we need to know if it s because of cutting corners and if so what s the safe ri record of the rest of the industry? congressman? we need to know is the rst of the industry safe or is it not safe? we need to know from them congressman, you mentioned sure. the human errors and you re right. that is one way to look at this document. s no necessarily human errors. human negligence. mr. waxman s report correct. human negligence. whatever you want to call it. you raise this issue but isn t the question of whether our regulations allow and permit and foster this kind of human error or human negligence to take place? no. i think you ask a great question. can government prevent this? did government prevent this in the past in the system of the past failed. again, was that because the regulations weren t written tight enough or the people at the mms didn t do their jobs? that is a valid question and we should be looking at safety at every other rig and we need to
american people are hurting and i know that the solution is not putting a band-aid on. i know the solution is also not doing nothing. i thought there was broad agreement about that at the forum that the president conducted. to do nothing certainly isn t the question. how we go forward and whether or not we believe that we should go forward without regulating the insurance companies without reigning them in without having dealing with preexisting conditions. without having people s policies rescinded the american people don t want that. they want to see somebody on their side and fighting and i think that s what the president s going to do. he s reached out we ve asked the republicans to join us. we hope they join us because we think that s what makes for better legislation i think the president has been accommodating but you know what at the end of the day this is about the american people not about democrats and republicans and it s about providing for the needs of the american peop
two of them, he said, i want you to let flynn go. mike flynn is a good guy. let him go. why? why did donald trump want mike flynn to be let go? let me add to that the fact that the new york times today is reporting sometime this summer president trump tried to get the chairman of the senate intel richard burr to kill this investigation. throughout the full screen, let s do this, because we did some digging. you add that to this list of seven other people that trump reportedly asked to shut this thing down. so the thing is question. mr. ambassador to you, with all of these people that the president reportedly tried to talk to to say end this, why would he be trying to kill the russian investigation? brooke, thanks for having me back l the reason that the
president trump was sworn into office. i ll tell you that i tried to ask president trump a couple of hours ago about michael flynn s pleading guilty here at the white house. and here s what happened. president had no comment. mr. president, any comment on michael flynn being indicted, sir? can you comment on michael flynn being indicted? mr. president, anything to say about michael flynn, former national security adviser? and there you have it, he did not want to answer that question. he was welcoming libyan prime minister here to the white house. brooke, shortly after that, there was supposed to be media availability in the oval office, one of the pool sprays where the president could have been asked about that and they scrapped that. that got canceled. now the white house did put out a statement from ty cobb white house lawyer. i can read that to you and point out a couple of things to you if
do what he did in the first 100 days. he was the chief executive and that s why he did it but now he needs to work with congress. did he do anything to advance the agenda in it s a good rallying cry but is he advancing the agenda? is he making inroads with skeptics on capitol hill? bret: isn t the question, after the special elections that there are now some democrats who maybe are doubting the position of being obstructionists all the time and they may pluck some of the folks off the obstructionist wall? or at least cause them to make noises that sound slightly less obstructionist. go to where they were at the beginning, think dishonest cooperation between the parties. that becomes a possibility. that sort of lowers the temperature and makes it better. right now the democrats have a more important question to figure out, who will lead them? and they have leadership team that essentially unchanged