tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 19, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EST
any outcome in syria. he wants to parlay being an arbiter in syria into being seen as the key arbiter in the region as a whole and the fact that you look at who has been going to moscow and he looks increasingly like he is succeeding at that command there has been a constant message as opposed to a zero-sum notion the message from the russians has been, and, and i have heard this constantly from my friends throughout the arab world, the russians are saying you may not like our support but we stand by our friends. that is part of what i think the approach has been. if you look diplomatically they supported the geneva principles but in december of 2013 in january 2014 a completely backed a sod.
and the military intervention is following the logic of what you might imagine. it is designed to change the balance of power. so all of this suggests that when you look at what they are actually doing it is unfortunate that the day he was in moscow was the day we had the stories that she was quoting from the un officials responsible for providing humanitarian assistance. the russians are carrying out a set of attacks not just going after the non- isys opposition the trying to depopulate areas,
deliberately making it harder for humanitarian assistance, attacking hospitals, attacking grain silos, attacking water treatment plants, and all of this again is part of a fundamental approach designed to produce an interesting reality. they want ironically a posture that is similar to what a sod wants and what isys wants as well, polarization. they wanted to mobilize. a sod wants it to mobilize the world. and it is clear that is what i think putin wants.wants. maybe he can change of the costs go up high enough. i come to what will be the last set of comments. first, again, the
administration could be right and i can bei could be wrong and the proof of that we can and should see soon. the proof of it is what happens with ian. the issue is not whether or not a sod is at the table. i am going to expand a little bit. they enforce a real cease-fire? listen to secretary kerry. we will see a huge change in the cease-fire. if we see a cease-fire, real cease-fire, real cease-fire which only the russians can impose, only the russians have the leverage to impose. if there is a real cease-fire and if they go
along with the creation of humanitarian core doors to provide humanitarian assistance, if that takes place vienna becomes real. if that takes place the opposition will have no other reason to believe that there could be a transition. right now they don't believe it and have no particular reason to believe it. what i was just saying about the assessment would be wrong, and i hope that is the case. it will be better for everybody. now, if it turns out that i am not wrong that does not mean you necessarily have to give up on the idea of trying to still push the vienna process, but it means we approach the vienna process and prudent you have to put not with the logic of argument but with the logic of leverage which is actually the logic that putin understands. in the logic of leverage
would have us to the following, have us go and say comeau we are deep believer'sbelievers in the vienna process. we have committed to it unmistakably but it cannot work unless there is a cease-fire. so if this fails you leave us no choice but to support safe haven. the administration has been reluctant because it requires us to do something command you are right. the administration should look at having invested so much and the court our strategy is not only ratcheting up because we have a contradiction. we send them out. there is no chance to bring the men. so long as we were ratcheting up and they continue to hammer the
opposition meaning that for them to join us your part of the onslaught and they won't do it. if you have a safe haven which deals with part of the issue you create an area you could have leverage of the opposition and in this sense the sunnis are seeing the something is done to stop the onslaught and he change the circumstance. the administration understands the logic of its own position, if you want to be successful in these to make the vienna process succeed the only way it has a chance to if i'm right about the russians is the venues leverage. he will get what it means.
doesn't attempt to impose a cease-fire. and we're going to have to think about the ways we can build leverage. create the kind of equivalent of what we did, create a real coalition eu safe is not -- safe haven is a leverage. one last comment. the interesting thing, with the turks clamoring for it, go states requiring it it gives us leverage. we will do it providing you europeans will provide
forces, provide the money monies to build the infrastructure with the safe haven, provide forces on the ground to police the safe haven and it goes through one channel so that we can build leverage on the opposition so that the opposition itself becomes more coherent. there are ways to proceed where we have the potential for leverage. >> you are 1st up. >> i am supposed to be brief i will make four or five quick comments and maybe for the 1st time in the session actually maybe
disagree with a couple of comments that have been made. on the issue of motives i largely agree with what has been said. i would only have a couple of emacs. i think i had a little bit of a problem with an assist talk about prudent and russia wanting to be a global arbiter. russia and prudent at this stage and for the foreseeable future is not going to be a global arbiter russia as we have seen in recent years is going to have a more robust policy, project power and in the neighborhood and certain circumstances and take advantage of opportunities
like the one offered by the syrian civil war but i do not see the economic political and even domestic grounds in russia, the reemergence of a kind of global superpower in the form of russia. secondly, i also am a little bit skeptical of motive of somehow russia taking this action and syria as a way of destabilizing the eu through migration. the one country arguably that has been perhaps most destabilized and politically affected by the salt -- flows of immigrants is germany, almost a million migrants in germany today. from germany to come a critical country in terms of his strategy, working and
trying to deal with the european union. i have not heard one german leader express that concern. it is highly unlikely and i do not think it is credible to suggest that he is trying to find ten politics and western europe by creating chaos in syria. but i will make a point about ukraine. the point that have been made this morning about his thinking in ukraine and western sanctions and syrian intervention are absolutely right. i do think that russian intervention in syria had a catalytic impact in terms of not only diplomacy and force in syria but a change the debate in europe command it
is interesting as i was discussing that françois along after he visited washington following the terrorist attacks there went immediately to moscow and sat down with. the fact that we are thinking now about how the russians might be folded into some kind of diplomatic solution and process makes it enormously difficult for the europeans to continue to justify sanctions policies against the europeans, particularly in a moment when the sanctions have in this portion of impact on the europeans. and when it is hard to justify new projects like north stream to and at the same time keeping sanctions in place on russia. i am not predicting an early change in this policy, but
it demonstrates that he is trying to seek somehow to just purely public diplomacy and play a constructive role in the syrian exercise the sanctions policy, european eu sanctions are going to be vulnerable. the 2nd point i would say is simply that i think that if you compare us and russian policy to the syrian situation that what prudent has done has created a much easier task for himself than us foreign policy has created for itself. he is supporting a sod and he is demonstrating to the region and elsewhere that he will stick with his guy and
he will be a loyal friend and ally. we on the other hand not only want the ouster of the sod but we wanted a process which is enormously difficult to define, to implement that will lead to the end of fighting, human rights abuses and some type of settlement that takes all the interest of the disparate groups in syria into account. and judgment of a lot of people including myself that is very unlikely in the near-term. we have got asymmetrical, not just a symmetrical interests but certainly asymmetrical goals which needs to be taken into account as we think about what they are trying to do and what we are trying to do. i think that -- i think that
the issue of russian -- the interaction of russian ground forces in syria and large numbers could change the scope of the conflict and actually defeat isys. in my judgment it is unlikely. already to some extent been burned by his intervention there not to mention shoot down of the airliner in egypt, the loss of the tangle he had with the turks and the loss of the plane and pilot and the cost of all grow in terms of this turkish russian dispute. i cannot think of two more thin-skinned narcissistic international leaders than
vladimir putin addressing and one. >> how do you feel? >> we could add donald trump. >> he is not yet president. >> thinking about how this thing could go tells me that i think the russians are running big risks and i doubt very seriously that putin would take the step to introduce substantial numbers of ground forces. more interesting question is to think about, is there likely a convergence of us and russian diplomatic strategy and the vienna process? and this is largely in part going to revolve around whether there is a deal on the sod.
he already see a slight movement. kerry seems to be backing off of the idea that a soda sod would necessarily have to go at the outset. the russians are hinting that he would not have to be around at the completion of some kind of deal. their seems to be some kind of progress there. that said, it is not an issue of whether is playing a zero sum game. the big mistake we could make is to think that somehow the united states and russia even if they were to reach agreement could drive an overall settlement. first of all, there are the other regional powers that will have a lot to say, in some cases more to say that perhaps either the united states or russia including turkey, iran, and saudi arabia.
and then there are the groups on the ground again enormously complex including isys. one thing that i don't think is adequately fleshed out in today's discussion, i am in the camp of those who argue that what we are seeing in syria and iraq is part of a bigger almost 30 years war. two critical elements to it. one is geopolitical which is a contest, if you will between saudi arabia and iran. two, it is sectarian. sunni and shia. that creates -- that creates a dynamic that makes it more
barbaric and complicated. and so what i am suggesting, and this is where i have to come back with dennis and his creation of a save zone, i don't think ideas like humanitarian core doors or safe zones work without a strong ground partner command we have failed to combine the restaurant ground partner is. we can talk about getting the turks and there but we already recognize this morning that the turks major interest is not isys. it is protecting there turkmen and dealing with the kurdish issue. it is not the turks. we are not -- the kurds are great when they are defending their committee and region.
you cannot expect the kurds to go into the arab zones and fight isys. we are left with the problem of the sunnis in syria and iraq, and without a strong ground partner we are not going to be able to deal with isys. in the end, in the end even us russian convergence is not going to address this problem, and if i am correct we are seeing that kind of 30 years will work itself out. i do not think either the united states alone or together will solve this problem. >> thank you for this provocative comments. >> thank you and thank you for having me here. russian objectives in syria have been mentioned and i can only concur. the 1st objective is
the great powers defining world issues. and publicly so clear, carving up eurasia into spheres of influence. the new world over that gives your a peaceful generation. europe generations. first anti- hitler coalition. second and i have a coalition to. solve ukrainian problem, eliminate anti- russian sanctions more or less as
our problems are solved. the top again, high risk gamble but these calculations seem increasingly irrelevant. after november 4 when the bomber was shot down by the turkish fighter. today we are in a very different situation. we are on the brink of armed confrontation, regional confrontation between turkey and russia. turkish and russian forces and turkey and russia are on a collision course. there is a bombing campaign, and under the bombing campaign and with the support has block on the
militias and others are pressing ground defenses and they are moderately successful, increasingly ordinances being used including bombs delivered by air and by the rocket launch system and some has already happened just on the turkish syrian border. the fighting will move closer to the turkish border. they are going to fall on turkish territory. that is inevitable.
and the russian military are given orders to shoot 1st and shoot to kill. destroy any target that potentially can threaten you. they want to level the score and maybe see a turkish plane down. if nothing will be done there is a higha high probability that they will do more which will eventually transform and escalate into a local conventional war. they greatest problem with that is conventionally in that part of the world turkey is stronger than russia. on the ground absolutely. on the sea also, air most likely which would mean that russia and russian forces could suffer humiliating losses which means that the
conflict may escalate further to the black sea. it is a very big thing. and just conventional cruise missiles which also should be taken into account, the russian operational plan or russia will be conventionally weaker and russia is conventionally weaker, they are going to go nuclear. limited tactical nuclear attacks. and just days ago putin said
these cruise missiles and audible and we are right now in a situation that may be even more dangerous. we could see devcon going up again if nothing is being done. returning to 73 we should understand right now tactics to have diplomacy between moscow to stop the media problems. it would give the possibility that they will not be pushed out because politically for the turkish military ethnic cleansing of
ethnic turks on the foreign territory, they can believe that they have to go. and for russia is important because it is too close. and so from there if we leave that in the hands of unpredictable revels they could launch a ground attack on the russian base. there is not enough strategic sense. you have to find a way of a compromise. ahead on russian turkish collision. right now i am afraid they are not the real problem. thereproblem. there are more important things at play and a stake. ..
a a the parts all over the world. >> with five or six observations and it stays on this side of isil and the other jihadi groups. with that doctors point of ideology but importantly ill the highlighted from the governments in the gulf and from private individuals. and the russian intervention has been notably in effective.
diplomats suggesting that buying the same token we see a clear movement to the american position he does not have to leave right away. and then to reach out with the extremist groups on the ground. they also want to use their role in syria to persuade the europeans that did not happen in new jersey your raid the europeans made that decision.
but so far moscow does not see a need. without moscow doing something serious. and i am confident but the interesting pain if they fail that test and is on the defensive again? and to give us this morning a possible solution to put real military presence on the ground. and it would have to involve turkish troops for sure and
>> i am the european union's senior fellow at brookings. but that speculation all of the ukraine sanctions. i understand the concern that sanctions were rolled over for another six months. so it may come up again somebody said day are wobbling and analytically if you look at the russian involvement bin is that a less than an atom possibilities with less bandwidth? and of the chicken peaceably increase their commitment
but that is my comment in by the way with the refugee question i have heard some conspiracy theories by design but they'll look at the refugee situation it is the objective factor. in if the turks did look the other way it was the set of circumstances to put pressure with those negotiations with the islamic state group in the
in fact, to have that iraqi representative of the panel because as we have racket -- recognized with one regionalize conflict it is difficult to resolve this issue with syria in isolation. with the russian attention and motivation and what are those russian intentions and it was mission from the un military supplies so does that look further afield?
but i will reserve my judgment until the truth if it ever spills out. but vladimir putin seems to be a textbook example. and was raised to believe these are radical and high style to russia. i also think if they would go the way of history as we have seen in poland and hungary in the czech republic it makes it easier to deal with the member states one on one as a strong confederate you did.
we will see on that point with the conspiracy period is an empirical matter. i read those stories i am mindful of them i don't know if they are true but i don't know if they are false either. the last thing i want to say with that force that is useful on the ground. and the policy is embedded in a way that is as stupid dangerous war idiom and. and what tipped them off but would is very dangerous and stupid to look first toward
assad than daesh it is possible. they want to do more to support its demand to wages and so this will reopen the womb to -- the wound with this saudi forces bombing as yet been tries to retake azerbaijani. wouldn't that be interesting? with turkey there has been a focal point of administration to get the turks to do much more it is not as porous as it has been.
into have 2.2 billion syrian refugees and more is more is driven isis driven. not kurdish. if you look at turkish behavior you have seen a much more systematic efforts but therein is that potential to affect the behavior. and to create some kind of safe zone fidelity administration will not go for that. to resist every step of the way.
and it wasn't the interpretation the president's reluctance to be drawn into the conflict is as powerful as it has ever ben. and we never had a serious discussion those that were left to oppose it were never prepared to revisit and they never admitted what was wrong with that. they made that the analogy and the analogy that the applied to syria was a rap.
create vacuums that are filled by the worst possible forces. but here again ioc and an alternative. and i don't think the prospect goes to success. and wanted this to work right now we will see him in the cave a certain way with the cease-fire. it and end expect that putin will do this but to have a
diplomatic process it will create the illusion we're trying to do something. to go back to say that assad must go. that they don't fit those objectives. and what has gone so far is the credibility. >> a couple of brief points i am glad he brought up the war in yemen because it crystallizes the point that i made her earlier of the the 30 year war aspect big about this for a second. our friend and ally is
attacking an iranian group that is fighting increasingly a group that is increasingly dominated by isis so if they succeed they could very well face the isis dominated yet been to the south so their policy could bring about their demise. next year sitting in this conference room to discuss the strategic implications
that underscores the problems we are addressing. i think maybe it was dennis talking about 1991. with that first bush administration to create a global coalition and in thinking about the region as a whole was a foreign army in the adjacent states in and the international committee realizes this was so wide that should not be crossed. and we responded with a
spectacular success. but talk about a grand coalition to fight isis with that conflict in both syria and anti-iraq and yemen libya us to use state that you said this that we could create such coalition to fight in these the eternal conflicts is a huge mistake and it is a terrible dilemma. if you intervene in these countries with the sectarian conflict you create of vacuum and get chaos. but if you don't you're the occupying power if you don't have an rb that is the era
increasingly insecure. and having an air base in right now is very much a problem. if you have to move thousands and thousands of equipment to have one full-scale base. but having more is not practical. and russian policy in the middle east it is sunflowerseed and it was not calculated. so the russian policy is in the reactive mode.
i cannot get tired of repeating it the most peaceful community on earth was this to the community very peaceful. because of the messenger. what happened to them and what happened to this community? all over the world of the afghanistan and pakistan? what happened to them? that it back did the blinds.
because of the secular of level but the religious establishment is what we talk about. by their own family. this is the message to the west. and then stop funding these guys. >> i got carried away. [laughter] >> we are five minutes over. qdoba or questions. thanks for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
illegally viewed information they >> good morning. thibodaux shortly after modeling the campaign told us there was a failure in the fire wall that prevents campaigns from c1 another's data we contacted dead dnc bee to tell them about this failure we were concerned our data wase compromised and we were assured of firewall would be restored. we are confident that time our data was lost to the a campaign so once again that
the debt was compromised because they failed to its.ct we have invested enormous campaign resources that acquire their rights to use as proprietar data ed but with the inappropriate overreaction has denied access to our own data and it is collected by hundreds of thousands of volunteers m across america received from people all across the country. let me briefly discuss three issues involved in this matter: first as i pointed out earlier this isn't the first time the vendor hired by the dnc and the dnc to run the voter file program has allowed serious failures to occur. on more than one occasion they have dropped the fire wall between the data of competing democratic campaigns. this is dangerous incompetence. it was your campaign that made
them aware data was being made to others and we didn't run to the media but trusted the problem would be resolved. unfortunately, the vendor dropped the fire wall between the campaigns for some data again. secondly, after discussion with the dnc became clear some of our staffers irresponsiblely accessed the data from another campaign. that behavior is unacceptable to the sanders' campaign and fired the staffer immediately and made certain any of the information was not utilized. we are speaking to other staffers. third, rather incredibly the leadership of the dnc has used this incident to shutdown our ability to access our own
information. information which is the life blood of this campaign. this is the information about our supporters. our volunteers. the list of people we intend to contact in iowa, new hampshire and elsewhere. this is information we have worked hard to obtain. as i mentioned before, this is information gathered by our volunteers across the country, funded by the over $2 million in contributions we received online. it is our information and the information of all of these volunteers and the people that support our campaign, not the dnc the leadership of the democratic national committee is attempting to undermine our campaign. this is unacceptable. individual leaders of the dnc can support hillary clinton in any way they want. but they will thought sabotage our campaign. one of the strongest grassroots
in the heat of campaigns sometimes we make misjudgments. i manage the campaign. data is being used. nothing was -- no data that i am aware of was exported in a way that could be used by anybody. an after action report was issued saying none of these reports were printed and none were exported. i am relying on them and have to rely on them. the monopoly vendor has soul access to this information because we have been cut off. you are getting their side of the story from them and it hasn't been verified by us. that is why we look forward to a full independent audit of the dnc's handling of data going
forward. >> look. this is taking our campaign hostage. we have a grassroots campaign, right? when we have people coming to the headquarters to call volunteers or voters to talk about bernie sanders campaign to transform america we cannot generate phone numbers to do that. it is impossible to mobilize the grassroots campaign we have without access to that data. and because of the nature of our campaign we are affected by this type of taking the data hostage by the dnc. >> does it make it impossible to win? >> i think we are seeing it online that people are outraged by the conduct of the dnc which is a heavy handed attempt to undermine the dnc. our data. how long are they going to freeze our access to our own data. they have not. and that is why we will have to go to federal court if this is not resolved to vindicate the
rights of this campaign and the millions across the country who want change. the truth is we are investigating this with inability to look at the ban that has been withheld from us. the dnc by their own action is hendering our ability to do this investigation they say they want. we have very high ethical standards in this campaign. bernie sanders is a different kind of candidate. we are running a campaign to transform america. people who work on this campaign have to understand even the
appearance of something that is not right is too much. we let the staffer go. it was a clear signal to take it seriously with respect to our data and others. we will not use anybody else's data or retain anybody else's data. the dnc is acting in a heavy handed and unprecedented way. i would like to see another instance where a presidential campaign had their own data withheld under similar circumstances. excuse me? two months ago we found out when we were downloading data it was dumping a bunch of other campaign's data along with ours which indicated the fire wall between the campaigns not effective. we segregated the information and put it in a password protected file so we could dominate there was a breach. because we were concerned large amounts of our own data was
being violated. the dnc assured us this was going to be taken care of. but they are not competent in terms of maintaining the security of data between the campai campaigns. what is that? [inaudible question] >> all i can tell you, i don't know the motivation of everyone at the dnc, but we have had c conflict about the surveillance transparency act night debate. they are trying to help the clinton campaign it seems. we are taking on the establishment and i am sure there are people in the democratic establishment who are not happy with the success senator sanders is having all over the country. to win we need our data which has been stolen by the dnc. that is what we want back. thank you, all.
>> we want to see which reporters have been naughty and which reporters have been nice. let me see. just kidding. merry christmas. >> merry christmas to you, too, senator. i am glad i brought the cool weather. >> it is a wonderful thing. your reindeer are not happy. >> no, they are not. >> welcome to our national fly around. we are having an incredible trip around the center tuesday state. we had a rally in las vegas. we had a pacted house with excitement in minnesota. we are in virginia and headed to
georgia. the excitement we are seeing all across the country is breath taking. we are seeing conservatives uniting behind the campaigns. we are seeing it in iowa, new hampshire, south carolina and nevada but throughout the march 1st super tuesday states and throughout the country. from the beginning the message is simple: if conservatives come together we will win. with that i will answer questions. >> senator rubio said in an interview -- [inaudible conversation] >> i am going to let marco defend his own voting record. i flew back to washington, d.c. to vote against the omni bus.
i think it is betrayal. people are frustrated because we keep winning elections as conservatives and republican leaders keep advancing barack obama's agenda. this is funding all of obamacare and all of executive amnesty and all of planned parenthood. it does something to stop the iranian nuclear deal. it does nothing to stop president obama and hillary clinton's plan to bring tens of thousands of syrian refuges to america even though the head of the fbi said they can't vet them to determine if they are terrorist. there are 200,000 low skilled immigrants coming into the country to take away jobs and drive down the wages. this was a betrayal of the men
and women who rose up in 2014 and gave us the majority. it is now christmas time. with republican leadership playing santa to the lobbyist and special interest and it is high people are fed up with the washington cartel. you know, just this week, senator chuck shumer was candidate about what happened saying senator mcconnell wants the senate to work. the only way for the senate to work is for them to pass our agenda. that is exactly what republican leadership did is funded and passed barack obama's agenda. it is why people are so frustrated. but it is why we are seeing so much excitement in our campaign. people understand republican leadership in congress is not going to turn this country around. the only way to turn this country around is with a strong principle proven conservative in
the white house. and that is why so many people are unifying so many conservatives and fed up with wash are unifying behind our campaign. >> to become president ted cruz how do you think in a general election you can convince americans to become president? >> the only way to win a general election is to bring back to the millions of conservatives who stayed home in 2008 and 2012. we need to be the party of hard working men and women, blue coller workers, that want to believe again in the promise of america.
water carriers to act in big business and have more amnesty. cheap labor that washington things is great for big business but it is not great for working men and women. i will always fight for the working men and women. i love rush limbaugh. donald trump is a friend of mine. there are a lot of people in the media who want to see a cage match between me and trump. i have no interest in giving the media what they want. >> i don't know how you could say that you never supported legalalization? a lot of people out there think you have been playing the washington game
for years. >> it is very simple, todd. i oppose amnesty. marco rubio sports amnesty. i oppose scitizenship. marco rubio supports it. i opposed the gang of eight bill. marco rubio supported the bill. marco rubio promised the men and women in florida if you elect me i would lead the fight against amnesty. in texas, i promised the men and women in texas the same thing. i said if you elect me i would
lead the fight against amnesty. in 2008, everyone had to chose the line they stood on. senator rubio made the decision not to stand by the promise he made to the men and women that elected him. instead he stood by barack obama and the big money in washington and lead the fight to amnesty. i made a different decision. i made the decision to stand with jeff sessions, steve king, and lead the fight to defeat the bill. >> at the time you said you supported what you were pushing because it would legalize -- >> that is factually incorrect. that statement is false. back in 2013, the rubio campaign believed it would benefit them politically if they broke their promises to the florida voters and pushed amnesty.
it was because they thought the big money donors in the republican party would reward them -- that was back when senator rubio was on the cover of "time" magazine labelled the savior. they are regretting that decision now. facts are stubborn though. so the rubio campaign is pushing that i introduced a series of amendments to defeat the bill. one of those was an amendment that said nobody here illegally can be ever apply for citiz citizenship. it is being spun that because i submitted that that i support the other aspects of the gang of eight bill. that is non-sense. i would point out supporting me
in that fight for that citiz citizenship agreement was mike lee and jeff sessions. i am not aware of anyone putting the claim that jeff was supporting legalization. jeff and my position were identical on this. it did work. remember president obama and others going on saying we have the votes to get this. the republican leadership in the house is going to take it up. we will pass this. they were convinced of that. and a handful of us, and it was a lonely handful in the senate, led the fight against it. jeff sessions and i stood on the senate floor a sail from all directions. i spent 30 minutes on the radio with rush limbaugh and the phones on capitol hill were
everyone else does. you know in the last 48 hours, senator mike lee has come out publicly and said ted is telling the truth, marco is not telling the truth. senator jeff sessions has come out publicly in saying ted is telling the truth and marker was not telling the truth and rush limbaugh has come out publicly and said ted is telling the truth, marco was not telling the truth. and john adams famously said facts are stubborn things. i understand the political desire of other candidates to try to muddy the record but the facts are simple. i oppose amnesty. i have always opposed amnesty and i always will oppose amnesty and i will note the other candidates on that stage are not willing to say that because that has not come it is not and will not be their position. thank you. >> why didn't you tell us that for the last year?
there was a sonic boom on the other side of the potomac. for a second people seem to realize is almost we the people. but david and i spent all morning in washington d.c.. so it is great to be back in america. [applause] on tuesday in las vegas had a quiet evening. [laughter] how fantastic is it we have such a tremendous array of young and dynamic talented republican candidates for president? [applause]
and what a contrast. [laughter] with the democrats. i am pretty sure the first democratic debate was hillary and the chipolte clerk. [laughter] that's not fair. we can't forget about dirty sanders. sup -- bernie sanders so now the democratic belas their wide-eyed socialist with ideas that our dangerous for america and bernie sanders. [laughter] [applause] it is amazing. they keep scheduling the democratic debate at 2:00 in the morning on a saturday.
like they don't actually want anyone to use the their candidates for president. which you can understand why. but there is good news. they have announced the venue for the next debate their holding at leavenworth [applause] they wanted to make it easier for hillary to attend [cheers and applause] we are here today because our country is in crisis. we are here today because we're bankrupting our kids and grandkids. our constitution is under assault each and every day. and because america has
receded from leadership in the world and has made the world a much more dangerous place. but yet i am here today with the word of hope and encouragement to tell you all across virginia and all across this country people are waking up and i am here to tell you help is on the way. [cheers and applause] >> 51 to ask everyone here look forward january 17. if i'm elected president i
will tell you the first day in office. is to rescind every executive action taken by this president. [cheers and applause] president obama likes to say he has a pen in a phone. you live by the pen and you die by the penn. and my pen has the eraser. sadly the corruption is not limited to the white house but extended across every agency.
second thing i will do is to instruct the united states department of justice to open an investigation into planned parenthood and these horrible videos. [applause] and to prosecute any and all criminal conduct by that organization. the administration of justice should be pulling to party or ideology the only fidelity at the department of justice should be to the law and the constitution of the united states. [applause] the third day that i intend
to do refer stay in office is instruct the department of justice and the irs and every other federal agency that the persecution of religious liberty ends today. [applause] that means every service man and woman can seek out the abortion with all the hearts and minds and souls and a superior officer has nothing to say about it. >> the little sisters the catholic charity right now
persecuted by the obama administer -- administration bovine the case against them has been dismissed. [applause] number four that i intend to do the first day in office is to rip to shreds catastrophic iranian nuclear deal. [cheers and applause] the single greatest national security threat facing america today is the threat of a nuclear rand. and read a commander in chief who will stand up to
say unequivocably under no circumstance will the nation of iran from the ayatollah that chance death to america under no circumstance will iran ever acquire a nuclear weapon. [applause] the fifth thing i will do on the first day in office is begin the process of moving the american embassy in israel should jerusalem though once and the eternal capital of israel. [applause] of lot of presidential candidates to democrats and republicans have made that exact same promise. but yet inevitably when they
get to the white house they don't do it. because what happens the team's say if we do this, it will make other folks in the middle east really, really unhappy. well if you hadn't noticed there already pretty unhappy with us and the single biggest difference between me and the other fine men and women standing on the debate stage is that with me, i tell you i will do something, i will do it exactly what i said i would do. [applause] that is state number one --
day number one there are 365 days in the year. four years and a presidential term and for years and a second term. [cheers and applause] by the end of eight years there will be a lot of newspaper reporters and editors and journalists that will check themselves into therapy. [laughter] [applause] and the in the days that followed, i will go to congress and we will repeal every word of obamacare. [cheers and applause]
we will pass common-sense health care reform to make insurance personal and affordable and portable and will not stop us from getting in between us and the doctors. in the days that follow i will instruct the u.s. department of education which should be abolished, . [cheers and applause] , i will instruct them that a common core ends today. [applause] . .