this is for wilkinson world the relatives from the school and there's no question that the critical. attorney general bill barr testifies on capitol hill he claims he's impartial an independent from the president his critics say otherwise we'll get perspective from a former federal prosecutor on this addition to. the politicking on larry king our says he's independent impartial and a defender of the rule of law critics say he's behaving as a political actor serving trump's interests and not those of the people let's start there with former federal prosecutors stephen den haag he served as associate

independent counsel for ken starr during the investigation into president bill clinton he is in miami but what was your assessment stephen of bars testimony yesterday. well i think from a legal matter didn't really break any new ground i think he tried to say all the right things and i think they're looking stand he was very measured i think from a political perspective i think he probably won the day in the sense that democrats really try to. beat on him from a political matter and they didn't really pin him down as well as they probably could have this question could have been better with a few exceptions. barnes said he's independent impartial and a defender of the rule of law do you agree. i think he believes he is i think he has his view of the presidency and breath of the power of the presidency and i think he's supporting that view of the unitary executive i can see why people

think that he's being not that that he's not independent because he is i think he's supporting the president and giving the president wide berth from up from a constitutional standpoint i think it's very hard for people to divorce that from their political views what is the law of the constitution say attorneys general are supposed to be on the lawyer for the country what is their involvement with the president well that's a great question right and i think the world really changed after the whole nixon watergate situation you know at the end of the day each cabinet member serves at the pleasure of the president under the constitution for the president and if you believe the president is the boss they serve to the president and so that means that the attorney general's no different than the secretary of agriculture or the secretary of commerce and is not and so therefore serves for the president i think since watergate we have come to see the attorney and let me give an example of

bobby kennedy was. the president's brother at end and certainly served to protect him i think since nixon we've changed our view and the prevailing view is then that the has been that the attorney general should be more independent and i think with this particular president and the last 2 attorneys general we've had people who are probably a little more pro president than than the previous post nixon attorneys general and i think that's come as a as a bit of a an adjustment for many people particularly critics of the president do you like that idea. you know. i like the idea a little more independence from the department of justice i think it sits in a very special place in the in the part of the government of the united states when people are in court and people are going to have their liberty deprived they need

to know that it's fair and they need to know that there is no favoritism one way or the other and i think one of the real problems with the stone case and more and i think this puts it in very serious relief is on the one hand attorney general barr said yesterday at the hearing look he's a 67 year old man he was going to go to jail for 90 years i don't think that's appropriate and i think a lot of people would agree with that and i had made that argument on behalf of my older clients in court and someone younger clients and people i've made arguments similar to that but the problem is that when it appears to the rest of the world that the president's friend gets a deal and other people don't then that undercuts the fairness and i think that that slows the seeds for some very very serious problems in our country as if we can't believe as a as a country that the justice system is fair and that people are fairly prosecuted and

with the you know blind justice as it were i think we start on the path to a very serious problem like how many of the 67 year olds who got longer sentences did the bar asked them to reduce the sentence well the answer appears to be none and that's a very serious problem and that's and that's that's a serious issue and when you just suppose that against the cohen situation. where komen wasn't helpful to the president and he goes back into jail right so it looks like he's getting punished and then a judge in new york takes a map and says that so it was abusive and all this is happening within a 3 week period and and that causes people to ask some serious questions about fairness and you know i think you know remember the the constitution starts with we the people we the people in order to form or perfect union and i think that people are willing to take on up legations and they're willing to take on the tough stuff and they're willing to see people lose their rights but they want to be fair and

when there's this feeling that it's not fair that is very corrosive from my perspective and we have to guard against that what do you make of his defense of the federal forces in portland. that's another problematic situation he says the right things right there's no question at all that people burning down buildings and particularly attacking federal installations like court houses that is just out of bounds i think we can all agree that that's not right and i think we can all agree that the federal government has a huge interest in bringing on foresman to protect federal areas when that law enforcement starts to stray down the block and when that law enforcement starts to come into places where it it's not it starts to exceed the mission and then it it leads to the possibility that at least what we have now is that people just start question and then the plight of the president's political rhetoric on tama on top that we're going to dominate the press protesters it makes it feel as though

this is punishment rather than protection of the federal assets and that's again a very raises really serious problems. ok what about bars statement that he does not agree with his surgeon that there is systemic racism in the american police departments so that's really interesting because in his opening statement what he wrote is he said that he had spoken to people about it and that they had looked at it and he said that the concern is a legitimate concern i think those release exact words but then one pushed exactly on and he said that he doesn't believe there is systemic racism i think that's a tough one to swallow for a lot of people you know who know the criminal justice system well i think. i think people really believe and i think rightfully so that folks with dark skin are more like hold over traffic stops are more likely to get more punishing

sentence and get treated a little differently and that's just not a good thing so. you know it's just a good example where on paper he was measured when he got into the congress i think he was a little more proactive but i also don't i don't dispute that he actually believes that like and i think there are people who believe that and so i don't think he was sitting there lie. no but that's troublesome of the attorney general believes that his wouldn't. you know i would want the proud want to turn in general of the united states to be going out of his way to make sure that justice was fair to every american no matter what no matter what wealth race ethnicity sex whatever it just should be equal and we should be doing every single thing we can to guard against any not just the the not just the different outcomes and different treatments but the perception when you when you make a motion to ask

a judge to recuse him or herself from a case the issues not just is the judge factually should just factually be recused the issue is should the judge be. is there a perception that the judge should be recused and i think the same thing is true with this i think i think we have to go one step further than the charge generals going when he used the word super to discuss the president's handling of the pandemic that surprise you. know but it's another excellent example of where he's acting i think as a political act are and and and not as necessarily an independent. legal voice i mean i'm sitting here in miami and we have a very frightful situation down here with code it may have our hospitals are overrun we have running low if not completely done ventilators it's just

a little scary to be and for the president or any of his people to say that we're doing a circular job. it doesn't sit well it doesn't sit well with me you know i got a lot longer and i've had since 1008 and it's because i can't but the barbara i just can't leave my house you know it's that that's just didn't sit right with me mommy leaves the country what's it like to be there. well. you know it's a little scary i've got to tell you in the sense that you know we have more and more people getting sick and we have more and we have fewer and fewer hospital beds and so i you know i really worry for people who are older and people who have health problems and i think what we're seeing here is what we're seeing in the rest of the country is there are a number of people that can work from home and this really hasn't fully made a change in their lives and that's good for them but we also have people who not

withstanding all this problem have to go out and work their jobs when they were going to grocery store or hospital or whatever and i think you know i don't feel comfortable i feel comfortable going with my mask to a grocery store but i don't know that i'd feel comfortable working there every day for 8 hours a day so. bars is that is no reason to think the election will be rigged but he says there is an increased risk of mass of voter fraud when you have mail and do you agree with dan well yes and no i it almost depends on what you mean there's no question that if you have people mailing in ballots it's less secure than people walking up to a polling place showing their id and voting in person but the question is does that undermine the election and i'm not sure that i think i don't think it does i think we have maryland for long time how much confidence do you have in the election i

integrity of the election. i have a confidence in the election i do i think. i have faith that 1st of all you know it's 50 different states and i think i think there will be some for it around i think there always has been there and allegations of fooling around the beginning of the republic but in the end there are very few states that are super super close and i think it's diverse enough that that it will be ok stephen always great talking with you thank you so much for your time and stay healthy thank you you too and thanks for having me have a great evening thanks stephen been hard for joining us well i want politicking right after this.

you cannot be voting with me yeah you like. the one else seems wrong but i will just don't hold. me close to get to see palin this day become educated and in danger because the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart we choose to look for common ground. a dark industry comes to life in los angeles every night. dozens of women sells

their bodies on the streets many of them under-age. los angeles police reveal a taste of their daily challenge if you're going to exploit a child here in los angeles they were going to come out you see officers going undercover as 6 workers and customers to fight the 6 trades. it's definitely something because the dark too small. to trigger this may want to get vaccinated and. if you want to overcome the troops travel restrictions economy restrictions then we have to have a viewer that see.

what the back to politicking right botched job pollak hand an article on claiming that big tech and mainstream media have joined forces to crush free speech and press freedom and censoring alternative medical use on the coronavirus let's find out what he means as joel joins us from los angeles he is senior editor at large and house counsel for breitbart news his latest book is red november well the country vote red for trump or red for socialism in the article joe you wrote that a big check and mainstream media have joined forces to crush free speech how do you mean. well what's happening is that big tech is censoring content that it doesn't like and the mainstream media are often pointing out targets to the technology companies and asking them to censor these targets or asking them why they haven't censor them yet and in the example i brought up there was

a press conference that was held by a group of doctors it was a political group was sponsored by the tea party patriots which is a conservative group but there was a group of doctors presenting their views on covert 19 and we showed up as did some other outlets and we were live streaming the press conference and one of the doctors made a claim that hydroxy couric win was quote unquote a cure for a coke at 19 i'm not sure she actually meant it completely cure the disease or what she meant but they have justified taking down that video wherever it is appear they facebook twitter and so on but in addition to that twitter suspended our count and punished us for merely being the source of the video some people had used no we were a live streaming a press conference we didn't know what this person was going to say beforehand so the standard that's now being applied by big tech is that you have to be able to

vouch for the factual accuracy of any claim made in a press conference you have to be able to vouch for the resumes of the people speaking there and if other people take your video and make memes out of it or tweet or signs of it or whatever you could be punished and this is a form of prior restraint that basically means you can't go into any just press conferences now of course it only applies to one site you don't see this happening to left wing groups they can do and say what they want but if we just live stream a press conference we stand some risk of losing our traffic losing our business and it's a form of prior restraint that the government did it and prevented media companies from covering certain kinds of things everybody would recognize it was a violation of the 1st amendment. it happens to be done by private company in this case but the mainstream media companies like the new york times and c.n.n. and others they run around pointing out content they don't like and that they don't think should be on these platforms and then the platforms are blocked and that's what happened in this case where the new york times flagged something on twitter as being objectionable in terms of the coronavirus statements that were made at the

press conference by one of the doctors and facebook took it down and then twitter took it down and then you tube took it down and if the standard they create is really just hostile to free speech and the free press. to a what's wrong if the information is blatantly false well i think there are standards that the medical press profession applies to itself and there are also standards in advertising that we do have. some restrictions on what you can say there are laws against false advertising and so forth but in this case in the case of hydroxy courtman there really is a debate about whether it's effective in treating covert 90 there was a study that came out from i think it was the henry ford hospital system with thousands of patients couple weeks ago saying that they found a very significant effect in helping and there are other studies that said they hadn't found that effect and you can have a debate about it because there certainly is

a debate in the medical literature but we can't somehow have that debate in public even though it affects a very important political issue because big tobacco has decided that if trump likes it it must be wrong and that's the problem with this debate we're not actually having a medical debate about medical facts and i'm not qualified to judge whether one thing works or doesn't i'm just pointing out the principle that we should offer a press conference we had no idea what this person was going to say and our website was punished because of something somebody said on a live stream you know you know it's not like we're sitting there editing a video and then putting something up and saying hey this is news this is useful information we showed up to take a video of a press conference people are looking for other sources of information other than the government on this on this disease and you know some of the other people got up instead things that were entirely uncontroversial there was a doctor who said scientists are telling us it's safe to go back to school the c.d.c. says it's safe to go back to school as a direct school and things of that nature so just the one doctor they have jacked

it to and for that we published our website but you would you agree that that one doctor i saw a table that had to say was a little ridiculous when the government's scientific community is telling you that this drug does not work. well again i am not sure that that's what the consensus in the scientific community is i do think she went too far and i think she ventured into hyperbole when she used the word cure i think the problem with the word curious people assume that you're getting rid of the disease entirely i mean this is an effective treatment in some of the studies but nobody has said this actually cures anything so whether she meant it in a medical scientific sense or just sort of in a colloquial sense i don't know the other thing she said was that we don't need to worry about masks and again that's something i think can be interpreted in a bad way although i think in the context that she made that comment she was saying well if we have this treatment you know masks are sort of secondary but i agree

with you we should not be allowing people to put out false information but there are other ways to correct now other than saying to the people who showed up with a camera and said you know we're going to punish your website for providing live coverage of something you know there are politicians who say false things all the time i mean joe biden couple years ago said that his advice for gun owners was to shoot to shotgun blasts through the front door if they're worried about an intruder i mean that's crazy stuff but you know it's news you got a cartridge i mean somebody saying. you know you can be careful intent try to avoid people but when there are doctors who have some expertise as clinicians in the field you know it's very hard to advance to say well i don't want to hear what this person has to say what do you make of this minority opinion that esteem doctor follow g. is is wrong. well he's been wrong about some things by his own admission and he said in march or early on independent that there's no need for people to wear masks and then he changed his mind and said people should wear masks and he was at

a baseball game but he didn't wear him out i mean you know he's been generally pretty credible but but there's also a lot of evolving science on this i mean i read some of the early papers in the new england journal of medicine about this and i'm really not qualified to judge even though i have some scientific background i definitely have no medical background and i think the scientists have been all over the map on this so i disagree with those who say that found she is motivated by that intentions and i think there are some people saying that i don't there's any evidence of that i think he's done the best he can when he's been right has been right when he's been wrong he's been wrong i think his intentions have been good but he approaches the problem differently say then peter to borrow who say who's an economist who's not a doctor who looks at the economic cost of the shutdowns and i think the point is that there's tradeoffs there are always tradeoffs the economist wants people who go back to work and the doctor wants people to stay home and somewhere you know in the middle somewhere in the middle of that there's there's where the public is going to find itself yeah what is an economists know about spreading the virus. it's odd

because the economists got one thing very right they found she had it wrong which was the travel plans peter navarro proposed banning travel when the pendennis began spreading from china and that probably part of some time i'm not sure we used it as well as we could if there were some problems at the c.d.c. with testing and so we lost a couple of weeks there but it would have been much worse if we hadn't had that travel ban but found she was against it at the time the public health community was against the travel bans peter navarro service to a travel ban trumped at the travel ban and afterwards struck she said you know what it worked and thought she was fully behind the travel ban from europe after that so he changed his mind about travel ban i mean my only point is that the doctors have changed their minds because this is a novel coronavirus this is a new to seize and we don't know enough about it so i think anybody who says they have absolute knowledge of what's going on is probably either not informed

themselves or is trying to misinform others but we have to manage the risks and if you ation and so i think dr tachi is definitely a valuable part of the conversation but i don't agree with the approach is that we should just give all the decisions over to him because then none of us none of us would be the house in we would have thrown away our masks in february and tried to find them again in april wouldn't you say the medical community has been 95 percent right on the coronavirus. no. you know that's a no no no no 95 percent that's the problem and the other problem. when you can say no i need i say they've been right about some things i definitely think that. that people should wear a mask i mean that's that's what they're saying now but remember the surgeon general of the united states was sitting until i think april some time that we shouldn't wear a mask out you know says they were going along with that policy because they were worried that there weren't enough masks to go around so they wanted to keep the masks for the hospitals so trump made sure the manufacturers produce more masks now

we don't have that problem now we can tell you want to wear a mask but you know they admitted to kind of lie to us that appears so so i don't know you know i don't think anyone's been 95 percent right about anything the one thing i'll say that gets downplayed very significant way is that public health consequences of all the lockdowns i mean there are people struggling in a very big way with with other public health challenges that have come about or have worsened because of the lockdowns and we don't see that as much in the media would you agree that they have that the government has not handled this very well. you know i think they've actually done a very good job and i include democrats and republicans in that yeah yeah i think i think that for example you know here in california i mean if i can talk about a democrat is done the job you know i think gavin newsome did a good job a better job if i can say this than than andrew cuomo in new york because andrew cuomo had a directive saying that people who are sick with corona virus should be sent to nursing homes and gavin newsome in california had

a similar directive but when people raised objections he listened and he canceled it and probably saved thousands of people so i think gavin newsome is you know deserves credit for canceling that because they started to learn that older people were particularly susceptible and that was inappropriate so you know the people are learning as they go i think i think trump did a good job i just finished this thought. primarily because you got private industry involved in because he didn't create a big new government bureaucracy to do this he let the states figure things out on their own and so we're starting to learn from some states what worked and what didn't and i think that that's the best you can do in a situation where nobody knows anything. don't you have now those getting worse before it gets better. well the president's own i thought if there's an editorial in the wall street journal wednesday morning about how there's been a resurgence around the globe and even the countries that people said early on oh they did such a great job they're now having a resurgence it's just

a virus that happens to strike whatever people are getting back to work when people are out and about you know we still don't know exactly everything about its transmission and almost every country you know you can you can name any country that one side or the other says it's successful you know there are some republicans who like to say sweden did it right is in lock down their economy but sweden had a very high death rate then some people like to say well you know australia did a right as they had very few deaths very few cases now they're in the middle of a massive surge of cases and israel's the same of the next you know who was was riding high he was the guy who walked everything down and kept the disease from affecting a lot of people they opened things up a little bit and it had a huge search it's just it's just a problem everybody's dealing with joe you are never dull. that you so much for joining is joe the best compliment i've ever received thank you and you are you are never you're always struck out the effort thanks for your time today jol and thank you for joining me on this edition of politicking remember you can join the conversation on my facebook page or tweet me at kings things and don't forget to

use the politicking hash tag and that's all for this edition of politicking.

we go to work you straight home. every crisis in america has been packaged as a bond and sold into the junk bond market with a longer maturity at a slightly lower coupon right and they've been doing this now for 40 years to the point where america's indebtedness says then they engineered to the point of an extinction event as have many countries as has the global. u.s. secretary of state michael ok oh he's on a mission he claims the world must change china or china will change just how

should we interpret this the cold war to be waged against nation this is also implying force regime change china is certainly a major global competitor but he said now. greetings and salutation. with millions across the united states facing eviction is over $150000.00 u.s. citizens no longer with us due to the u.s. government's abject failure in responding to the coburg 19 pandemic and weather experts now predicting hurricane season is set to unleash at least 13 hurricanes on u.s. shores in the coming months i bet with all of that you cannot guess where the priorities of the united states.