tv The Daily Briefing With Dana Perino FOX News May 4, 2018 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
event whether he was a candidate or not. saying the reference of timing and not describing my understanding of the president's knowledge but my understanding of the matters. no doubt dana perino will have more on this. "the daily briefing" starts right now. >> dana: fox news alert. vice president pence at the podium. we await president trump's speech at the n.r.a. in dallas. hello, everyone. i'm dana perino. this is "the daily briefing". all this and then new fallout from giuliani's revelation that the president reimbursed his personal lawyer for payments to adult film actress stormy daniels. melissa francis told you that we have new information. we have white house correspondent kevin cork live in dallas. i don't know if you have had a chance to read the statement. it's not detailed. what is your take on it? >> listen, i think he hit the
nail on the head in this particular circumstance. the problem for the mayor is he gets a little loose in the turn, to use a nascar express. sometimes he will say something and then have to back it up with granular detail. in this instance think it's fair to say if he is technically correct it was a terrible look for the white house. again, this is what happens when you have a lot of surrogates out there and some of whom are used to being in the media and are comfortable in the media but don't have the message discipline you need to have. in the case of the mayor this will probably get worse before it gets better. you point out we are in dallas, texas. a beautiful event center here. the convention center is spectacular as we await the president of the united states. you have been watching the vice president has been up and talking about not just the need for this organization, for so many americans. this is more than a lobbying group or a weekend warrior activity for a great many americans. this is a fundamental part of
being an american in many parts of america and particularly the great lone star state of texas. he is talking about freedom and the constitution and the value of the organization. he, by the way, he just mentioned that he is in fact a card-carrying member of the n.r.a. if you didn't know that, now you do. we have continue to await the president. we expect him to hit on things about the constitution freedom again, valuing the second amendment. but i'll listen carefully, as you will be too, to see if he talks about a little pushback in the organization. you remember after the shooting in parkland he said i'm not afraid to push back. i'm not beholden to them. see if he tweaks them a bit but we have a great crowd. standing room only and it should make for an interesting afternoon. >> dana: kevin corke, thank you so much. president trump earlier today walking back comments that rudy giuliani made this week saying that the president knew about a payment by michael cohen to adult film actress stormy daniels.
watch. >> rudy knows it's a witch hunt. he started yesterday. he will get his facts straight. >> dana: as a federal judge questioned lawyers from special prosecutor robert mueller's office about their motives in the case against former trump campaign manager paul manafort. the judge commenting, "c'mon man" and accusing them of lying in a hearing on a motion to dismiss the charges on the basis they have nothing to do with trump or the 2016 presidential election. i'm joined now by bob driscoll, former deputy attorney general. i'm glad you are here. talk about the statement that rudy giuliani just put out. the president alluded to it this morning. rudy is new on the job and he will get the facts straight and you will hear from him soon. the statement that came out from julio rudy giuliani walkedk two of the big news items, the first is they knew about this and head of the campaign and it was paid to make sure it
didn't come out before the election. the second one regarding what the president knew about it. now giuliani saying that is not describing what the president knew. it's just describing his understanding of the matters. i think in the court of the public opinion there is enough confusion to maybe call this a wash. but does it matter in the court of law? >> it does, dana. i think that, you know, this is why to defend no fun lawyers such as myself. this is why lawyers are cautious and why the president's lawyers advise against this kind of free-wheeling that giuliani is doing or did last night. and the president occasionally does on twitter and elsewhere. you go out and you make statements and if you don't have full command of everything and you haven't thought through ramifications of what you are saying. sometimes you solve an immediate problem and create problems down the road. it seems here like at least reporting today is correct,
the president and former mayor giuliani got together and discussed this. they are trying to get the campaign finance issue off the table. and giuliani went too far in terms of the factual statements. it's not a good look. it undermines the president's credibility a little bit. that's kind of things can come up on the periphery of the investigation. just in terms of showing a willingness to say whatever is needed to get out of the immediate situation. >> dana: so, i guess the other thing i would ask you is stormy daniels' attorney michael avenatti is an aggressive lawyer if not very available to the news media. but i wonder then when he goes into court and he is asking a judge to rule a certain way, would he be using the original comments that rudy giuliani made? or would he try to basically, try to move things forward based on the new statement that is vague? >> he will use both. i mean for someone in his
position, the first hurdle for him is to take discovery. his goal is take the deposition of the president of the united states and the deposition of key players. by virtue it's a contradictory statement by his representatives he will tell the judge they have to have their own story straight and i need to take testimony to find out what happened in the established timelines and we can't take anything they say at face value. he will make hay. he has been effective to keep the story going and keep it in the news. this will aid him in his goal of doing that. >> dana: on another topic, separate from the stormy daniels thing. the mueller investigation, there was a hearing today. the federal judge t.s. ellis iii. are you familiar with him? >> i know who he is. >> i'm curious because apparently this is an reagan appointee who is tough on the lawyers in the courtroom and said today to mueller's team that he was skeptical, to say
the least. basically using, "c'mon, man." like what are you doing here? this might not be what you are really meant to be doing? what do you base on this based on the ruling? >> this is just comments from the bench. and the preliminary hearings and the high profile case sometimes a judge wants to make clear to both parties the government and the defendant the judge is in control. because they argue something doesn't mean he necessarily buys it. it doesn't mean he will rule -- there was a ruling in d.c. where manafort made the argument in a separate lawsuit that mueller was beyond the scope of the special counsel orders he received. that was denied. so we will see what happens in virginia. i wouldn't read too much. preliminary hearings in particular, judges sometimes are sending a message to throw a brush back pitch to use a sports analogy. >> i'm very good at those. keep at it. [laughter]
bob, let me ask you one other thing. listen to president trump earlier. he was talking about whether he should or should not sit down to do an interview with bob mueller's team. watch. >> i would love to speak but i have to find that we will be treated fairly. wait, wait. i have to find that we will be treated fairly. because everybody sees it now and it's a pure witch hunt. right now it's a pure witch hunt. if i thought it was fair i'd override my lawyers. >> dana: most lawyers say they would advise the president not to sit down with bob mueller. your thoughts? >> yeah. i understand that advice. i think in any normal circumstances clearly the advice is not talking is better than talking. limit the statements. particularly if your client is like president trump, someone who has a hard time with focus occasionally and detail. but when you are the president of the united states,
considerations go beyond the legal. everyone needs to remember impeachment is the end game for the democrats here. presidents generally, you know, can't be indicted while they are in office. impeachment is a political proceeding. there could be bad consequences of him talking. but there are bad consequences mittcally -- politically for not talking. the supreme court has to look at the authority and you could look at 12 to 18 months of litigation of this hanging out over the presidency through almost up to re-election. so, really, the president has to weigh all of that. clearly legally if i'm his lawyer i sleep better at night if he is not going to talk to mueller than if he does but there are bigger considerations, too. >> dana: i know there is not a time frame when mueller has to decide whether to issue a report or what he will do, indictments or whatever he will do. but there is, i feel like the country is becoming pretty impatient. the president is impatient for
this to be done. do you have any sense on your experience of the justice department as the state of the investigation right now and when it might conclude? >> it's hard to know. these are unique cases. but the fact that in march the questions were transmitted i guess orally and the president's lawyers wrote them down means that by march at least mueller's office was in a position they thought to begin negotiating terms to interview the president. they wouldn't do that until they had everyone else's statements in and lined up. they had a good factual background to what was happening. i think, i know people said this is close to the end of the lot. but if they are talking about interviewing the president that would be one of the last pieces of the puzzle as getting new information. >> dana: all right. while i have you here i want to go back. rudy giuliani's statement that he just put out. the president said he was going to clarify things and he did just put this out. let me read this to everybody here. get your take on it one more
time before we hear the president at the n.r.a. rudy giuliani saying first, there is no campaign violation. the payment was made to resolve personal and false allegation in order to protect the president's family. it would have been done in any event, whether he was a candidate or not. second, my references to timing were not describing my understanding of the president's knowledge. but instead my understanding of these matters. third, it's undisputed that the president's dismissal of former director comey, inferior executive officer was clearly within his article ii power. recent revelations about former director comey further confirmed the wisdom's of the president's decision plainly in the best interest of our nation." let me zero in on the third point. if you are a political appointee that works for the president of the united states. i used to say i could be fired for the way i said, "good morning." it doesn't matter. that is absolutely true. the president has the right to do that.
but is the issue then the evolving and the changing explanations to why director comey was fired or does it not matter? >> well, i think the president's lawyers are positioning of arguing it doesn't matter. as a constitutional issue, you can take, i think with some support, that the president can fire any of his subordinate officials for any reason or no reason and merely looking at the reason the president did it is infringement on the executive prerogative. i think that is probably where they will start on the legal negotiation. the problem with it and clearly giuliani walking back the prior statement for firing comey for not saying he was under investigation, the alternative theory would be you have a legal right to do something but if you do it with a corrupt motive can that be obstruction of justice? even though it's legal. i don't buy that legally. but it is a legitimate issue that would be litigated. if you are a lawyer and you
want to protect on both of those fronts. again, that is an example of for giuliani speaking out of turn a little bit. making false statements to the public, can come into this. remember clinton got in hot water for his statement to the cabinet members where he lied to them. sent them out on his affair saying the a -- sent them out on his behalf and saying that the affair never happened. >> dana: a lot of news. bob driscoll we are thankful you were here today for us. thank you. >> thank you for having me. >> dana: president trump is about to take the stage in the n.r.a. convention in dallas. our panel on that is up next. just can't satisfy. ahh! ♪ your wing nut has you covered. ♪ hi. ♪ introducing planter's crunchers. a nutty crunch inside a flavorful crunch. ♪
...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors. new ensure max protein. if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed
and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.
convention in dallas right now as we await the president's speech. that is moments away and we'll bring it to you live. for the moment, bring in igor volsky, vice president of the center for american progress and co-host of "thinking cap podcast." and larry keane from the national shooting sports foundation. i'm glad you could join me. as soon as the president starts we will go to him. but in the meantime i would love your thoughts on where things stand. look at the poll from gallup showing evolving thinking on behalf of the american people on gun laws from december of 2012. 58% of the public saying they would like to see more strict gun laws. to fast forward to today march of 2018, that is up to 67%. i'm curious. let me start with you, larry. if you get the sense that this is a sustainable and a growing concern with the american people or does it fade as the news gets behind us a little bit? >> well, we see typically a
spike in support for gun control generically without defining what you are talking about. overtime, that dissipates and wanes. and support for the second amendment continues to grow over time we have seen in polling. i think it's a momentary blip. when you ask people what they mean by gun control and you start explaining what the laws really are, support for things wane because the laws aren't very strict. it is very regulated. >> dana: of course one of the frustrations that people had -- i gor, i put this to you -- there are laws on the books but in the recent cases the processes weren't followed and it resulted in parkland, florida, 17 students losing their lives. what is your take on the public mood on this right now? >> 75% of guns used in mass shootings are purchased legally. there is a problem with the laws. that is what the american people are really pointing to.
what the n.r.a. is fating now -- facing now is a generational problem. you have young people all across the country waking up to the hor are of -- horror of the n.r.a.s guns everywhere. they are organizing around it and registering people to vote. they are threatening the n.r.a.'s power. that is a problem for them. i think having trump and pence there in dallas is a bit of a desperate move for them. >> dana: larry, i have seen polling that shows fundraising for the n.r.a. has gone up and the membership has gone up. i look at the marist poll that just ran that asks the question -- do you think stricter gun legislation should be a immediate priority for the current congress? immediate priority, 51% of people say that. that might be because people say congress should do something since they don't do much at all. tell me about any of the possible fixes. for example, senator cornyn has a bill to deal with the background check issue. is that going to go anywhere
this year? >> actually, senator cornyn's bill is named after a program of the national shooting sports foundation and that actually has been signed into law. we are proud of the fact that the bill was named after our program where the industry has gotten the law changed in 16 states so the records of the disqualified individuals, primarily mental health records that are not in the system are put in the system so individuals who shouldn't purchase firearm averages are not able to do -- firearms aren't able to do that. the quintessential point is the tragedy in texas where the individual passed the background checks repeatedly because the air force failed to put the records in the system. had they done their job he would not have purchased the firearms. we are proud of that. we have increased the records by 200% in a couple of years.
it leaves common ground and there are things we can all agree upon. nobody wants to see dangerously mentally disturbed individuals obtain firearms. that is why the act which had broad overwhelming bipartisan support, 78 cosponsors. more democrats are supporting the bill when it passed than republicans. >> dana: igor, a minute left before a break. i'll hold you over if you can watch the speech with me. is that something that you support then? strengthening the background checks? does it seem to be a bipartisan agreement in this big serious debate? >> yeah. i mean that is a good place to start. but we need to go further than that. this is not enough just to confined guns in the hands of the so-called responsible people. we have 310 million guns in circulation. until we start figuring out how do we go after some of the guns themselves we will continue to have this problem. >> dana: all right, igor and larry, if you can stick around. we'll be back as soon as the president finishes speaking.
you still have to visit us. i will. no. make that the password: "you_stillóhave_toóvisit_us." that's a good one. [ chuckles ] download the xfinity my account app and set a password you can easily remember. one more way comcast is working to fit into your life, not the other way around. >> dana: fox noose alert. we are waiting for president trump to take the stage at the insurancer.a.'s annual meeting. we will bring it to you live. in the meantime i want to talk to noah rothman, associate editor for commentary magazine. while we wait for the president to talk about gun control and whatever else he might announce, the north korea summit on the minds of everyone. we have been told to watch the speech for possible news. i don't know if the president will do it here but he said this morning that a time and a location has been chosen for the meeting. this has happened at record speed. >> everything is moving quite fast. the big thing yesterday is the
extent to which north korea is prepared to move toward us in the form of a concrete confidence building measure. we are waiting the release of some of the american hostages. as some movement in our direction. they said they were going to close down the nuclear test site but it's probably inoperative. i am not looking for that. hostages would be something. but i'm not dancing in the street for the release of the american hostages. that is why you take hostages to create the direction you are moving in the director of our captives. when you have given up nothing. yesterday john bolton acting perturbed at the notion that president trump was entertaining the idea we would remove american troops from the korean peninsula. >> dana: there was a report that says the president had asked the pentagon for plans to draw down troops in south korea. and john bolton did push back on the "new york times" report saying that is not true. the president, though, this
morning did say we spent a lot of money there, we have 32,000 troops but he didn't say we would pull all the troops out. when you get to the definition of "denuclearization" it means different things for different people. i don't think the koreans would be sad to see united states go. >> they have determined it to mean the withdrawal of the american forces totally from the korean peninsula because the united states has nuclearized the korean peninsula in the eyes of the north koreans. that is a definition to them that still pertains. when donald trump bringing up the notion of removing troops from the korean peninsula, it has to do with korea, south korea and trade. as recently in march before audience of like minds at campaign style rally, entertained the notion that american soldiers might be on the table in negotiations with south korea regarding trade. so, he is not necessarily predisposed to say american soldiers are a permanent fixture on the korean
peninsula. >> dana: right. we are waiting for the president to speak to the n.r.a. he will be here momentarily. the other thing happening today while all the other news is going on is the president's delegation went to china to talk about trade. and they are apparently leaving without announcing a deal or progress. maybe there was progress. they haven't really announced anything yet. the question has been well, then, what will actually happen on that front? because there are a lot of different organizations, companies, other countries, allies, enemies wondering what are we going to do on this trade deal because the nafta deal is behind it. >> right. we pushed back for another 30 days, i believe, the imposition of terrorist on american allies in europe. china is playing hardball on their own and decided we are not buying any more american soy beans. that hurts a lot in the midwest, particularly the soy bean producers over there. this is what you call a trade war. >> dana: do you think we are in a trade war?
>> a low impact trade war. these are hostilities. we are talking about coercive signaling here in the form of imposing costs on the united states american producers just as we are imposing cost on the european and chinese producers. that is the definition of a trade war. it's a low scale but it doesn't mean it can't intensify. >> dana:ly ask about something -- i will ask about something you wrote about. we are talking about the president going to the n.r.a. annual convention. you wrote a piece saying liberals are quite depressed. is gun control one of those issues? the second amendment one that the democrats feel they have a good persuasive argument but at the polls they continue to fall short of their goals? >> sort of everybody is depressed. it's one of the most fascinating political phenomenon i have witnessed in my small period of time doing this professionally. everybody, both sides of the aisle believe they are losing, sacrificing ground to their opponents. and there is a lot of evidence to suggest it's not true. it's a construct developed and
promulgated by politicians and members of the pundit class. it's unfounded and the subject of a piece i wrote on commentary magazine this month. i hope everybody checks out. but it is really a fascinating phenomena. the extent to which the public politically engaged have been convinced of the futility of the political engagement because they believe what they need to do in politics to move the needle forward is outside the political realm, beyond legislation. it's beyond tactics. and it needs to be something much more significant. national in the streets. i think that is a form of corruption, frankly. i don't think it's tethered to reality but it's axiomatic that they believe the other side is winning and the other side is losing. >> dana: that might be the first time nine used "axiomatic" on the show and i credit you with that.
president trump is about to address the national rifle association at the convention they are having this year in dallas, texas. we'll have his remarks live. e tm to move their way in pampers cruisers with three-way fit. they adapt at the waist, legs and bottom for our driest best fitting diaper. pampers
on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. with expedia, you can book a flight, hotel, car, and activity...
>> dana: fox news alert as we await the president's speech moments from now. bring back igor volsky, the vice president of center for american progress. and larry keane with the national shooting sports foundation. chris cox there at the n.r.a. doing some applause there so i anticipate there is the president. indeed. president trump joining there.
igor, let me ask you quickly before we go to his comments what about the mid-term elections and how much are democrats counting on the gun control to be part of that conversation? >> well, people are more animated about this issue than i have ever seen. so we will have to see. but it does feel like a different moment in 2018 than others we have seen after mass shootings. >> dana: and larry, is that something that the republicans are seeing, too, on their side, they will have to defend? >> well, i think you just look at the increase in the n.r.a. membership. over 500,000 new members since the incident in parkland and they are out raising the gun control groups. >> i'm going to cut you out there. >> it's divisive issue. >> dana: i'll cut you off to go to president trump in front of a favorable crowd there giving him a standing ovation and a lot of cheers before he gives significant remarks today, we are expecting. here is the president of the united states. >> president trump: we love you. we love you.
[applause] not bad. thank you. thank you, folks. thank you very much. a great honor to be here. i want to thank chris and so many people. you've done an incredible job. these are real patriots. they really are. they don't get the kind of adulation but really they do and we know that. i want to thank wayne lapierre. i want to thank -- [applause] i want to thank my friend, our great vice president, mike pence, for his terrific remarks. [applause] i also want to recognize our great texas leaders. do we love texas? do we love texas? [cheers & applause] governor greg abbott, my friend. where is greg?
governor greg abbott. [applause] he is running and i have already done it but i will tell you greg, i fully endorse you. you are endorsed. he has done a great job. [applause] i will tell you. you had your water just pouring down on top of you, just kept coming and coming. he kept call and calling. "we need more money." and you know what? we gave it to you. fully endorsed. attorney general ken paxton, a tremendous guy. [applause] by the way, ken, you have my full endorsement and angela, your wife has my full endorsement. she just had a big victory. [applause] senator john cornyn, been with me right from the beginning. john, thank you. thank you, john.
[applause] where are you? where are you? they are so great. smart guys. richard hudson. keith brownell and leslie rutledge. i want to thank all of you, the true american patriots of the n.r.a. who defend our rights, our liberty and our great american flag. thank you. thank you very much. [applause] the people in this hall have never taken our freedom for granted. never. and you have never stopped fighting for our beloved constitution. incredible people. thank you. [applause] you give your time, your energy, your vote and your voice to stand strong for
those sacred rights given to us by god. including the right to self-defense. [applause] and now thanks to your activism and dedication, you have an administration fighting to protect your second amendment. and we will protect your september second amendment. [applause] your second amendment rights are under siege but they will never ever be under siege as long as i'm your president. [applause] all of us -- thank you. thank you. all of us here today are united by the same timeless
values. we believe that our liberty is a gift from our creator and that no government can ever take it away. we believe in the rule of law. and we support the men and women of law enforcement. [applause] we have pride in our history and respect for our heritage. we put our hands on our hearts for the pledge of allegiance. and we all proudly stand for the national anthem. we proudly stand. [applause]
>> usa! usa! usa! >> president trump: what people. what great people. this is the record crowd. all-time record crowd. you do know that? remember, it's nice to set records. we love our country. and we believe our citizens deserve a government that shows them the same love and loyalty in return. for the last 15 months, that is exactly what we have been doing. we are all finally putting america first. [applause]
and we are seeing the incredible results. as a result of our massive tax cuts and everybody is benefiting and everybody is happy. and the democrats are very concerned. you watch how well we do in '18. you watch. you watch. get out and vote. don't be complacent. don't be complacent. you know history says that when you win the presidency, you get complacent. we all know the feeling. do you know the feeling? not too many. like 90% of the time you win the presidency and for whatever reason you lose the midterm. we can't let that happen. and the word is "complacent." i kept thinking why is that? i wonder why? think about it. you win, you have a great win and now you take a breathment you relax. all of a sudden two years is up. they are fighting like hell
and you're complacent. we can't get complacent. we have to win the midterms. [applause] because since the election, we have createed 3.2 million jobs. unthought of. if we would have said that three years ago during the campaign people would have said, "what a horrible exaggeration. that is so terrible." they wouldn't have believed it. 3.2 million. the unemployment rate, you saw that just today, just fell beneath 4% for the first time since the beginning of the century. [applause]
you know i heard it was about 19 years. i said wait a minute? the beginning of the century sounds better. so i say "the beginning of century." more beautiful. african-american unemployment has reached another all-time in history record low. in history. [applause] and by the way, kanye west must have some power because you probably saw, i doubled my african-american poll numbers. we went from 11 to 22 in one week. thank you, kanye. thank you. [applause] when i saw the number i said there must be a mistake. how can that happen?
even the pollsters thought there must be a mistake. now we've come a long way. you remember i come to big rooms, big audiences and i would say what do you have to lose? because the democrats have always had their vote. what do you have to lose? horrible in crime, horrible in education, horrible on everything. what do you have to lose? they voted for me and we won. but now the numbers are much higher than they ever were with african-american and we're happy. [applause] the same thing with hispanic american unemployment which is also at the lowest level in history. unemployment, lowest level in history. and women, unemployment, women, many women is at the lowest level in almost 20 years. think of that.
so we have the best employment numbers we've virtually ever had. and yet all we hear about is this phony russia witch hunt. that is all we hear about. so just when i'm walking on the stage, a highly respected judge in virginia -- in the "wall street journal" it says judge questions mueller's investigation of manafort. manafort is a nice guy. but he worked for me for a short period of time. like a couple of months. little period of time. then what happens? he worked for ronald reagan, he worked for bob dole. i think they worked for a firm for john mccain. they worked for others. does anybody say that? no. but he is out there fighting.
on fake news cnn. i think nbc may be more distorted and worse. but no, on cnn they have a headline. "judge in manafort case says mueller's aim is to hurt trump." can you believe that? this is called the "witch hunt." i said give me that article. i want to read it. happened a few minutes before i walked on stage. a federal judge on friday questions special counsel robert mueller's authority to bring tax and bank fraud charges unrelated -- unrelated! nobody knows that. everybody thinks oh! unrelated to the 2016 election against former trump campaign manager chairman paul manafort. he is a good person. he is. i really believe he is a good person. judge t.s. ellis who is really
something very special i hear from many standpoints. he is a respected person. suggested the charges before the u.s. district court for the eastern district of virginia were just part of the mueller team design to pressure mr. manafort into giving up information on president donald trump on the campaign. i've been saying that for a long time. it's a witch hunt. then none of that information has to do with information related to the russian government toward nation and the campaign of donald trump. it doesn't have anything to do. it's from years before. then how does this have anything to do with the campaign, the judge asks? let me tell you, folks. we are all fighting battles. but i love fighting these battles. [cheers & applause]
thank you. thank you. can you imagine if we ever called for a rally in washington, d.c.? there wouldn't be enough room. there wouldn't be enough room. we have a lot of love going on. people don't realize, we have great love going on in this country. great love. it's right here. we have -- and by the way, you just saw the recent poll. it came out the rasmussen, 51 or 52. the highest level i have ever been at. how does that happen when you only get bad publicity? how does that happen? that's because people realize, that's because people realize that a lot of what you read and a lot of what you see on
television is fake. they realize. the people are smart. the people are smart. so, you have a battle also. you have a battle to keep your rights and we are going to keep those rights. you are going to be so happy. you have to say. you weren't sure that trump was going to win but you all went out, you all went out there and you voted. you voted. [applause] and there were times that put up that trump, pence, trump, pence. there were times of saying a week before, they were saying -- i remember they came out with a lot of phony polls. you know what that is called? suppression. they convince you that you are wasting your time. why should you vote? go to a movie instead. come home and watch the results. very few of the people in this room and in this country did that. and we really had a big night.
remember they said there's no way, electoral college, there is no way to win for me. there is no way to 270. they were right. but 306 was okay, right? [applause] 306. so, we had a great time. i think we are doing better now than ever before. i think we are more popular now from the standpoint now we produce. you know, when i was running i said we would give you tax cuts. by the way, we are decimating obama care. we got a bad vote the evening -- we got a bad vote the evening that we were going to terminate obama care. we got a bad vote. you know about that, right? that was not a nice thing. that was unexpected vote. but if you look at the massive
tax cut bill, we also got rid of the individual mandate. which is the worst part of obama care. right? i don't know if the people in texas will like this but we also got anwr and alaska. i don't know if you will like it. it's competition. but it's called energy for this country. it's energy. that we like. so, ted, i think you are happy with that. i think. right? so, we have delivered. and when we were running, i would say we are going to this, we are going to that, we are going to that. a certain person that is not a very fair person in the media said i have to say, trump has actually delivered more than he promised. which is probably the first time people have ever heard that statement. we actually delivered more than we promised. let me tell you this. we are really doing well with
north korea. we are really doing well. [applause] we are doing real well. remember they said oh, it is going to be terrible. they were actually saying three months ago when the rhetoric was rather sharp -- do we agree? i won't use the rhetoric now. now i'm trying to calm it down a little bit. so i'm not going to use the rhetoric. but let's put it this way. he goes "use it." i know you come from tension whoever the hell you -- i know you come from texas, whoever the hell you are. look, for years, for years they have had this problem. everybody has said sort of oh, don't talk. don't talk. please don't talk. the last administration had a policy of silence.
don't talk! you may make them and him angry! don't talk. if a horrible statement is made about the united states, don't say anything. we have no comment. please, please. oh, my gosh. [applause] same thing with iran. you remember? we are signing that horrible deal. and they're marching in the streets saying, "death to america." who signs a deal when they are marching saying, "death to america"? who marches? they are saying, "death to america" and we have the former administration.
as represented by john kerry. not the best negotiator we have ever seen. he never walked away from the table. except to be in that bicycle race where he fell and broke his leg. that was the only time. i said don't tell him you broke your leg. stay inside and say you don't want to negotiate and you will make a much better deal. but he broke his leg. and i learned from that. at 73 years old, you never go into a bicycle race. okay? you just don't do that. i'm not 73. he was. okay. but i'll be there. but we have great things going on. and you know, with respect to north korea, remember how
strong it was and they were saying this is going to be nuclear war? no. you know what gets you nuclear war? weakness gets you nuclear war. being weak gets you nuclear war. that's what gets you nuclear war. [applause] so let's talk about guns, shall we? paris, france, has the toughest gun laws in the world. the president just left washington. emmanuel macron. great guy. nobody has guns in paris. nobody. and we all remember more than 130 people plus tremendous numbers of people that were horribly, horribly wounded. you notice nobody ever talks about them. they talk about the people that die. but they never mention that 250 people had horrible,
horrible wounds. i mean they never mention that. but they died in a restaurant and various other close proximity places. they were brutality killed by a small group of terrorists that had guns. they took their time and gunned them down one by one. boom. come over here. boom. come over here. boom. if you were in those rooms, one of those people and the survivors said it just lasted forever. but if one employee or just one patron had a gun or if one person in this room had been there with a gun, aimed at the opposite direction, the terrorists would have fled or been shot.
and it would have been a whole different story. [applause] right? we all know what is going on in chicago. but chicago has the toughest gun laws in our country. they are so tough, but you know what is happening? it seems that if we are going to outlaw guns, like so many people want to do -- democrats. you better get out and vote. then we will get out. you know what i'm going to say. we are going to have to outlaw immediately all van and all trucks. which are now the new form of best for the maniac terrorists.
right? they take a truck and run over eight people and wound 16. like what happened in new york and what just happened. it's happening all over. so let's ban immediately all trucks, all vans. maybe all cars. how about cars? let's not sell any more cars. i love you, too. thank you. i recently read a story in london which has unbelieveably tough gun laws, a one is like a war zone for horrible stabbing wounds, yes, that's right, they don't have guns, they have knives