tv State of the Union With Jake Tapper CNN July 19, 2015 6:00am-7:01am PDT
moment. 2012 candidates rick santorum and rick perry are among those right on the bubble. they may or may not make the cut. perry's super pac buying national ads trying to boost his numbers. governor kasich's super pac heavily advertising now. watch those on the bubble over the next week to ten days as they look for ways to boost their poll numbers a point or three. that's it for "inside politics." again thanks for sharing your sunday morning. we'll see you soon, "state of the union" starts right now. donald trump's explosive new comments. >> he's not a war hero. >> angering veterans and his fellow republicans. is this the tipping point some in the republican establishment have been hoping for? we'll ask senator marco rubio in an exclusive interview. plus, defending the deal. >> you're going to hear a lot of overheated and often dishonest arguments. >> the president comes out swings as he fights for his
historic agreement to slow iran's nuclear ambitions. but is congress set on killing it? and, another republican joins the race to the white house. governor scott walker hits the trail in a winnebago. but is he ready for a bumpy ride? >> he's not really answering it. >> the best political team in television will be here to break it all down. good morning, everyone. i'm jake tapper in washington, d.c. where the state of our union is all atwitter. republicans and veterans buzzing over donald trump's latest comments, this time questioning the heroism of senator john mccain's 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in vietnam. >> john mccain goes, oh, boy, trump makes my life difficult. he had 15,000 crazies show up. crazies. he called them all crazy. i said, they weren't crazy. they were the brave americans.
i supported him. he lost. he let us down. but you know, he lost. so i never liked him as much after that because i don't like losers. but, but, frank -- >> he's a war hero. >> he hit me -- he's not a war hero. >> he's a war hero. >> he is a war hero because he was captured. i like people that weren't captured. okay? i hate to tell you that. he's a war hero because he was captured. okay? you can have -- and i believe perhaps he's a war hero. >> critics are piling on, especially those critics in the republican establishment who would like to see trump out of the race. and of course, his rivals, rick perry. he should immediately withdraw from the race for president. jeb bush, enough with the slanderous attacks. the republican national committee, there is no place in our party or our country for comments that disparage those who have served honorably. is this selective outrage or will this be the moment that slows trump's meteoric rise in the polls? joining us now, senator marco rubio, republican from florida
2016 nominee. thank you so much for joining us, senator. i know you've heard these comments from donald trump. governor perry says these comments disqualify trump to be commander in chief. do you agree? >> i do agree. this is not just an insult to john mccain, who clearly is a war hero, and a great man. but it's an insult to all p.o.w.s. to all men and women who have served us in uniform. who have been captured in battle. and this somehow makes the assumption or he's saying that somehow if you're captured in battle you're less worthy of honors than someone who isn't. it's not just absurd, it's offensive. it's ridiculous. and i do think it is a disqualifier as commander in scheef. >> some democrats, including hillary clinton, have criticized you and your fellow republican candidates for not speaking out more forcefully and more quickly after trump's comments about undocumented immigrants. they wonder why this firestorm about mccain, and not a firestorm about mexicans? >> well, there was. i spoke against donald trump said. but we have to remember this is a man who spent his whole life
saying outrageous things. so early in his campaign when he said something outrageous people kind of said just ignore it and move on, it will go away. this is what he does fr a living. i think now this has gone forward and he's become a more covered candidate and people pay more attention to him it's required people to be more forceful on some of these offensive things he's saying. not only did i say what he said about mexicans is not only inaccurate, it's offensive. it's not true and it's also offensive. what he said yesterday of course is offensive about john mccain and inaccurate about john mccain but it's also offensive to all p.o.w.s, the men and women who served us in uniform. especially those who served time in the hands of enemy capture and who are worthy of our admiration and respect. >> let's move on and discuss the deal president obama announced to try to contain iran's nuclear ambitions. governor scott walker says he would rip up this deal on day one, governor jeb bush says the next president would actually have to consult with his cabinet, and allies before throwing the deal out. what would president marco rubio
do? >> well, i think what people have to understand is that the american portion, the u.s. portion of the sanctions were passed by congress. they are in the law today. the way the president is going to lift those sanctions is by the use of a national security waiver. the next president of the united states simply has to undo the use of the waiver and the sanctions are already in place. and they would be reinstated. and that's what i would do as president. you don't need to have a cabinet fully formed to do that. in fact, i'm telling everyone now that if i'm elected president of the united states, we will not use the national security waiver to hold back u.s. sanctions against iran. especially not as a result of this flawed deal that he's pursuing. >> the deal, as you point out, lots of people can poke holes in it, lots of people can point out flaws. the obama administration says what's the alternative? they argue that this deal, and the sanctions, depend upon international cooperation, the russians and chinese were already talking about getting
rid of sanctions. is it not possible that this is simply the best deal any american president could have gotten? >> no, i don't think that's true. i think that the sanctions were actually forcing iran to the table. i think we should have asked for a lot more. this sanction -- this deal violates promises the president made to the american people on multiple fronts. it is not an anytime, anywhere inspection system. it is an inspection process that will require arbitration over a 24-day period or longer that iran can fight against and delay things. it actually doesn't have a snapback provision. it says if, in fact, sanctions are ever reimposed because iran violates the constricts of this deal, any of the contracts that are already in place get to stay. it will only be sanctions on future contracts. it doesn't have a real snapback provision. it also, by the way, requires us to help iran technically, economically, develop themselves as a country and become a stronger regional power. that undermines our
relationships with our other arab allies in the region and of course the state of israel. we could spend all day going through the deal and how it doesn't nearly go far enough and i think almost guarantees there will now be an arms race in the middle east. >> but what would president rubio do if allies didn't agree with it, which is what it sounds like the chinese and russians, the position they were taking, would you impose sanctions on china? or india or not sanctioning iran? >> well, first of all, i wouldn't call china and russia allies. and second i would not -- our foreign policy as a nation is not subject over what china wants to do or russia wants to do or the eu wants to do or anybody wants to do. we have our own foreign policy, it needs to be in the national security interests of the united states. i would never have entered this negotiation unless we understood up front that iran was going to stop enrichment activities, was going to stop their ballistic missile capabilities, and was going to stop sponsoring terrorism. and none of these conditions have been met. so now $150 billion is going to
be delivered to the iranian regime, which they will use a substantial portion of it to arm and support hezbollah. to help assad, and to help them carry out all sorts of terrorist activities. this to a government that has the blood of over 1,000 american servicemen on their hands because they were the ones building the ieds that killed a bunch of americans in iraq less than a decade ago. >> let's turn to another matter of foreign policy. tomorrow here in washington, d.c. the cuban embassy is going to open. this is, of course, part of president obama's efforts to normalize relations with that country. you have made it very clear you oppose normalization. you call president obama's policy a victory for oppression. what president rubio shut down the cuban embassy here in washington? >> i would end the diplomatic relations with anti-american communist tyranny until such time as they actually held a democratic opening in cuba. allowed people to organize independent political parties. have freedom of the press and freedom of expression. in fact, all these conditions are laid out in the law right
now. in the cuban democracy act. the president in his opening towards cuba is violating existing law. he is ignoring existing law. and there are a host of conditions that would have to be met before, under my administration, we would have normal relations with cuba. and that would include the return of fugitives from american justice that are now in cuba and that would require the political openings i've outlined and would also require an ending of the intelligence facilities inside of cuba by both the russians and the chinese that use the island of cuba to spy against american dpasleties in the southeast united states. >> and so i'm assuming amidst all that the u.s. -- i mean the cuban embassy in washington would be shut down because you would end -- >> look they've had an intersection there for years and that function will continue. i don't think other than their parties being better attended i'm not sure what the difference is going to be between what we had before and what we have now except that this recognition somehow sends a message to dissidents and others around the world that the united states accepts the cuban form of government today as a legitimate
form of government. i do not. i believe the people of cuba deserve what everyone else in the western mem us fear has, democracy. >> let's turn to immigration for a second. i know this might be a bit awkward because you just defended him very strongly, but senator john mccain had some not so nice words for you in a recent interview with the new yorker magazine the two of you worked to the on immigration reform in the senate of course but when asked about your leadership style mccain quote licked his finger, held it up in the air and laughed, referring to which way the wind blows. he said rubio backed away from it. i wanted to give you an opportunity to respond. >> that's just john mccain being john mccain. at the end of the day that bill had no chance to pass in the house. i repeatedly warned people working with me, you can go back and see the roord, i told them if this bill is not stronger on the enforcement front i will go nowhere. that's exactly how it played out. and as a result we've made no progress on immigration reform. i warned everybody about that during that process. every time i would warn people about it they said i was trying to unravel the process. i was being honest with them. there is no way this bill was
going to pass unless the enforcement aspects of it were clearer and stronger. they were not strong enough. that's why today we have less votes for that bill than we did even two years ago. and that's why, while i continue to want to move forward on immigration, i know that the only way we can move forward on it is to first secure our borders, prevent visa overstays and have an e-verify system. and only after we do that can we do the other two things i believe we need to do, modernize our legal immigration system and deal with those who have been here for a long time illegally, in a reasonable and responsible way. >> let's talk about the way to deal with people who have been here for a long time in a responsible and reasonable way. i want to play the quick exchange you had with a voter last month in new hampshire. >> do you support a path to citizenship for immigrants who are in the united states but are here illegally? >> i do. but first we have to do two things. >> and obviously those two things, securing the border, and the e-verify system. that's still your position, though, a path to citizenship once those other things have
been taken care of? >> yeah. what i said is if all we can get is a work permit it is better than what we have now. there are some who do not support that. you have to understand what a path to citizenship is. i don't think that's ever carefully explained. before you can ever be a citizen you have to be a permanent resident. that means a green card and you have to be in that status forethree to five years. i argued if you violated our laws you should not be allowed to apply for a green card for at least ten years and then when you apply for a green card you should have to do it through the normal, regular process, not through a special process created for you. so it could take a long time for someone to ultimately apply for citizenship. but i think that's a fair way to do it. it should not be cheaper or faster to become a citizen by having come here illegally. but ultimately, it's my opinion, and i understand some people disagree, that you don't want millions of people permanently living in this country who can never become americans. but if the best we can do is to start with the green card process or the work permit
process, that's still better than what we have now. >> you seem to be a big chasm in economic policy that came out over the last few days i wanted to ask you about. secretary of state former secretary of state hillary clinton took on what she called the sharing economy, companies such as uber and lyft that use contractors, not employees. in your book you have a chapter entitled making america safe for uber, and you're embracing these companies. what's wrong with hillary clinton's push to encourage companies like uber to offer health insurance, offer benef benefits? >> because she's trying to apply 20th century constricts to a 21st century innovative industry. we face this over and over again. we're trying to regulate internet development the way we regulated telephony, you know, telephone systems 20 years ago. you cannot regulate 21st century industries with 20th century ideas. the pace of innovation is too quick. if i had to explain to you what uber was five years ago it would
have been impossible. ten years ago, completely impossible. the pace of change is so fast that the ability of government to keep up with it, it just can't. and her take on air bnb, lyft, uber, these sorts of things, is a perfect example of someone who's trapped in the past, and cannot understand how much the world is changing, and how much it's going to change in the years to come economically. >> senator marco rubio. thank you so much. >> thank you. president obama announced his landmark nuclear deal with iran, but it does not include bringing u.s. hostages home. why not? i'll ask the secretary of state john kerry, next.
t-mobile now extends your coverage beyond the borders at no extra charge. get 4g lte data, unlimited calls and texts in mexico and canada just like in the u.s. that's coverage in three countries for the price of one. only from t-mobile. it's time to bid farewell... to this booking incredible island resort. and it's incredible island staff. (father:) i can't imagine life without them. this is not goodbye. ♪ yes, it is. ♪ (father:) no, it isn't... ♪ ok, i guess it's not. ♪ you got it booking right. booking.com booking.yeah i am totally blind. and sometimes i struggle to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day.
hp helps business move on all the possibilities of today. and stay ready for everything that is still to come. iran's supreme leader ayatollah khamenei called the landmark nuclear deal announced this week a victory for iran. khamenei's endorsement will not soothe critics here in america or u.s. allies such as saudi arabia or israel. as president obama faces a tough battle on capitol hill to defend this deal, it's american ark secretary secretary of state john kerry, secretary of energy, ernest moniz insist there is simply no viable alternative. so it was just a few days ago
that the chairman of the joint chiefs testified before congress that lifting the ballistic missile or provincial arms embargo from iran, that lifting it would be a horrible idea that was within the same context of testimony that iran had killed, an estimated 500 americans. why is lifting the embargo part of this deal? >> we're not lifting it. it has eight years of a ten-year component of the u.n. resolution. eight years it will be applied, and we have other u.n. resolutions and other mechanisms for holding iran accountable on missiles. but the simple reality is, jake, this u.n. process that started the-that allowed the sanctions to be put in place in the first place, contemplated the lifting of all sanctions, once iran had lived up to its obligations with respect to the mpt. so if the iaea found in "x" number of years that they've
lived up to this, then all the sanctions would be gone. so we, in fact, succeeded against three countries that didn't think they should do anything. so we have a lot of measures, and the united states always has the ability to take action unilaterally or otherwise with respect to other activity. >> why i'm confused about this secretary moniz is because when i interviewed you in april, and i asked about the four americans being held in iran against their will, three that we know, one we don't know what happened to him, and you said the following -- >> what i want to emphasize is, this negotiation was intentionally restricted to the nuclear issue, yet the nuclear bomb issue off the table, we hope, for a long time. that has other implications, so for example, things like arms embargoes, ballistic missile sanctions, those stay in place, strictly focused on the nuclear issues. >> that doesn't seem to have been what happened. >> well, i think the part of the agreement that is absolutely critical is that, of course, which allows us to "a," prevent
a weapon and to have visibility in to any activity in direction. and with regard to the americans unjustly held or missing, again, the secretary, i was there, every meeting, this was always raised, and remains, i think an area of considerable focus. >> i don't doubt that for a second. but when i asked you about it you said look this is just focused on the nuclear issue. we're not dealing with anything else, including hostages, including arms embargoes. and it looks like since that happened, the iranian got to include something that was extraneous, and we did not when it came to our hostages. >> well of course the arms embargo, and i will defer to john, but the arms embargo is something that was directly tied to the nuclear performance. >> it was not -- it was already in there. the arms embargo, and the missile were put in when 1929 the resolution was passed. >> what do you say when you hear
that prince bandar, the longtime former ambassador from saudi arabia said that this deal, quote, will wreak havoc in the middle east. as you know, there are a lot of countries, sunni/arab countries, israel, that are very worried that this is actually a bad deal for peace in the region. >> well, we disagree with them very, very much. i disagree with him. but i just yesterday met with the foreign minister of saudi arabia, who said on television that if the -- they want a deal, and if the deal does the things, the list of things the deal does, they would feel very comfortable with it. the fact is that the real fear of that region should be that you don't have the deal. if congress doesn't have pass this, if congress were to kill this, then we have no inspections, we have no sanctions, we have no ability to negotiate because i assure you, the ayatollah, if the united states arbitrarily and unilater unilaterally kills this, you're not going to have another
negotiation. and they will feel free to go do the very things that this prevents. >> i've spoken to a lot of experts. once who wanted this deal to be good, who were rooting for you, and they say the best case scenario is that over the next 15 years, with the $100 billion from the money that has no -- that will no longer be covered under sanctions, iranians will be closer to the capacity to build a nuclear weapon with the $100 billion that they now will have after sanctions are lifted, and they'll have done it all under the guise of international law. >> you see, the reason that's not accurate about what will happen is that today we don't have those inspections. either we do now under the interim agreement. but we didn't. we didn't have the ability to know what they were doing. and guess what, my friend, iran had 12,000 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, and -- and that's enough if they enriched it further for 10 to 12 bombs.
they had it. that's what barack obama was dealt as a hand when he came in. 19,000 centrifuges already spinning. a country that had already mastered the fuel cycle. a country that already was threshold in the sense that they are only two months away from breakout. so we're expanding that breakout from those two months to one year, for ten years and longer. and we have lifetime inspection, adherence to the yea. adherence to the advanced protocol. 25 years of tracking and monitoring their uranium from mining to milling, to yellow cake to gas to centrifuge to waste. that's unprecedented. and we would not have had that wut this agreement. >> last time i saw you, sir, i did ask if you had any inklings of getting back in the presidential campaign. >> none. >> mode? >> zero. absolutely none whatsoever. i have a great job. we have a lot of work to do next year and a half, and i'm looking forward to it. >> that's about as close to shermanesque as i think it gets.
thank you so much. >> you're welcome. >> when we come back, the newest republican presidential candidate governor scott walker cruising in his winnebago through iowa. that is not to say he doesn't hit a speed bump or two. >> i have an opinion on every single issue out there. i mean to me that's -- i don't know. i don't know the answer to that question. when you travel, we help you make all kinds of connections. connections you almost miss. and ones you never thought you'd make. we help connect where you are. to places you never thought you'd go. this, is why we travel. and why we continue to create new technology to connect you to the people and places that matter.
ranking from top to bottom. car company of the year? luxury cars just seem like they would be top awarded. yeah. there better be some awards behind what you are paying for right? the final answer. chevrolet is the most awarded car company of the year. really? i was just surprised. i'm interested to learn more about chevy. let's check out these 2015 chevy's. it's like a luxury car. i was shocked. i mean, this is chevy?
(wat(birds chirping) sure! i offer multi-car, safe driver, and so many other discounts that people think i'm a big deal. and boy, are they right. ladies, i can share hundreds in savings with all of you! just visit progressive.com today. but right now, it's choosing time. ooh! we have a winner. all: what? [chuckles] he's supposed to pick one of us. this is a joke, right? that was the whole point of us being here.
wisconsin governor scott walker entered the presidential race this week. at the top of the polls in neighboring iowa, at least, the first in the nation caucus state where his midwestern roots and conservative positions seem to be resonating. he spent this week crisscrossing the hawkeye state in a winnebago with cnn's own dana bash in tow. dana? >> well, jake, i was, in fact, invited on scott walker's rv. he was racing between campaign stops in iowa, and while we were
there i asked him about his comment that he would tear up the iran nuclear deal on day one of his presidential, and whether that's realistic. would you be willing to go ahead and do away with this deal, increase sanctions, even if all of the other allies around the world, really, were opposed to that? >> yes. i think it's that bad of a deal. it's a bad deal for us. it's a bad deal for israel. it's a bad deal for the region. i will not -- it's not just the starting gun, it will accelerate the nuclear arms race, and it is a powering iran to do what they're going to do by lifting the sanctions, giving them credibility in the world, not only emboldens the problems that we have in terms of the illicit nuclear infrastructure but this is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. >> but the u.s. can't lead in a vacuum, right? >> no. and we certainly would not want to. our intention would not be to do it alone. i would seek to get the support of congress not just to reinstate the existing sanctions, but to replace more crippling ones and i think if
america would lead and make the case as to why these sanctions are needed, and why we need to petition in that regard -- >> the reason the sanctions were so beneficial, and so effective, is because the whole world joined in on them. >> exactly. >> if the u.s. was going it alone with sanctions, iran would say, all right, u.s., whatever, we can still trade with everybody else. so it wouldn't really work, would it? >> well, i mean there are still fundamental parts related to the united states. and again the united states putting sanctions, it would have an impact on them. so they'd have to consider what impact it would have on relations that they do with iran and what that would impact to have on their own account. >> earlier this week you said that the boy scouts of america should keep its ban on gay leaders because the policy protected children and scout values and then your campaign clarified to say that it was really protecting the scouts from the political and media discussion about that. i'm having trouble understanding that. what -- at the end of the day what is your position? >> i'm not talking about
personal protection. i'm talking about, for me the reason why i didn't have a problem with it is i think it pulled scouting into a whole larger political and cultural debate as opposed to saying scouting is about camping and citizenship and merit badge and service awards instead of pulling all these other issues out there. and i just hope we stay focused. that's all. >> so, but should there be a ban on allowing gay men to be scout leaders? >> that's up to the people who run the boy scouts. one thing that people find unique, i guess, whether you like it or not, is i actually answer questions. people ask me a question, i'll answer a question -- >> you're not really answering this one. >> i said this is what i thought. i thought the policy was just fine. when i was in scouts it was fine. you're asking what should the policy be going forward? it should be left up to the leaders of the skous. >> do you think that being gay is a choice? >> oh, i mean i think -- that's not even an issue for me to be involved in. the bottom line is, i'm going to stand up and work hard for every american regardless of who they are no matter where they come
from. no matter what their background. i'm going to fight for people whether they vote for me or not. >> -- on behalf of people to do that properly you have to understand or at least have an opinion on who they are and where they're coming from. >> but again, i think -- no i don't have an opinion on every single issue out there. i mean to me that's -- i don't know. i don't know the answer to that question. so i'm saying i don't know what the answer to that is. and i'm going to spend my time focused on things that i do know and what i can work on. >> you have taken an interesting position in that you say that legal immigration should be limited. why is that? and does that -- you know some people might look at that and say that's completely counter to what america was founded on. >> what i specifically said is i think priority under legal immigration should be given to the impact on american working families, on their wages in a way that will improve the american economy. that only means people like me who were born here, that means people like the woman i just met in cedar rapids, for example, who moved here many years ago,
was a political refugee in the congo and who went through the process to be a legal citizen. she is working here. and i believe for her and for others who were born here, there needs to be a priority given to say we're going to do things that makes sure we put priority on american working families and their wages. doesn't mean there won't ever be legal immigration. just says that's where our priority should be. >> you want path to citizenship for undocumented american citizenship and now you say you believe in amnesty. you're running as somebody who is principled and authentic. how do you square changing your positions or at least the impression your positions have changed. let me read you one quick thing craig robinson who is the former director of the party here in iowa, the republican party, said walker is making romney look like the model of consistency. >> the only issue where i've clearly said i had a position before and even on that as a governor i didn't have a role to play in immigration. i said there should be a path years ago, when i talked about going forward with legal immigration. i didn't talk about amnesty.
i said in that specific interview i oppose the gang of five, the measure that marco rubio and others proposed. i explicitly then said i'm not supporting that. but i said flat out in the interview, you heard the beginning of the year, that's the position i have changed on, by listening to people, i made it very clear what my position on immigration is. s. >> dana bash on scott walker's rv. somewhere between cedar rapids and urbandale. don't go anywhere, dana. we're going to bring in the rest of the panel. we're going to talk trump. will this latest comments give republicans an excuse to try to push him off the debate stage? stay with us. equals great rates. it's a fact. kind of like shopping hungry equals overshopping.
cnn's dana bash and congressman william hurd of texas. thanks one and all for being here. one of the big controversial provisions that's not in this deal is this anywhere, anytime provision. what the administration says, the obama administration says in response is, look, this 24-day leeway period we can find, intelligence officials tell us, we can find if there were nuclear materials there even 24 days later. you're a former cia agent. is that true? is 24 days, will we still be able to detect? >> it shouldn't be 24 days. anytime, anywhere means just that. and you know, the problem with this deal is that there's been absolutely no confidence building measures with iran. how can we trust them to do what they say they're going to do? and being able to get in to see their facilities at any time, any place, make sure that we understand what's going on. >> but is it possible that the radiation detectors will be able to find out if they've been up to no good even 24 days later? >> i'm sure in some forms it can. you can move a lot of material
in 24 days, as well. >> dana, where is this on the hill right now? >> in trouble. and when i say that what i mean is i think it seems to be clear, unless the administration really performs a miracle, that there are votes to initially, if they want to, say that they don't agree with this and that it shouldn't go through. the question is whether or not there is a veto dr. prooch majority to do that. that is what the administration is working incredibly hard to try to push. and you know, this really is a bipartisan thing, because there are democrats with republicans who are very much opposed to this. the administration had jewish americans in -- jewish members of congress rather in the situation room this past week. they're going after, i mean probably they have a list of every member of congress who was 5'5" and under. they have little groups of members trying desperately to go piece by piece to try to lobby them and they have their work cut out for them. >> this is a major international agreement. with any international agreement
there are pluses and minuses. on the plus side i do believe that the administration will be able to keep the democrats 152 house democrats signed an agreement basically with the framework saying that they like the outlines of a deal. now clearly the administration will have to continue to maintain the strong support not just of the democrats in the house, but also the senate. i was telling dana i've been a great fan and support and yes i'm a fan of the administration, support the president. i've never been lobbied as much as i've been lobbied over the last couple of days. the good news is that they're giving us information. credible information not just about the inspections, not just about the lifting of the sanctions, the amount of money, whether or not iran will become a, you know, a good playner the region, they're giving us information and i'm sure they're giving it to those of us who are talkers. they're giving it to members of congress and the staff as they go back this summer and come back to support this bill. >> -- at his press conference about this and you say a president who was engaging in a
fight. he did want to talk about criticism when the reporters didn't come up with enough criticism he said hey let's think of some other criticisms that i can address here. you don't see a present usually asking for criticism. and the reason i think is because, finally, for him, after many months, even a year or more of being on the defensive on issues that weren't of his creation or weren't of his desire to talk about, irs, or benghazi, or isis, he's talking about something that he is at least something he wants to talk about. something he hopes will be a positive legacy in the long-term. that's a debate he wants to have. >> there are a lot of democrats, congressman, who say republicans are just going to oppose obama on anything. and so we're not surprised that they're opposing him on this. >> there's a lot of democrats that are opposing him on this, as well. i think a bad move was taking this to the u.n. before getting an agreement from your entire -- from the entire government. that's something that has frustrated a lot of democrats in congress. and so, at the end of the day
they've never known any information why would the iranians actually agree to this? they've agreed to these measures before. the iaea, the u.n. watchdog has done 30 inspections from 2003 to 2010. and they found out that the iranians were lying to them and that caused four more sanctions going forward. so the iranians have done this before and we have no information, no confidence building measures that say that they're not going to do it again. >> let's take a quick break. republicans rushing to condemn donald trump after his latest comments anger veterans. who still has his back? the answer might surprise you. big day? ah, the usual. moved some new cars. hauled a bunch of steel.
kept the supermarket shelves stocked. made sure everyone got their latest gadgets. what's up for the next shift? ah, nothing much. just keeping the lights on. (laugh) nice. doing the big things that move an economy. see you tomorrow, mac. see you tomorrow, sam. just another day at norfolk southern. everywhere you look, it strategy is now business strategy.?
and a partnership with hp can help you accelerate down a path created by people, technology and ideas. to move your company from what it is now... to what it needs to become. iran keeps their nuclear facilities. military sites can go uninspected. restrictions end after 10 years. then iran could build a nuclear weapon in two months. iran has violated 20 international agreements and is the leading state sponsor of terrorism.
plaque psoriasis. moderate to severe isn't it time to let the real you shine through? introducing otezla, apremilast. otezla is not an injection, or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss.
your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your doctor about otezla today. otezla. show more of you. you know, i recognize that
folks in the press love to see republican-on-republican violence. and so you want me to say something bad about donald trump or bad about john mccain or bad about anyone else. i'm not going to do it. >> republican presidential candidate senator dead cruz of texas refusing to pile on to the donald trump scenario as so many of his rivals seem to do. rather, enthusiastically yesterday, and earlier in the show. let's talk all over with our roundtable. peter, let me ask you this, i could have predicted, i feel, that trumps going to say something controversial and the entire republican establishment was going to jump on him. i didn't know what it was going to be. but boy does the rnc want him away. >> because every minute we're talking about donald trump and some outrageous thing he said, "a," it cheapens the process. it makes it look like a reality show rather than a serious, sober contest for the presidency of the united states. and, "b," it means we're not talking about all the failings that president obama, that
they'd like to talk about. they'd like to get out there and talk about how this administration and his former secretary of state hillary clinton have failed in this way and that way. instead they're talking about, you know, donald trump and the latest crazy thing that he might have said. >> except to play devil's advocate. he has brought up the issue of immigration that a lot of republicans are worried about talking about, but a lot of the base loved to talk about. >> there's a very -- i want to say something that may be counterintuitive in that, historical historically, you just don't go there. you don't go there against any veteran, certainly not somebody effectively in a box for five years. john mccain can't even lift his arms because he was tortured and because his bones didn't heal right after his plane crash.
having said that, i think there's a big ge part of the electorate that isn't that offended by these comments because they are equally frustrated with the john mccains of the world on the issue of immigration. i think a few years ago it would have been lights out donald trump. i'm not so sure that's the case. >> let me ask you about that -- congressman hurd, i want to ask you as the republican at the table. i have heard from a lot of democrats who only 11 years ago in 2004 when john kerry was the nominee of the democratic party -- let's see if we can show the pictures -- the republican national convention. there's somebody with a band-aid that is representing -- mocking john kerry's three purple hearts and one of the standard bearers of the republican party came on cnn and said this. >> with three purple hearts, never bled that i know of. all superficial wounds. >> bob dole went on to walk those comments back a little. is there a double standard here?
republicans say there's no place in our party that disparage those who serve honorably. well, unless you're a democrat sf. >> you don't criticize anybody's service. somebody that is willing to go overseas, put their lives in harm's way in order for all of us to sleep well at night, i don't disparage that. i don't care what party you're in. >> i totally agree with the congressman. yet, i remember 2004. i think the republicans are struggling with excommunicating donald trump and some republicans are trying to embrace him, just in case he drops out, they want to accrue those votes. they have a branding problem with hispanics and have been working on it for years the republicans. now comes this big celebrity with a huge following because he's standing up to the establishment, but he's also blocking i think some of the sunshine that some of the other republicans like mr. kasich, mr. rubio and others, they would like to have this moment in the sun so they can qualify for the
first debate. >> let me turn to another enter party warfare, a democratic party. there was a net roots nation convention, a gathering of liberal activists in phoenix and a moment where former maryland governor martin o'malley was shouted down when he said "a.m.: wake-up call" lives matter" in connection with black lives matter. >> every life matters and that's why this issue is so important. black lives matter, white lives matter. all lives matter. >> black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter. >> i read a column on a liberal blog that he was using the language of white supremacy. why would somebody be mad saying "all lives matter?" >> i don't approve or condone shouting down anyone. i believe when these
presidential candidates come, they want to be heard. clearly i like the back and forth. that being said, there's a real cry out there, a cry from a generation that wants to be heard, that feel crushed by the street violence that they're experiencing, and the unjust police tactics that they're also experiencing. so they want to be heard and they don't want to be grouped together with all lives matter. they want candidates to understand their pain, their frustration. they've attended too many funerals, and they're not going to allow candidates to come in and pander without addressing these issues. one in particular is the woman killed while -- i don't know the circumstances, so i apologize for that. >> ms. bland who was really one of the heroes behind black lives matter. there's a lot of frustration. i would advise candidates, democrats and republicans to figure out what's going on. if they decide to go on the stage and not address these issues, they will shout them down. >> figure out what's going on, good words to live by.
peter, donna, congressman, dana, thank you. after the break, join me at my giant wall of cartoons for this week's "state of the cartoon union." i am totally blind. and sometimes i struggle to sleep at night, and stay awake during the day. this is called non-24. learn more by calling 844-824-2424. or visit your24info.com. devhighest quality,the clinically proven nutrition isn't easy, so at gnc, why do we do it? why do we include key ingredients found in
over the weekend, the president took on the broadway show "hamilton" based on alexander hamilton, long remembered for his death by duel with vice president aaron burr. the most persistent reminder of his place in history is up for debate. he may have to pay the price. this week's "state of the cartoon union." american currency from your george washingtons to your ben franklins. it seems you don't have to be president to get on a greenback, you just have to be an old dead white guy, historically important, of course. but now we're told the u.s. government is moving to bring a woman into the mix. we're told it will start with the $10 bill, founding father alexander hamilton will have to
share it with some lucky female historical figures. others dream of a permanent replacement. andrew jackson nicknamed indian killer with sacagawea. on the rarely used $100,000 is president woodrow wilson, also something of a nasty racist. let's put his contemporary, suf rah gist alice paul on that bill. while we all love benjamin franklin, it's pretty clear he already gets plenty of love. what if abolitionists and women's rights activists sojourner truth. thanks for spending your sunday morning