tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC April 13, 2017 1:00am-2:01am PDT
it sounds like a pasta, i know. but it's not. it's a combined jumble of abbreviations for california, nevada and arizona. calnevari. it has 2 or 300 people in it. it's on route 95. it's way out in the desert but it's an identifiable, memorable place, where california, nevada and arizona come together on the nap, hence the name, calnevari. now, there's a place that has that same function on the map. all the way around the world in syria as well.
it doesn't have the same catchy name. it's a placed call al-tanf. it's inside syria but it is right at the corner where the borders of jordan, iraq and syria come together in a dry angle point. and as such, it's an important spot. it is really remote. it is way out there in the syrian desert but it's close to that three-way border between those three countries and it's also right on the main road that runs from baghdad in iraq to damascus in syria. when isis controlled big swaths of iraq and syria, so much so that they obliterated the border, that spot, al tanf was considered to be an important supply line for isis for isis-controlled cities in iraq and the ones in syria.
again, it's called al tanf. it's a well-known place, sort of on the map internationally. not just because it defines that triangle, not just because it's tucked in that strategic country where those three countries meet. it's a high-profile spot because that's where u.s. troops are based in syria. it's not the oy place but it's one of them. the united states has about a thousand servicemen and women on the ground in syria the new administration has quietly arranged to send hundreds more into syria but because they have abandoned the practice of previous administrations of making announcement about those troop deployments, we don't know much about where the new americans are going. we know that several hundred
u.s. marines set up an artillery base several weeks ago. we know, of course, u.s. pilots are flying bombing raids against isis targets in syria basically every day. but the biggest, longest standing compliment of u.s. troops in syria are the special operations troops. and special operators will sometimes do raids themselves on high-value targets. but their primary mission and what they spend most of their time doing is arming and training and assisting some of the rebels that are fighting in the syrian civil war, rebels that specifically are fighting against isis. and even though these are special operations forces who are doing this work and special operations stuff is often secret, this mission, this arm and train and assist mission is not entirely a secret. it's a known and widely reported thing, for example, that one of the bases that u.s. forces are operating from to do this kind of work is a small base in southern syria that's right at that calnevari spot between iraq and jordan and syria, that little base called al tanf.
well, on friday, syria time, when the new administration decided to shoot tomahawk missiles, that was not an abstract thing for these hundreds of u.s. service members who were on the ground in syria. "the wall street journal," nbc news, stars and stripes, a few other outlets have now reported that when those u.s. missiles were shot into syria, the u.s. special operations troops who specifically were based at that little base in al tanf, when those missile strikes were launched thursday night east coast time, friday morning in syria, those special operations troops left. they left their base. it's not a secret that they are there. the united states has been bombing isis targets in syria, thousands of air strikes.
the u.s. had some military presence and involvement in syria all the way back to september of 2014. in all of that time, though, the u.s. has not had american pilots shot out of the sky by syrian aircraft. by syrian ground-to-air defense systems. the u.s. has not had troops on the ground to attack wholesale either. american forces have been able to mount what are now sustained military operations of various kinds inside syria all this time, all the way back to 2014 because the u.s. has not become a combatant in that country's civil war. we have said all this time that our troops are only there to, yes, occasionally fight isis ourselves but mostly to help other people fight isis inside syria. and that limited u.s. mission is
what has created room to operate and u.s. service members that have been in this very dangerous place in the middle of this bloody civil war for years now doing this work. and that political weather changed all of a sudden. on thursday night, washington time, which was friday morning in syria, that whole political arrangement changed. that whole weather system blew out and another one blew in. and that had a very significant material consequence for dozens of american operations troops who real quick had to get out of that base at al tanf because with ordering that missile strike, the united states government changed its policy position 180 degrees all of a sudden and now the u.s. military is in syria to attack the syrian military. so that changes the proverbial weather for american forces in syria that day. they are already in a dangerous place but that changed the weather in which they operated
from stormy to hurricane instantly. if there was going to be a retaliation for that u.s. missile strike, if there was going to be retaliation by the syrian military or by the russian military, if they were going to come after u.s. forces in retaliation for that missile strike, it suddenly became very important in very practical terms that the united states should not have a known base full of dozens of american elite troops sitting there inside syria with a bull's eye on them waiting to be attacked because everybody knows they are there. and so when that missile strike happened, these u.s. special operations troops left al tanf quickly and took off into the
desert so they wouldn't be sitting ducks on that base and they waited for whatever retaliation might come. in fact, after the special operators left their base and went out into the desert, all hell did break loose. but it was not a bombing raid by syrian planes or by russian planes. turns out it was a car bomb at the base. isis fighters rolled the car bomb up to the entry to al tanf, to that u.s. base, and blew the gates open and then streamed in. u.s. military is describing 20 to 30 isis fighters, some of them wearing suicide vests, they used a car bomb to blow the gate, breached the perimeter, got inside, started to overrun that u.s. base in southern syria. now, the u.s. special operations troops who have been based there, they had left. they had gone out into the desert but some were there at the base. centcom says three were killed in the resulting fire fight. once the battle got started, it
wasn't just syrians against syrians or isis against isis. according to multiple reports, that u.s. special operations forces who had hunkered down in the desert to try to avoid whatever retaliation might come from the missile strike, once the fire fight started at their base, they came screaming back out of the desert to try to save that base. and what followed, we're told, was about three hours of an extraordinary close combat fire fight between these 20 to 30 isis fighters and dozens of u.s. special operators who are based at that base in southern syria. apparently the fighting culminated and the u.s. troops calling in multiple air strikes to hit the isis guys and thereby save that outpost. in the end, these u.s. forces were able to take it back. they won that battle they saved that base. but as i mentioned, centcom has now confirmed some of their
allies were killed in the fight. the pentagon is calling this a serious fight. they are describing it as a rare, extended, close quarters battle between u.s. troops and a large number of isis fighters. one defense department official tells stars and stripes, this was a coordinated, complex attack. american military families who have loved ones serving overseas on the ground in syria, they know acutely, right, obviously, that that's a very seriously risky place for any american to be serving right now. but with that missile strike, with the united states with that missile strike becoming a whole different kind of combatant in this six-year-long civil war, with that missile strike launched thursday night, u.s. time, friday syria time, with that strike, all of a sudden the threat environment in which the u.s. troops are serving in syria, their threat environment changed dramatically. again, this is not an academic thing or broad-scale generic
assessment. this is about specific americans. these are dozens of americans operating out of that base at al tanf. that missile strike put those americans in a position of having to ultimately fight tooth and nail for hours in close combat, ultimately with air support just to hold on to that base. today, the new president did an interview on the fox business channel where in the middle of that interview he volunteered and sort of an awkward new thought about syria. i should tell you, i'm going to play what he said here but it's also awkward how they broadcasted it. they covered it with a fancy cable tv animation. you can hear what he says here. >> we're not going into syria. >> so this was not the response to a question. this is the start of their segment. we're not going into syria.
now, i don't know if by "we" he means -- i don't know who he means. we the trump family. if by "we" he means the united states military isn't going into syria, that doesn't make sense because the united state military is already in syria in pretty big numbers and that makes these comments today, these sort of volunteered out of nowhere comments about syria, it makes them a strange thing to hear. >> just so you understand, we're not going into syria. just so you understand, we're not going into syria. now, are we going to get involved with syria? no. >> no? we already are involved with syria. if by involved you mean hundreds of brave americans risking their lives there every day. i mean, this president, any president, right, as commander in chief of the armed forces, that includes u.s. troops involved in syria as we speak
tonight and the administration's actions in syria just over the last few days have already raised the mortal stakes for those americans immensely. >> now, are we going to get involved with syria? no. >> no. >> as this new administration strides into the middle of some of the most complex stuff on earth, for a lot of americans, statements like that from the president today, they bring about kind of a gut-check moment on whether or not our government, the only government we've got, whether they've got a handle on the bases, whether they understand the bases, whether they can, of course, do the basic stuff that an american government ought to be able to do. in that same interview today, the president told fox news that in the last call that he had with the president of china, he said the chinese president walked him through thousands of
years of history between china and korea. he said -- this is what he said. "he explains thousands of years of history with korea. not that easy. in other words, not as simple as people would think." which presumablwhat he means is not as simple as he thought it w. but now that the president of china has explained it to him, it's not that complicated. the president is learning basic history from the president of china in a phone call is not ideal in terms of this gut-check moment as to whether the government knows what it is doing. but worrying about one person, even if that one person is the president, that's an easier thing than worrying about the government more broadly, right? and this isn't a one-man worry. there are also gut-check questions now on days like today in the news about how the whole
u.s. government operates and whether basic minimum standards are something that they can handle or that they even have an interest in attempting. for example, on that call with the president of readout of the call, a readout of what was discussed between the two readers. this is how it's done when presidents have discussions with each other, it's never a personal matter. that's literally international relations and there's a national interest in knowing what happened in those calls, there's a basic expectation that there will be note takers and an official record of what happened in that call and a public statement of what was discussed between these two leaders. that's how it's done. for obvious reasons, that's how it's done to make sure everybody is on the same page, nobody misunderstands something that happened, nobody
mischaracterizes something that happened and nobody starts a war. we had a conversation, we agree this is what was said and what was decided. that's how you do it. after this call today between the chinese president and our president, the chinese president released a lengthy readout. this isn't all of it. the chinese president d hi u.s. counterpart had a telephone conversation, they discussed the situation on the korean peninsula. president xi said china sticks to the target to the denuclearization and president xi said any use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. he asked for teams from the united states and china is achieved so they can achieve fruitful results. they ended up discussions and reached an important discussion on bilateral relations and blah, blah, blah. it goes on and on and on about all of these points of detail and all of these points of discussion. that's what these readouts were like. that's what happened in that
call. here was the american readout today of what happened in that call. here it is. president donald trump spoke with president xi of china to follow up after president xi's visit to mar-a-lago. it was a very productive call. that's the official u.s. government readout of what happened on that call. from the press secretary. seriously, that was it. that's it. and that -- that's not like taking a test and getting the answers wrong. that is like showing up to take a test and you're not wearing pants and they won't let you in. this is not even trying to meet the basic standards of what even a lousy government does in basic international relations. easy stuff. when it comes to expectations not just for how any country
will behave but for how the u.s. government will behave specifically, there's another thing to understand about how they are blowing it, how they are just doing it wrong. and the best we can hope here is they are just ignorant and screwing up because if they are doing it this way on purpose, we need to have a whole different conversation and that story is next. hey allergy muddlers are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? try zyrtec® it's starts working hard at hour one and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec® and muddle no more®. lwho's the lucky lady? i'm going to the bank, to discuss a mortgage. ugh, see, you need a loan, you put on a suit, you go crawling to the bank. this is how i dress to get a mortgage. i just go to lendingtree. i calculate how much home i can afford. i get multiple offers to compare side by side. and the best part is... the banks come crawling to me. everything you need to get a better mortgage.
the dictator is meeting with then secretary of state condoleezza rice during the george w. bush administration. during their meeting, the american press corps was on the outskirts of the photo op between condi rice and andrea mitchell began to ask questions which is what they do but the sudanese did not like that and started shouting at the reporter. watch the way the u.s. people in the room responded. watch how the state department responded. >> don't ever touch our journalists again.
>> did you catch that? we put a subtitle on that so you can catch that. i want to replay this. this is one of the american people on the trip with the secretary of state and watch -- just watch what he does when the sudanese start pushing around the reporters. just watch. what happened in sudan in 2005 is that andrea mitchell shouts out this question. the sudanese grab her and she gets thrown out. and this official from the u.s. state department steps up, as you saw there, never touch our journalists again. now, that was news itself when it happened.
but after that happened, the secretary of state at the time, condoleezza rice to her credit but also because it's what you expect of an american secretary of state, she made a huge issue of this on her trip. she demanded an apology from the sudanese government, assurances that this would never happen again and she's not just sticking up for an american citizen who was grabbed and thrown around by a foreign government but also standing up for the american ideal of how a reporter gets treated even if they are not used to treating with respect or allowing them to ask questions. that's the way we expect a secretary of state to deal with something like this. it doesn't have to be a physical altercation. fast forward to 2016, andrea mitchell in cuba. you may remember when president obama and raul castro appeared side by side. castro held obama's arm up and obama wouldn't put his fist in the air. it was a strange thing.
part of the difficulty even before that failed attempt of that photo op was because president obama stood up for american reporters. in this case again, andrea mitchell when she was ignored and then insulted by raul castro. president obama called on andrea mitchell to ask a question that was directed at both president obama and president castro. president obama answers first and then this is what happened when he finished up his answer and raul castro didn't want to answer andrea's question, frankly because he's not used to having to answer any reporters' questions. >> i have faith in people. cubans meet americans and they are meeting and talking and interacting and doing business together and going to school together and learning from each other. people are people.
and in that context, i believe that change will occur. now i'm done but i think andrea had a question for you just about your vision. it's up to you and he did say he was only going to take one question and i was going to take two, but i leave it up to you if you want to address that question. >> por favor. >> andrea is one of our most esteemed journalists in american and i'm sure she would appreciate a short, brief answer. >> andrea? >> mr. president. he's going to ignore andrea mitchell and he said, she's one of our esteemed journalists. raul castro is not happy about it but that's how the u.s. government usually handles foreign leaders disrespect,
foreign leaders disregard of american reporters and the whole idea of a free press. that's what we expect of american secretaries of state because we have a free press in this country and ostensibly the united states believes there should be a free press everywhere and part of that, part of the basic way we do that is that our government officials, particularly somebody like the president or secretary of state, they model what it means to respect the free press, respond to the free press. that means in part standing up for american reporters when our government goes abroad and leaders from other countries disrespect them. well, today, the new secretary of state rex tillerson went to moscow where the putin government has increasingly taken overall forms of the media. at the start of a photo op on the edge of the proceedings, a
lot of people thought what happened here was actually andrea mitchell again because of andrea's reputation for asking tough questions in difficult environments but this wasn't andrea mitchell. it was carol "the washington post." she started out a question as american reporters do and the russian foreign minister responded by staring her down, yli at her and insulting her. and watch how rex tillerson reacted. >> mr. secretary, the russians don't believe the intelligence -- >> who is -- who was bringing you up? who was giving you your manners, you know? >> rex tillerson smiles and puts on his glasses. we had that subtitled as andrea mitchell but it was carol.
but the reaction there from rex tillerson is astounding, right? this foreign minister is yelling at an american reporter, who brought you up, where did you get your manners? tillerson puts on his readers and smiles to himself. that's not how the u.s. government behaves in situations like this. that is doing it wrong when it comes to the basic expectations for the behavior of the u.s. government. that is screwing up the easy stuff that you're expected to do. sometimes when these guys screw things up, it's funny or it is embarrassing or it is insulting. sometimes it's potentially life and death. i mean, no matter how much you dislike or disagree with any american president, this is the kind of stuff why nobody should ever root against an american president. because when they fail and can't be even basically competent,
as a foreign agent in the past although he's only filed the registration today. paul manafort spokesman said today that former trump campaign chair paul manafort has been in talks with the government on this matter, talks, quote, with federal authorities about the advisability of registering under the registration act for some of his past political work. mr. manafort received guidance from the authorities and he's taking appropriate steps in response to the guidance. okay. this retroactive registration as a foreign agent after talks with federal authorities, that makes paul manafort the second high-ranking campaign official to have to retroactively register as an agent of a foreign government. michael flynn was also apparently advised that he should register for his previous work on behalf of manafort and lied about his contacts -- that
were earmarked for him in a secret ledger maintained by the ousted pro-russian and paul manafort had previously denied that the ledger of secret payments was real or that he had received any payments listed in that ledger. he now basically admits that he did receive those payments but he says there's nothing wrong with them. he says they were not illegal off the books cash payments. they were wire transfers. and wire transfers aren't cash. so there. nothing to see here. it is an amazing fact that the sitting president's former campaign chair receiving off the books payments from a dictator routed through brazilians and that's not even the biggest story unfolding in this news cycle about the trump campaign and its connection to foreign governments. last night "the washington post"
broke the news that this past summer the fbi obtained a fisa warrant for the trump campaign because they were able to story unfolding in this news cycle about the trump campaign and its connection to foreign governments. last night "the washington post" broke the news that this past summer the fbi obtained a fisa warrant for the trump campaign because they were able to persuade a judge that he was knowingly acting as an agent of a foreign power, specifically of russia. they obtained that fisa warrant for carter page last summer after they initially obtained it last summer, they renewed it at least once after 90 days. for all we kno the fbi still has him under fisa surveillance. "the post said," the government's application for the surveillance order targeting page included a len three
declaration that laid out investigators on behalf of moscow. carter page denies he had any inappropriate contacts with the russians since this news broke. just shows that the obama administration was out to get him. in an interview, carter page still would not say who exactly brought him into the trump campaign. although he was asked many, many times in many ways that question by jake tapper. with everything that we are learning, pretty much every day now about the trump campaign, people like paul manafort and carter page, the question still remains unanswered. of all the people in the world that trump could have hired for his campaign, why did he end up with all these guys with all these creepy, previously undisclosed now emerging ties to
this was the question, do you support or oppose president trump's decision to launch a missile strike on a syrian air base? all right. maybe a complicated issue but it's a straightforward question. do you support or oppose. that's from "the washington post" abc poll this past week. here's the fascinating thing. that same poll, "the washington post"/abc poll asked that same question now, this week, but
also asked that exact same question back in 2013 when it was this guy, president obama considering a missile strike in syria. so we not only have the new polling on the question this week, we basically have the act same polling question from 2013. and just look at the response. everybody who has ever told you that democrats and republicans are mirror images of each other, they both have all of the same problems, look at this. look at the democrats' numbers first. back in 2013 when it was president obama considering missile strikes in syria, the number of democratic voters who supported that was 38%. now new year, 2017, new president, it's 37%. different of one point. basically, a rounding error. that's how democrats have changed their minds on that issue over four years. now let's look at the republicans. 2013 when it was president obama, the proportion of
republican voters who thought it would be okay for president obama to shoot missiles into syria was 22%. ask republicans today, now that we have a republican president, look at their response. oh. the number jumps from 22 to 86% when you ask republican voters if they support missile strikes into syria now that the president doing it would be named trump instead of obama. a difference of 64 points. a 64-point slide is the polling equivalent of a unicorn that spits fire and makes lasagna out of vegan food stuff. there it is. democrats moved on this by one point. republicans moved 64 freaking points after the one variable that changed then to now is the political party of the president considering this policy. anybody who tells you that republicans and democrats are flip sides of the same coin, they are all so partisan. anybody who tells you that, look at that and just tell me that makes sense.
national security sort of ought to be a nonpartisan thing if we're going to have anything nonpartisan, that ought to be it. for some people, it is a nonpartisan thing. joining us now is a former assistant secretary of defense for international affairs in the obama administration. i have wanted to talk to you for a long time. thanks for coming in. >> great to be here. >> secretary of state tillerson is in russia today. the tensions are reportedly off the charts, in part because of this u.s. missile strike into syria on thursday. is it clear to you that that air rike fits whever u.s. policy is now in syria? >> no, because i don't think it's clear what u.s. policy is. i don't think trump or his team has really decided. they have been all over the place in the last several days.
you've heard from nikki haley about regime change and rex tillerson say no we're not going to do that and they seem to be changing their view almost hour by hour. going back to that poll that you pointed out, it's notable that one of the people who is driving down those republican numbers in 2013 was donald trump who was, of course, tweeting to president obama not to take the strike. i spent my time up on capitol hill advocating for the use of force and it's really depressing that we see that flip that you pointed out where 60 some percent now support when they opposed it then. >> to see these public statements that don't cohere in the administration, it's a very practical thing, though. part of what we've been talking about is that there are a thousand u.s. service members in syria. is it clear to you, even just thinking about them, even just thinking about their families tonight, is it clear that the potential knock-on affects on that strike, the way the threat environment changes for those americans, is it clear to you
that that's being adequately factored in to american decision making? >> i think there is evidence that it was considered why is why the special operators were moved out of that base. that was a force protection move, acutely on secretary mattis' mind. whether or not it's in the calculation of the president, who knows. >> do you have any idea what the president means when he says we're not going into syria, given that there are a thousand americans already there? >> i don't. i'm glad you pointed out at the top of the show that the united states has been bombing syria every day since september of 2014. american pilots are getting in aircraft or driving drones from afar and we have a thousand special forces on the ground and they are fighting against isis so we are engaged in syria. military forces are not engaged in an effort to try to take down assad or take down regime
change. i think that's a smart move. my guess is that's what president trump says when he says we're not going to get into syria. he at least should acknowledge the fight that our troops are in in syria. absolutely. >> and how he may be changing that. >> it absolutely raises the risk, no question. >> derek chollet, appreciate your time tonight. >> thank you. we'll be right back. stay with us. ivers a whole moutn with a less intense taste. so it has the bad breath germ-killing power of this... [rock music] with the lighter feel... of this. [classical music] for a whole mouth clean with a less intense taste... ahhh. try listerine® zero alcohol™. also try listerine® pocketpaks for fresh breath on the go.
>> she change mid opinion. this person from the indivisible group locally came into my office, walked me through this. talked to me about it in a way that made me change my position. that was florida republican congressman ted yoho in his very republican district explaining to them that pressure from them, his constituents had changed his mind. and now he is willing to say you know what? you're right. i disagreed with you before, but you're right. the president should release his tax returns. you have changed my mind about that. it with happen. that was it happening in nature. members of congress are home this week. supposedly sort of getting a little tas of what things are like in their home districts, talking to their constituents. it's not alws going the way they expect it to. that is starting to have some national implication, and that's next. ♪ ♪
the republican who used to hold the seat in kansas's fourth congressional district is mike pompeo, who is now the cia director. he was just reelected in november by 31 points. trump won that same district in november by 27 points. last night the republican candidate elected to replace mike pompeo only won by about 7. the democratic contender got within inches of that republican in deep red kansas, and he did it with barely any support from the national democratic party. while on the republican side every republican up to and including the president big footed themselves into that race to try to help save that race. so the democrats lost, but they sort of feel like they won. is that an outlier, sore that the start of the pattern? republicans are also reportedly anxious about holding on the ryan zinke's old seat. republicans in the seat nixed a
bill that would have made that an all mail-in election. an all vote by mail election. because the republican state party chairman said it would make it too easy to vote. and that might help democrats win that seat. in georgia, the health and human service tom price's old seat. he won in november by over 20 points. but trump barely won that district by less than 2. that winnable? republicans have launched many attack ads now against leading democratic candidate in that race, jon ossoff, who has raced a startling $8.3 million for that race. which is an astonishing amount of money for a congressional election anywhere. whether or not the democratic party itself gets it together to contest these special congressional elections, the democratic base is freaking fired up about trying to win these seats. how realistic is that enthusiasm? joining us now is david nir, political director for "daily coast" and publisher of daily close elections. daily coast helped raise a majority of jon ossoff's
campaign donations and a big chunk from what was raised outside the state in kansas. david, it's nice to see you. thanks for being here. >> pleasure to be back. >> so how do you view kansas last night? >> i think republicans should be very worried about that result. should it have been an utter blowout for them. it never should have been close. and the fact that we're even talking about it at all speaks to the huge grassroots enthusiasm that made that election close in the first place. there are a lot more vulnerable republicans in much more at-risk seats who are going to be up for reelection next year. if they continue on as they have with donald trump, there is a huge chance the gop loses the house. >> which is almost something that you couldn't even imagine talking about in any realistic terms, you know, even before the presidential election i think people have felt like the house would be out of reach. the democratic party itself seems to be getting increasingly enthusiastic about that race next week in georgia. do you think they should also be
more involved in montana, potentially in south carolina and some of these other races that are going to come up in red states? >> i think that it's definitely all hands on deck time. and i think as you said, though, it's that grassroots enthusiasm that has just been absolutely through the roof. we saw wit the ossoff donations. but we have also seen it with huge fundraising halls from donations in montana as well where democratic rod quist has raised over a million dollars. follow the small money. that's where stuff is really happening and republicans should be afraid. >> montana, it's interesting. montana is not one congressional district but its whole state. montana has been very happy to elect statewide democratic candidates. they've had a democratic gornor for more than aecade. jon tester has been reelected more than twice, been reelected for the senate seat. you can look at montana and say donald trump won there by a lot. but it seems very much a reachable goal for the democrats if they can sort of come up with a big push for it. >> i definitely agree with that.
montana is certainly in reach. and also republicans nominated a candidate who is a very out of touch 1 percenter, while the democrat is this very popular folk musician running a populist campaign. it's almost the perfect matchup that you would want in state like that. and it could definitely be in play. >> david, the last time you and i talked, one of the things we discussed was the discussion of whether or not there is a split between the democratic party and its activist base as personified more than anybody. i think by daily coast, by your community there is this a fight on the democratic side now? >> i don't feel it that way. i feel that we at daily coast, we like to lead by example. and that's why we made these dormants, especially the early dormant of jon ossoff where we infused a whole bunch of money in his campaign and got him attention. it's been amazing feedback leading to the $8 million haul that you mentioned. i think that people are taking what we do seriously and taking what the grassroots is doing seriously. and i feel surprisingly unified for the democratic party for
sure. >> david nir, political director for "daily coast", publisher of daily coast elections. >> good to see you. get along with everybody. right now the world is a mess. but i think by the time we finish, i think it's going to be a lot better place to live. and i can tell you that speaking for myself, by the time i'm finished, its going to be a lot better place to live in because right now it's nasty. campaign rhetoric reversal. the president is flip-flopping on a number of foreign policy issues, saying nato is no longer obsolete. china isn't a currency manipulator. and pulling back his praise of vladimir putin. plus, secretary of state rex tillerson leaves moscow, but not before telling putin that relations between the u.s. and russia are at a low