a couple months ago, that s certainly true. these are all instances that took place 20 years ago. i don t see whether my being in the judiciary committee office talking to staff what that would have to do at all with what happened with congressman conyers all those years ago. i agree that it s not the same as the sexual harassment allegations that other staffers are making, but there were things in those allegations that i felt like i could confirm. for example, the baby sitting that i had been asked to engage in baby sitting. so i felt like it was important to say so. let me just say, i didn t come forward with this. somebody from the washington post called me, and at first i was only interested in talking about it on background and then i thought about it for a few hours yesterday afternoon and i thought this is sort of exactly the problem. people don t want to go on the record and in washington i m sure like in other industries but particularly here, loyalty is considered paramoun
collapse of the party. and for those of us who care about genuinely conservative ideas, an invitation to democrats and to the future to become the permanent majority party of the united states as the republicans tear themselves to pieces. isn t the job of the white house chief of staff to be the gatekeeper, the person who knows who s coming in and out? why can t john kelly do something to reduce the amount of communication between steve bannon and the president? unfortunately because he s the president, alex. i ve joked earlier they re engaged in a form of extreme baby-sitting. at least with baby-sitters, the presumption is that the baby-sitter is the adult or the near adult, and the baby is a baby. no one is going to be able to prevent the president from resort to go twitter. nobody is going to be able to prevent the president from picking up the phone. so the most that we can hope from them, and i think what they re doing is courageous, i
form of extreme baby-sitting that very few of us would like to spend our lives on. and i think that in a moment when you have such an unstable person in charge of such a large nuclear arsenal, along with all the other armaments in the united states, you want stable people. on the other hand, to all of you who do not have essential jobs who are in the administration because you want to get ahead in your careers, i m saying to you, i think this will stain you forever to be associated with this presidency. buyer beware. you believe that people who sit in the white house, even at any level are enablers. bret? as i said, i think general kelly is helping the country by being a responsible adult in the vicinity of a very irresponsible president. and i d rather have him there than say stephen millner his job. on the other hand, for people who are nonessential, flee this ship. chris, here is a sobering reality, though. this is why there is so much
extreme baby-sitting, as bret just said. the nbc news survey monkey poll last month had a statistic in it that has haunted me since i ve seen it. the poll pulled out trump supporters versus gop supporters. the president s approval rating among gop supporters, this is just last month, 84%. the president s approval rating among his supporters, 99%. for a president who lives for applause, who lives for applause from the people who support him, that is the number to keep in mind. wait a minute. 99% of the people who like him, like him. they approve of his job performance. so far. how do i don t get that perfect identity between the people who liked him when he went in and like him now? why is that the same number pretty much? beats me. it s like north korea. i m not saying they re left wing idealogically. but that regimentation of i smile when you smile, i cry when you cry, you know? it s because they are the people who are his hard-core
deported when the travel ban was implemented back in january. nice to see you. hi. the supreme court says they exempted one category from enforcement and those with a bono fide relationship. what is that? how is that defined? i think it s defined pretty broadly. they didn t specifically define it but they gave some examples. they are talking about people who have family members in the united states. they are talking about people who have job offers or jobs at universities. they offered some examples that were ill lou illustrative but n complete. anybody with any kind of a relationship with a u.s. person or an entity. a church, a sin goiynagogusynag. suppose i offer someone a job to, i don t know, job baby sitting. would that be enough?