wasn t did you ever talk to russians at any time during the campaign. the public can decide for themselves because you ran the entire thing if the answer was truthful. if then senator sessions interpretation of the question was a fair one on the basis of the context. i happen to think it was. but the public will decide for themselves. this is not the type of case where a person is prosecuted for perjury. in order to succeed in a perjury prosecution, you have to include all lawful interpretations. the one that we have given is a probable and reasonable lawful one. should he have said, but i did
my friend and colleague reverend al sharpton happened exactly one month ago. moments after an arkansas state judge declared that the state s voter id law was, as reverend said, unconstitutional. as written, the law requires voter id s, bans out of state college id s, and forces voters without voter id to prove that they were too poor to get one. now, fast forward 30 days, and as msnbc.com zach roth points out, the arkansas law has twice been struck down by the same state court judge, tim fox, who ruled that it violates the state constitution s right to vote. since many arkansasans lack id and can t easily obtain one. but the state supreme court this month vacated one of those rulings saying the constitutionality question wasn t at issue in the case, and fox put the other ruling on hold while it s being appealed. that left the id measure in place for what amounted to a test run during tuesday s primaries. now, without any high profile races on the ballot voter
prompted at least one legal group to tweet at the doj, and the problems don t stop there. election officials said 80% of absentee votes in one county were disqualified because of a lack of identification wrfsh this wree minded some of painful time in the not so distant past. once upon a time we weren t allowed. they wouldn t count it. it was just like being ignored and being, well, unimportant. the question is with voter id laws in effect in more than half the country, are we moving backwards instead of forward? zach roth covers voting rights for msnbc.com. to clarify, the voter id law was legitimately in place at the time that these things weren t taking place at the poles, right? it was legitimately in place because, as you said, the rulings against it were put on hold, but it wasn t enforced properly, as you explained in