MTP transcripts, resources and video - Meet the Press - Resources | NBC News
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, in the onslaught against more than 20 state election systems, according to sources with knowledge of the matter. Hillary Clinton (presidential debate, transcript via CNN), Sept. Mike Pence told Meet the Press in October that "there's more and. The Democratic presidential debates were debates prior to and during the The new President and Vice-President were sworn in January 20, The candidates who attracted the most media attention included Hillary Clinton , Barack .. , the Des Moines Register moved the debate up to December December 20, It has not been proven that he's killed reporters." said on NBC's “Meet the Press” on Sunday, according to an advance transcript. “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd pressed Trump on his rhetoric, asking to the stage after the customary break midway through the Democratic debate on Saturday.
You can unsubscribe at any time. Marcy Kaptur D-Ohio -- the longest-serving woman in the House -- came to the Senate side to snap photos, and visit Schumer. But McConnell went to the floor yesterday saying that negotiations were between Schumer and the president. Kane asked if they were encouraging him to sign a bill or keep the government shut down.
Will it be days away? Bob Corker said Sunday the president could easily have avoided the current fight over funding for a border wall if he wanted to. He cited security technology the U. So with that in mind do you intend to vote for any kind of spending bill that includes billions of dollars from U. Stay as long as you possibly can. We desperately need your mature voice, your patriotism in the room when this president's making life or death decisions about national security.
But it obviously reached a breaking point. We counted on him to be there and to stop this president from his worst impulse. Drones and all of the rest are wonderful and lots of fun, but it is only a good old fashioned Wall that works! Trump has waged war against his own government, convinced that people around him are fools.
Angry that they resist his wishes, uninterested in the details of their briefings, he becomes especially agitated when they tell him he does not have the power to do what he wants, which makes him suspicious that they are secretly undermining him.
He spends ever more time in front of a television, often retreating to his residence out of concern that he is being watched too closely. They taught him history, explained nuances and gamed out reverberations.
They urged careful deliberation, counseled restraint and prepared talking points to try to sell mainstream actions to a restive conservative base hungry for disruption. But in the end, they failed. For President Trump, the era of containment is over. So far, the result has been disarray. Republican lawmakers once afraid of crossing this president are now openly critical. The resignation takes effect Dec. He will teach a course and write. Was supposed to leave in February but he just resigned prior to leaving.
The Fake News is making such a big deal about this nothing event! Bush as his replacement for Jeff Sessions. Bush — a fact unmentioned in a recent White House announcement of his nomination. Jim Jeffrey, a former senior aide in George W. First off, we can do all the great speeches we want but you're not going to succeed unless there is a consensus.
Injust to set the record straight governor, I ran for the U. We have one House member from Vermont, three candidates in the race. One candidate said, you know what, I don't think it's a great idea that we sell automatic weapons in this country that are used by the military to kill people very rapidly.
CBS News battleground tracker poll: I lost that election by three percentage points. Quite likely, for that reason. So please, do not explain to me, coming from a state where democratic governors and republican governors have supported virtually no gun control. Do not tell me that I have not shown courage in standing up to the gun people, in voting to ban assault weapons, voting for instant background checks, voting to end the gun show loop hole and now we're in a position to create a consensus in America on gun safety.
I want to move on here. Secretary Clinton, you brought up Donald Trump a short time ago. I do and this is an important issue and I know we'll get to a lot of other critical ones as well. I actually agree with Governor O'Malley about the need for common sense gun safety measures. And I applaud his record in Maryland.
I just wish he wouldn't misrepresent mine. I have been for the Brady bill, I have been against assault weapons. I have voted not to give gun makers and sellers immunity.
And I also know that -- and I'm glad to see this -- Senator Sanders has really moved in face of the facts about what we're confronting in our country. I know that he has said in the two previous that he wants to take on this immunity issue because we need to send a strong message to the gun manufacturers, to the sellers, to the gun lobby. And I would hope, Senator Sanders, that you would join the Democrats who are trying to close the Charleston loophole, that you would sponsor or co-sponsor legislation to remove the absolute immunity.
We need to move on this consensus that exists in the country. It's no longer enough just to say the vast majority of Americans want common sense gun safety measures including gun owners. We need, and only the three of us will do this, nobody on the Republican side will even admit there's a problem.
And in whatever way the three of us can we need to move this agenda forward and begin to deal with the gun lobby and the intimidation that they present. Secretary Clinton, thank you. We're going to move on from guns here and go back to something you mentioned a short time ago.
You brought up Donald Trump first here this evening. We've now seen the polling done well after his proposed ban on Muslims coming to America. Thirty-six percent of Americans, more than a third, agree with him. You have weighed in already on Donald Trump. You've weighed in on the proposed ban. But what would you say to the millions of Americans watching tonight who agree with him? Well I think a lot of people are understandably reacting out of fear and anxiety about what they're seeing.
First what they saw in Paris, now what they have seen in San Bernardino. Trump has a great capacity to use bluster and bigotry to inflame people and to make think there are easy answers to very complex questions.
So what I would say is, number one, we need to be united against the threats that we face.
Democratic debate transcript: Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley in New Hampshire
We need to have everybody in our country focused on watching what happens and reporting it if it's suspicious, reporting what you hear. Making sure that Muslim Americans don't feel left out or marginalized at the very moment when we need their help. Trump is becoming Islamic State's 'biggest recruiter' Play Video0: One of the best things that was done, and George W. Bush did this and I give him credit, was to reach out to Muslim Americans and say, we're in this together.
You are not our adversary, you are our partner. And we also need to make sure that the really discriminatory messages that Trump is sending around the world don't fall on receptive ears. He is becoming ISIS's best recruiter. They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists. So I want to explain why this is not in America's interest to react with this kind of fear and respond to this sort of bigotry. Senator Sanders, I did want to ask you about a neighbor in San Bernardino who reportedly witnessed packages being delivered to that couple's home, that it set off red flags, but they didn't report it because they were afraid to profile.
What would you say to Americans afraid to profile? Is it ever acceptable? Well, the answer is, obviously, if you see suspicious activity, you report it. That's kind of a no-brainer. You know, somebody is loading guns and ammunition into a house, I think it's a good idea to call But I'm asking about -- I'm asking about profiling. Because a lot of people are afraid of that.
But I want to talk -- I want to talk about something else, because Secretary Clinton I think made some interesting and good points. What you have now is a very dangerous moment in American history. The secretary is right: Our people are fearful. They are anxious on a number of levels. They are anxious about international terrorism and the possibility of another attack on America.
We all understand that. But you know what else they're anxious about? They're anxious about the fact that they are working incredibly long hours, they're worried about their kids, and they're seeing all the new income and wealth -- virtually all of it -- going to the top 1 percent. And they're looking around them, and they're looking at Washington, and they're saying the rich are getting much richer, I'm getting poorer, what are you going to do about it?
What are you going to do for my kids? And somebody like a Trump comes along and says, "I know the answers. The answer is that all of the Mexicans, they're criminals and rapists, we've got to hate the Mexicans.
Those are your enemies. We hate all the Muslims, because all of the Muslims are terrorists. We've got to hate the Muslims. So what I say to those people who go to Donald Trump's rallies, understand: He thinks a low minimum wage in America is a good idea. He thinks low wages are a good idea. I believe we stand together to address the real issues facing this country, not allow them to divide us by race or where we come from.
Let's create an America that works for all of us, not the handful on top. I want to move to another Martha, may I -- Martha, may I No, no, not yet, Governor O'Malley. Can I share this quick story? No, not yet, Governor O'Malley. I'll come to you when we call on you. Thank you very much. When you come back to me, I'll share that story. I'll let -- I'll let you talk then.
Secretary Clinton, I want to talk about a new terrorist tool used in the Paris attacks, encryption. FBI Director James Comey says terrorists can hold secret communications which law enforcement cannot get to, even with a court order. You've talked a lot about bringing tech leaders and government officials together, but Apple CEO Tim Cook said removing encryption tools from our products altogether would only hurt law-abiding citizens who rely on us to protect their data. So would you force him to give law enforcement a key to encrypted technology by making it law?
I would not want to go to that point. I would hope that, given the extraordinary capacities that the tech community has and the legitimate needs and questions from law enforcement, that there could be a Manhattan-like project, something that would bring the government and the tech communities together to see they're not adversaries, they've got to be partners.
It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into before or after. There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology,Martha, to be able to say what it is, but I have a lot of confidence in our tech experts.
And maybe the back door is the wrong door, and I understand what Apple and others are saying about that. But I also understand, when a law enforcement official charged with the responsibility of preventing attacks -- to go back to our early questions, how do we prevent attacks -- well, if we can't know what someone is planning, we are going to have to rely on the neighbor or, you know, the member of the mosque or the teacher, somebody to see something.
I just think there's got to be a way, and I would hope that our tech companies would work with government to figure that out. Otherwise, law enforcement is blind -- blind before, blind during, and, unfortunately, in many instances, blind after.
POLITICO Playbook: The most reliable politics newsletter. - POLITICO
So we always have to balance liberty and security, privacy and safety, but I know that law enforcement needs the tools to keep us safe. And that's what i hope, there can be some understanding and cooperation to achieve. And Governor O'Malley, where do you draw the line between national security and personal security? I believe that we should never give up our privacy; never should give up our freedoms in exchange for a promise of security. We need to figure this out together. We need a collaborative approach.
We need new leadership. The way that things work in the modern era is actually to gather people around the table and figure these things out.
The federal government should have to get warrants. That's not some sort of passe you know, antique sort of principle that safeguards our freedoms. Democrats talk foreign policy, economy in third debate But at the same time with new technologies I believe that the people creating these projects -- I mean these products also have an obligation to come together with law enforcement to figure these things out; true to our American principles and values.
My friend Kashif, who is a doctor in Maryland; back to this issue of our danger as a democracy of turning against ourselves. He was putting his 10 and year-old boys to bed the other night. And he is a proud American Muslim. And one of his little boys said to him, "Dad, what happens if Donald Trump wins and we have to move out of our homes?
We need to speak to what unites us as a people; freedom of worship, freedom of religion, freedom of expression. And we should never be convinced to give up those freedoms in exchange for a promise of greater security; especially from someone as untried and as incompetent as Donald Trump.
Thank you, Governor O'Malley. Martha, we're going to turn now to refugees coming to America. And on the subject of refugees, more than half of all Americans now say they oppose taking in refugees from Syria and across the Middle East.
Secretary Clinton, you have said that it would undermine who we are as Americans, shutting our doors. But New Hampshire's governor, where we are right here tonight, a democrat and a supporter of yours, is among more than 30 governors who are now concerned. Governor Maggie Hassan says, "we should halt acceptance of Syrian refugees until U.
Well, I agree that we have to have the toughest screening and vetting I don't think a halt is necessary. What we have to do is put all of our resources through the Department of Homeland Security, through the State Department, through our intelligence agencies, and we have to have an increased vetting and screening.
Now, this takes, David, 18 months to 24 months, two years. So I know it's not going to happen overnight and everything that can be done should be done. But the process should move forward while we are also taking on ISIS, putting together the kind of strategy that I've advocated for, and making sure that the vetting and the screening is as tough as possible.
Because I do believe that we have a history and a tradition, that is part of our values system and we don't want to sacrifice our values.
We don't want to make it seem as though we are turning into a nation of fear instead of a nation of resolve. So I want us to have a very tough screening process but I want that process to go forward. And if at the end of 18 months, 24 months there are people who have been cleared, and I would prioritize widows, and orphans, and the elderly, people who may have relatives, families, or have nowhere else to go.
I would prioritize them. And that would I think give the American public a bit more of a sense of security about who is being processed and who might end up coming as refugees.
Governor O'Malley, obviously you were governor yourself at one time. What would you say to New Hampshire's governor tonight? Is she wrong on this? No, what I would say is this is look, I was the first of the three of us to call for America to accept the 65, refugees we were asked to accept. And if this humanitarian crisis increases, we should accept more. So the idea of a halt or a pause? David, there are wider vulnerabilities than when it comes to refugees. I met recently with some members of the Chaldean Christian communities and the wait times are a year, 18 months, 24 months.
There is a pretty excruciating process that refugees go through. We need to invest more in terms of the other sort of visas and the other sort of waivers. What these Chaldean families told me was that their families in Syria, when ISIS moves into their town, they actually paint a red cross across the door and mark their homes for demolition, and that tells the family you'd better get out now.
The sort of genocide and brutality that the victims are suffering, these are not the perpetrators. We need to be the nation whose enduring symbol is the Statue of Liberty, and we need to act like the great country we are, according to our values. Senator Sanders -- Senator Sanders, we're going to move on. We're going to move on. May I have a chance to respond to this issue?
We're going to move on to the fight against ISIS. You're the one who told us we have to follow the rules and break it off. Yeah, but the rule includes equal -- got it. I do want to move to the fight against ISIS. James Foley grew up here. The first hostage, a journalist, brutally executed last year.
You've all said ISIS is a ruthless enemy and must be stopped. Al Qaida as well. Senator Sanders, you voted to send U.
Contrary To Trump's Tweet, Russian Hacking Came Up Before Election (A Lot)
Can you then explain you why don't support sending U. And I also voted and helped lead the effort against the war in Iraq, which will go down in history as one of the worst foreign blunders -- foreign policy blunders in the history of our country. I voted against the first Gulf War, which set the stage, I believe, for the second Iraq war.
And what I believe right now, and I believe this is terribly important, is the United States of America cannot succeed, or be thought of as the policeman of the world, that when there's an international crisis all over the world, in France and in the U. Or -- hey, just call up the American military and the American taxpayers, they're going to send the troops.
And if they have to be in the Middle East for 20 or 30 years no problem. I have a problem with that, Martha. What I believe has got to happen is there must be an international coalition, including Russia, a well-coordinated effort.
But I agree, as I mentioned a moment ago, with King Abdullah. This is a war for the soul of Islam. The troops on the ground should not be American troops. They should be Muslim troops. I believe that countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar have got to step up to the plate, have got to contribute the money that we need, and the troops that we need, to destroy ISIS with American support.
The administration has tried that over and over again. If it doesn't work and this threat is so great, what's your plan B? My plan is to make it work, to tell Saudi Arabia that instead of going to war in Yemen, they, one of the wealthiest countries on Earth, are going to have to go to war against ISIS.
Secretary Clinton, you too have ruled out a large U. We've already lost one Delta Force member in a raid. It has looked very much to me like we're already in ground combat on frequent trips I've made there. So, are you fooling Americans when you say, we're not putting American combat troops back into Syria or Iraq?
I think that what we're facing with ISIS is especially complicated. It was a different situation in Afghanistan. We were attacked from Afghanistan. Al Qaida was based in Afghanistan. We went after those who had attacked us. What's happening in Syria and Iraq is that, because of the failures in the region, including the failure of the prior government in Baghdad, led by Maliki, there has been a resurgence of Sunni activities, as exemplified by ISIS.
And we have to support Sunni-Arab and Kurdish forces against ISIS, because I believe it would be not only a strategic mistake for the United States to put ground combat troops in, as opposed to special operators, as opposed to trainers, because that is exactly what ISIS wants.
They want American troops back in the Middle East. They want American soldiers on the ground fighting them, giving them many more targets, and giving them a great recruiting opportunity. So, I think it's absolutely wrong policy for us to be even imaginingwe're going end up putting tens of thousands of American troops into Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS. And we do have to form a coalition.
I have formed them. I put together a coalition, including Arabs, with respect to Libya and a coalition to put sanctions onto Iran. And you have to really work hard at it. And the final thing I would say, bringing Donald Trump back into it, if you're going to put together a coalition in the region to take on the threat of ISIS you don't want to alienate the very countries and people you need to be part of the coalition.
And so that is part of the reason why this is so difficult. Secretary Clinton, I want -- I want to follow up on that. You do support sending special operations forces there. You support what the president has done already. One of the lessons people draw from Vietnam and war since is that a little force can turn into a little more and a little more. President Obama certainly didn't expect to be sending 30, additional troops into Afghanistan the first year of his presidency.
Are you prepared to run the risk of a bigger war to achieve your goals to destroy ISIS, or are you prepared to give up on those goals if it requires a larger force? Well, I just think you're asking a question with a false choice. I believe if we lead an air coalition, which we are now in the position of doing and intensify it, if we continue to build back up the Iraqi army, which has had some recent success in Ramadi, as you know, if we get back talking to the tribal sheiks in Anbar to try to rebuild those relationships, which were very successful, in going after Al Qaida in Iraq, if we get the Turks to pay more attention to ISIS than they're paying to the Kurds, if we do put together the kind of coalition with the specific tasks that I am outlining, I think we can be successful in destroying ISIS.
So that's what I'm focused on, that's what I've outlined and that's what I would do as president. What is it our intelligence community is not doing now that needs to be done?
Well, we have invested nowhere near what we should be investing in human intelligence on the ground. And what I'm talking about is not only the covert CIA intelligence, I'm also talking about diplomatic intelligence. I mean, we've seen time and time again, especially in this very troubled region of nation-state failures, and then we have no idea who the next generation of leaders are that are coming forward.
So what I would say is not only do we need to be thinking in military terms, but we do our military a disservice when we don't greatly dial up the investment that we are making in diplomacy and human intelligence and when we fail to dial up properly, the role of sustainable development in all of this.
We have to act in a much more whole of government approach, as General Dempsey said. And I do believe, and I would disagree somewhat with one of my colleagues, this is a genocidal threat.
They have now created a safe haven in the vacuum that we allowed to be partly and because of our blunders, to be created to be created in the areas of Syria and Iraq. We cannot allow safe havens, and as a leader of moral nations around this Earth, we need to come up with new alliances and new ways to prepare for these new sorts of threats, because Martha, this will not be the last region where nation-states fail.
And you've seen a little bit of this emerging in the -- in the African Union and the things that they have done to better stabilize Somalia. We need to pay attention here in Central America as well. So this is the new type of threats that we're facing and we need to lead as a nation in confronting it and putting together new alliances and new coalitions.
Well, I just want to quickly add Martha, that -- you know, one of the reasons why I have advocated for a no-fly zone is in order to create those safe refuges within Syria, to try to protect people on the ground both from Assad's forces, who are continuing to drop barrel bombs, and from ISIS.
And of course, it has to be de-conflicted with the Russians, who are also flying in that space. I'm hoping that because of the very recent announcement of the agreement at the Security Council, which embodies actually an agreement that I negotiated back in Geneva in June ofwe're going to get a diplomatic effort in Syria to begin to try to make a transition. A no-fly zone would prevent the outflow of refugees and give us a chance to have some safe spaces.
Secretary Clinton, I'd like to go back to that if I could. So would you shoot down a Syrian military aircraft or a Russian airplane?
Democratic Party presidential debates and forums - Wikipedia
I do not think it would come to that. We are already de-conflicting air space. But isn't that a decision you should make now, whether No, I don't think so. I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I'm also advocating it because I think it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia.
Now that Russia has joined us in the Security Council, has adopted an agreement that we hashed out a long day in Geneva three years ago, now I think we can have those conversations. The no-fly zone, I would hope, would be also shared by Russia. If they will begin to turn their military attention away from going after the adversaries of Assad toward ISIS and put the Assad future on the political and diplomatic track, where it belongs. I want to take this to Senator -- I'm going to take this to Senator Sanders next, because I think there I have a difference of opinion with Secretary Clinton on this.
Our differences are fairly deep on this issue. We disagreed on the war in Iraq. We both listened to the information from Bush and Cheney. I voted against the war. But I think -- and I say this with due respect -- that I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be.
- 2008 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums
- Meet the Press transcripts, resources and video
- POLITICO Playbook: Shutdown negotiations stalled
Yes, we could get rid of Saddam Hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. Yes, we could get rid of Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS. So I think, yeah, regime change is easy, getting rid of dictators is easy. But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after.
And in my view, what we need to do is put together broad coalitions to understand that we're not going to have a political vacuum filled by terrorists, that, in fact, we are going to move steadily -- and maybe slowly -- toward democratic societies, in terms of Assad, a terrible dictator.
That's the secondary issue. That is exactly what I just said and what I just described. Yeah, but, Secretary Clinton -- Secretary Clinton And that is important, because now we have a U. Security Council that will enable us to do that. And, you know, with all due respect, Senator, you voted for regime change with respect to Libya. You joined the Senate in voting to get rid of Gadhafi, and you asked that there be a Security Council validation of that with a resolution. All of these are very difficult issues.
I know that; I've been dealing with them for a long time. And, of course, we have to continue to do what is necessary when someone like Gadhafi, a despot with American blood on his hands, is overturned.
But I'll tell you what would have happened, if we had not joined with our European partners and our Arab partners to assist the people in Libya, you would be looking at Syria. Now the Libyans are turning their attention to try to dislodge ISIS from its foothold and begin to try to move together to have a unified nation.
I was not the secretary of state