justice gorsuch has been an active questioner. he is a trial lawyer in court a lot when he was at the law firm. he is used to an active dialogue with the judge, just on the other side of the bench. he's very polite. he always listens to counsel, doesn't interrupt them, but will ask tough questions. it is interesting because one of the things he was best known for her when he was a judge and when he was before the senate coming universally the judges talked about his demeanor on the 10th circuit, whether liberal or conservative all said he was unfailingly polite, on laughably kind person, a prince in some sense. not the princes described earlier by judge mckay c. using a lot of media articles recently in the last few weeks and months that somehow suggest all of a sudden when justice gorsuch became a different person. he's become mean and aggressive and his writing has become terrible. i would just ask you to think to yourself, you know, it's amazing how much somebody might change in a year when they join the supreme court. i daresa

neil gorsuch: ok. so that's the nature of the proceeding. so we've got a. frederick liu: sure. neil gorsuch: we've got to have that. how about the legal authority -- frederick liu: yes. neil gorsuch: -- got to have that? frederick liu: yes, and c and d. neil gorsuch: ok. and how about c and d? frederick liu: c and d. neil gorsuch: so it's only the date and time that we don't have to have. everything else is good. frederick liu: no, no, no, e through g. neil gorsuch: e through g, no, none of those? frederick liu: no, because those have to do with the mechanics of subsequent proceedings. the reason why a through d are essential is because a through d are about -- neil gorsuch: so you don't -- don't need to tell them they need counsel, for example. that's -- that's not required? frederick liu: no. neil gorsuch: ok. frederick liu: because that -- that's an advisal about the mechanics of future proceedings. what's special about a and d isn't that they're labeled a and d in the statute, but because they happ

this is the first full term justice gorsuch served on the court. this is also a relatively new term with the court having an entire set of cases of the trump administration in power in the third factor that really makes this a term like almost no other is that it is a big term in a sense there are an inordinate number of headline cases, particularly in contrast to the term before there was certainly a sleepy term a modern supreme court standards. i want to focus on all three of these factors making this such an interesting term and at the end tie it together because they think they all ultimately reinforce each other. the first thing in the most obvious thing i suppose is that the court is dealing with a new justice and accommodating itself to the reality of life with justice gorsuch as the junior member of the court. it is more than just a new member of the court in more than just justice gorsuch because the court is coming out of this rather extraordinary. where for over a year they were operating as an eight-member court. away so people in descr

neil gorsuch. other nominees that will be bad for workers, bad for women, that for lgbtq people, bad for americans and corporations. michele: what are they getting for their money? we are at a point where we are saying judges are being bought. they are now supposed to roll on behalf of all of the american people. tell us about who some of these judges are and what they are getting? >> we looked at these groups. we found the courts warmer likely to side with corporations. whenever there is an individual lender corporation, that is the .ind they want it is not they are trying to influence the judge in a cropped way, it is -- in a corrupt way, they are trying to get judges with a certain agenda. like a judge out of north carolina who has spent his career working against workers rights. depending workplace discrimination. those are the kind of judges they want on the bench. next, i would like to bring up sarah. you can pull her book up on amazon. i want to turn to you because there is something in part

there was neil gorsuch on the bench. they want all theseother nominees that are going to be bad for workers . for women, bad for lgbt people and bad for ordinary americans and corporations. so what would you say they are getting for their money? >> i don't unfortunately, and we are now in place where there saying that judges are essentially being bought and they are now supposed to rule on behalf of all of us, the american people. tell us about some of who these judges are and what do you think they are getting in the bang for their buck? >> a lot of the research i did here, we looked at the state supreme court where they had seen about increasing their campaign contributions from groups like judicial crisis network and we found those courts s were a lot more likely to side with corporations over individuals whenever there's an individual on one side corporation on the other side. as they want the federal level as well. it's not always there's a time to influence the judge and trying to sort of influence them in a corrup

and near and dear to any originalists heart, the confirmation of not just of neil gorsuch, but also 21eals courts judges in the court of appeals in the united states, with another 20 lined up behind them in a landing pattern, which has already set a record for a new president. and which is already one-eighth of the sitting federal appeals judges, on its way soon to be one quarter. senator cornyn, welcome. a good memorial day weekend to you. >> thanks, hugh. that's a great summary of the last 17 months. >> it's been busy. before we go to that and the courts in particular, though. i want to look back at the last few days. president trump has begun to use the woterm "spygate," #spygate. is it appropriate for the president to use that term, senator? >> well, i know the president's using this generically to talk about an fbi informant that was part of this investigation. you know, i don't remember circumstances under which both presidential candidates of the major political parties were the subject of fbi investigations, up to and including election day. and it's very troubling, what we've

hey wanted an ideologue like neil gorsuch to tip anti-worker cases like this.hat's going to happen in janus? i hate to admit it but even i, who consider myself quite optimistic, believe that, look, they've got -- they put neil gorsthoiven supreme court to destroy public employee bargaining. that's why he's there. i have no illusions about what's about to happen. it's just like other unjust supreme court decisions that have happened along the livense shelby county, along the lines of -- which destroyed the voting rights act. or along the lines of citizens united which basically said corporations can dump massive amounts of money into elections. who has massive amount of money? you know. america's corporate elites. oh and then, it goes all the way back to unjust decisions like the lock ran cases. history will look very dimly on this moment in time. i believe that when you crush decency and fairness to earth it does rise. and i believe that workers in this country, if they are prohibited by the law and the supreme court from being treated fairly, they're just goin

they want neil gorsuch on the bench. they want all these other nominees that will be bad for workers, bad for women, bad for lgb q people and bad for ordinary americans and good for corporations. >> what would you say they are getting for their money? unfortunately, it's sad that we are now at a point where we are saying that judges are essentially being bought and they are now supposed to rule on behalf of all of us, the american people. tell us a little bit about some of who these judges are, and what you think they're getting in the bang for their buck. >> a lot of the research i did hear that cap, we looked at the state supreme court where they had seen the most increase in the campaign contributions and what we found is those courts were a lot more likely to side with corporations over individuals. whenever there's an individual on one side and a corporation on the other. i think that's what kind of judge they wanted the federal level as well. they are buying judges that have a certain agenda. they want judges like

we put an incredible new justice on the supreme court, judge neil gorsuch.very single democrat opposed judge gorsuch just like they will pose judges who will protect your basic freedoms and by the way, the way they are slow walking people that are supposed to be working for us in government. if you look at what they're doing, in the history of this country, there has never been anything like what the democrats are doing to great people who give up their lives and jobs to become an ambassador or people working for the government and they can't get approved because everyone of them is being slow walk by the democrats and it has never happened before. you know what question mark i hope we have long memories because we will be there at long time. what they're doing is disgraceful. what they're doing to the wall and immigration is disgraceful. my administration and conservatives in congress were elected to uphold your rights. to restore our prosperity and defend our borders. we have the worst immigration laws anywhere in the world, but i would tell you it is not

now that gorsuch is there, the right-wing networks, the koch brother-backed groups have reinstated it is gone back up to the court under a different plaintiff janus. it is exactly the same case and will probably and honest certainly will see neil gorsuch go with a 5-4 conservative majority on the court and as a result, we will see a nationwide sweep against trade unions. amy: win is that expected to be handed down? >> it will have to be by the end of june, so to be a matter of any day now. amy: ed pilkington is chief reporter for the guardian in the u.s. his new report is an exclusive look at "how rightwing groups wielded a secret 'toolkit' to plot against u.s. unions." we will link to it at democracynow.org. democracy now! is accepting applications for our paid video production fellowships as well as a variety of paid internships. find out more at democracynow.org. democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to outreach@democracynow.org or mail them to democracy now! p.o. box 693 new york, new york 10013. [captioning m

president trump set a record for the most court of appeal judges in a single year and he put justice neil gorsuchn the supreme court of the united states. it's been promises made and promises cap. this president has also been keeping his promise to get this economy moving again. he promised to roll back the heavy hand of government. he has cut more red tape than any president in history. he promised to unleash american energy. we rolled back the clean power plants and president trump put america first when he withdrew america from the paris climate accord. and he promised to crack down on unfair trade practices. i continue that he's been fighting every day for trade deals that are free, fair, and reciprocal and put american jobs and american workers first. and our president has promised to come taxes across the board and the sport of every republican in congress and indiana president trump site the -- trump signed the largest tax cut and tax reform in american history. promises made and promises kept. [applause] we cut taxes for working families and businesses large and small. when we cut taxes,

justice gorsuch does not care about the d.c. till circuit. he would not be touted by newspaper articles. he doesn't read them. he reads the law before him and decides cases. i wouldn't worry about those articles. they are wrong. they are crazy. some of them go back to harvard law school for a reunion. there are all laughing and joshing with each other. the whole notion is in a media. it is not true. watch it play out. >> there have been so-called rumors of a rift on the supreme court between gorsuch and elena kagan and they've been fighting in the conference meetings, which i have to say, you know, i'd love to know who the source is because i don't think any of the justices are sharing that information. i don't know who else would have information about what happens during the conference because no one else is allowed in other than the justices for his point about the media trying to make of this narrative, it's entertaining to jeffrey toobin has been criticizing justice gorsuch for asking too many questions and being pushy in oral arguments,

whether it was the supreme court, neil gorsuch, or 12 circuit judges last year. we are now up to 17 and still counting. whether it's deregulation, whether it's a fabulous tax bill that has gotten the country growing again. we opened up the alaskan wilderness. we got rid of the individual mandate. this has been a dream period for conservatives thanks to the president's leadership and our backing him up with a republican congress. >> dana: there is also a little bit more tension to come. my last question to you is about something that the house republicans, some house republicans are planning to do. congressman mark walker had an op-ed in the "wall street journal" today asking for you to do something. he said that last september the house performed the constitutional duty and passed all the appropriations bills required to fund fully the federal government. we sent the bills to the senate before the beginning of the fiscal year and mr. mcconnell sat on them. the package mr. trump sent yesterday is good and his base should be encouraged in this moment of fiscal rest

we put an incredible new justice on the supreme court, judge neil gorsuch.irtually every single democrat opposed neil gorsuch, just like they have consistently opposed virtually every single judges who will protect your basic freedoms, and by the way, the way they are slow walking people that are supposed to be working for us in government. if you look at what they're doing, in the history of this country, there has never been jt anything like what the democrats are doing on great people who gave up their jobs and lives to take up a job as an ambassador or people working for our government and they can't be approved because everyone is being slow walked by the democrats and it has never happened before. i hope we have long memories. it doesn't matter because we will be there at long time. but what they are doing is disgraceful. what they are doing is disgraceful. what they are doing to the wall and immigration is disgraceful. you take a look at the border. take a look at what is happened. my administration and conservatives in congress were elected to uphold

gorsuch, the seat was held open for gorsuch, he wrote the opinion basically saying it's fine for employers as a sort of condition of your employment. basically what it is. and i want to connect that to there's a million-dollar mystery gift to the inaugural fund, right? to the trump inaugural fund that turns out to have been from a conservative legal group. and it's like when you start looking at the quid and the quo everywhere you start seeing it everywhere. >> oh, yeah. and in some cases it's blatant self-enrichment. it's not just that trump protects his friends and cronies, he also protects himself from -- he's somebody who's been sued many, many times. >> of course. >> by his own employees. >> right. and this is where the point of the spear-s jason, in terms of what the republicans broader than trump are doing right now. we have seen a real concerted effort on behalf of the republican donor class to get what they can get before the cops show up at the scene. >> yeah, that's right. they know that there's an expiration date on this deal or they at least strongly suspect it. what we have t

justice gorsuch led the 5-4 majority in this case, the other wur justices with hime on the conservative side of the court and he ruled the federal arbitration act says you have to enforce the great according to its terms. workers, you cannot band together. you have to bring your claims individually. >> brangham: can you explain whr people who haven't been following alon an arbitration clause essentially says? >> basically, it's saying thacl if you have m against the prployer, you have to go in ate arbitration, and that kind of a proceeding, generally the employer fin an arbitrator -- there are associations of arbitrators -- to come in. it's supposed to be a neutraral trator, to hear your claim and make a decision, you are bound by that decision. and roughly 25 million employees in the united stats are under these arbitration agreements that include bans on collective or class actions. >> brangham: and these are clauses many times people have no idea they're signing. >> generally not. mes they're in very smal print. that's assent case with consumer arbitration agreements. back in 2011, t

. >> neil gorsuch sat before this committee and when i asked him this same question he said yes. are you saying that neil gorsuch violated some ethics rule by saying that brown versus board of education was correctly decided? >> not at all, senator blumenthal. >> not at all. now, another trump judicial nominee who was criticized this week for past writings that attacked political correctness. okay. well, is that so bad? but they also claim the politically correct efforts to advance tolerance are more damaging than nazi book burnings. here's the quote getting attention. "i've often marveled at the odd strategies that some of the more strident racial factions of student body employ in their attempts to heighten consciousness and promote diversity and convince us that to partake of that fruit which promises to open our eyes to a pc version of the knowledge of good and evil." still quoting, "i'm mystified because these tactics seem always to contribute to more restricting consciousness, aggravating intolerance, and pigeonholing cultural identities more than many a nazi book burning."

. >> gorsuch is not going to vote, is he? >> who knows. they have at least six votes. >> you agree. >> i think gorsuch would vote. >> you think in the end he has to testify. >> i think in the end there is going to be a subpoena. the question is whether he can negotiate testifying wlout being oath. then he would avoid perjury. i don't think mule worry go for that. we're talking subpoena and maybe we're not going to comply, then we have a court order to compel. we have a contempt of decision by a court if he refuses. then this president who believes article 2 authority is somehow superior to the other branch of government saying it's a fake court. i'm not going to comply with that. >> this is fascinating. this is a real constitutional crisis. the court doesn't have the an army. trump has an army. he says i'm staying here and some judge is going to come over and grab him? >> how is this enforced? susan mcdougal, the marshall service goes and takes the person and puts them in custody. president trump's in charge of the service. then we have pe

from nominating conservative justice neil gorsuch to the supreme court to rolling back the obamacare birth control mandate donald trump has quickly become a hero of the pro-life movement. >> when i ran for office i pledge to stand for life and as president that is exactly what i have done and i have kept my promise. >> as he addressed hundreds of antiabortion activists at the annual gala he announced one more campaign promise kept. >> my administration has proposed a new rule to prohibit title x funding from going to any clinic that performs abortions. >> the proposed changes in title x would effectively been federally funded family planning clinics like planned parenthood from referring women for abortion. democrats like nancy pelosi called it an outrageous assault on the healthcare available to vulnerable and underserved women while senate minority leader chuck schumer argued it was a continuation of republicans war against planned parenthood and women's reproductive rights. the pres. said those proposed changes to title x would not only help in children but republicans when the mi

and we put an incredible new justice on the supreme court, judge neil gorsuch. yet virtually every single democrat in the senate opposed neil gorsuch, just like they have consistently opposed judges who will protect your basic freedoms. and, by the way, the way they're slow walking people that are supposed to be working for us in government, if you look at what they're doing, in the history of this country, there has never been anything like what the democrats are doing on great people who gave up their jobs and their lives to take a job as an ambassador or people working for our government and they can't get approved because every singlie one of them is being slw walked by the democrats and it's never happened before. and you know what? i hope we have long memories but i hope we don't have to worry about it because we're going to be there for a long time. but what hair they're doing is disgraceful. what they are doing, schumer and the group, is disgraceful. you just take a look at the border. take a look at what's happening. my administration and conservatives

and we put an incredible new justice on the supreme court, judge neil gorsuch. [applause] pres. trump: virtually every single democrat in the senate opposed neil gorsuch, just like they have consistently opposes judges who will protect your basic freedoms. and by the way, the way they're slow walking people that are supposed to be working for us in government. if you look at what they are doing, in the history of this country, there has never been anything like what the democrats are doing on great people who gave up their jobs and their lives to take a job as an ambassador or people working for our government and they can't get approved because every single one of them is being slow walked by the democrats and it's never happened before and you know what, i hope we have long memories, but i hope we don't have to worry about it because we're going to be there a long time. we won't have to worry. what they are doing is disgraceful. the what they are doing, humor in the group, what they are doing is disgraceful. what they are doing to the wall and immigration is disgraceful. take

of years, you see that john rob ertsz is incremental, you haven't seen huge swings and also neil gorsuch not been -- paul: lock-step conservative. >> exactly right n. recent case with internet sales tax, he was very questioning -- paul: he was disagreeing with some of the fundamental arguments that the justice department was taking on. >> as kennedy was. paul: that's right. if kennedy resigns this year, then you'd have a republican senate confirming replacement but if republicans lose the senate in november, then what would happen is that the democrats would probably not confirm any nominee -- >> right. no, no, like merrick garland case. 4-4 until the 2020 election. that'll be the stakes for the next two years. paul: that's something that justice kennedy has to think about not just for personal legacy but also functioning of the court. >> right. i think -- exactly. paul: okay. so what do you think in terms of kennedy's legacy, bill, would it be better if he was replaced by a republican and do you think he wants to be? he was appointed by ronald reagan. >> it depends what he values. peopl

neil gorsuch. next week, after the promises of many administrations and presidents, and then they never did it, they campaigned, they promised, they never did it. next week, we will finally open the american embassy in jerusalem. [cheers and applause] pres. trump: and i put one of my friends as the ambassador to israel. david friedman. >> he is good! pres. trump: a good choice is right. one of the great lawyers of our country. made a lot of money as a lawyer. but he loves the united states. he loves israel. and they walked up to my desk about three months ago, right after i did it, because i said, let's go, we want to go, we want to build and build fast. so they walk up to my desk, and they give me this beautiful folder and i'm like, what is this? and i am half-signed. he said, sir, we are building an embassy in jerusalem. i said, how much? something other presidents don't ask, but that's ok. i kid you not, they said, $1 billion. i said $1 billion? do you know what $1 billion is? you have a house t

. >> well, gorsuch is not going to vote, is he, that way? >> who knows?isten, i think they have at least six votes. >> do you agree, kim? you think in the end he has to testify? >> i think in the end, there is going to be a subpoena. the question is whether he can negotiate testifying without being under oath, because then he would avoid perjury. but i don't think that's doable. i don't think mueller would go for that, so then we're talking subpoena. then we're talking maybe we're not going to comply with the subpoena. then we have a court order to compel. we have a contempt decision by a court if he refuses, and then we've got this president who believes article 2 authority is somehow, you know, superior to the other branches of government saying it's a fake court. i'm not going to comply with that. >> this is fascinating because this is a really constitutional crisis. in other words, the court doesn't have an army. trump has an army. he's commander in chief. so he says, i'm staying here. if some judge in his robe is going to come over and grab him -- >>

there are so many things, the appointment of neil gorsuch, the confirmation.ht for pro-life values. if you are a constitutional conservative, you are excited about it. richard is not excited. >> there is a distinction between -- i think you are mixing two things, a constitutional conservative and a pro-life conservative are two different things. if you believe in the constitution, you believe in limited government. you believe in the government, the people having more control and the government having less control, then you should be against this particular law. >> the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. >> what happens between a woman and her doctor, just like what happens between a man and his doctor stays with them and it has doctor. i think you limit a woman's ability, especially vulnerable women, underserved populations to have access to all of their health care options. that's what my point is. >> shannon: to explain title x, these are funds that go to health clinics and family-planning clinics. with the president has said is not of that

he followed through with neil gorsuch. i believe he'll follow through with the second appointment to the court. if given that opportunity, we need to move heartbeat legislation over to the desk of mitch mcconnell so we can begin to apply how we're going to get it off his desk and get it to the floor of the senate and passed and over to president trump's desk where will he sign the heartbeat legislation -- he will sign the heartbeat legislation and where the very pro-life vice president mike pence will be standing next to him when that day happens. all of this needs town fold here, mr. speaker. and the obstruction really comes from the number one pro-life organization, the largest and the oldest, national right to life. so, i'll put up only one poster here, mr. speaker. and this is it. they say, national right to life says, and this is off of their site, they do not oppose the heartbeat bill. but my utilization of the english language, i don't know the difference between do not oppose and do not support. but what we need is

judge neil gorsuch. yet virtually every single democrat in the senate opposed neil gorsuch, just as they have consistently opposed judges who will protect your basic freedoms. and by the way, the way they're slow walking people that are supposed to be working for us in government, if you look at what they're doing, in the history of this country, there has never been anything like what the democrats are doing on great people who gave up their jobs and their lives to take a job as an ambassador or people working for our government, and they can't get approved because every single one of them is being slow walked by the democrats. and it's never happened before. and you know what? i hope we don't have to worry about it because we'll be there a long time so we won't have to worry about it, but what they're doing is disgraceful. what they are doing, schumer and the group, what they are doing is disgraceful. what they are doing to the wall and immigration is disgraceful. and you just take a look at the border

another important promise when we put a great newjustice on the united states supreme court, neil gorsuch after the promises of many administrations and presidents, and then they never did it, they campaigned, promised, but they never did it. next week, we will finally open the american embassy in jerusalem. cheering. will finally open the american embassy injerusalem. cheering. and i put one of my friends as the ambassador to israel, david freedman. a good choice is right. one of the great lows of our country, made a lot of money as a lawyer. but he does hisjob. he loves the united states, he loves this one. and they walked up my desk about three days ago, right up regedit, because i said let's go, we wa nt to regedit, because i said let's go, we want to go, we want to build, we wa nt to want to go, we want to build, we want to fast. so they balked at my desk and again it is beautiful folder that i am supposed to sign. and i said, what is this? and they said, so, we're building ajerusalem embassy. i said, said, so, we're building ajerusalem embassy. isaid, how said, so, we're building aj

judge neil gorsuch. virtually every single democrat in the senate opposed him, just like they have consistently opposed judges who will protect your basic freedoms. way they arehe slow walking people that are supposed to be working for us in government. in the history of this country, there has never been anything like what the democrats are who givegreat people up their jobs in their lives to take a job as an ambassador or people working for our government and they cannot get approved because every single one of them is being slow walked by the democrats and it has never happened before and you know what, i hope you have long memories but i hope we do not have to worry about it because we will be there for a long time. doing is are disgraceful. what they are doing to the wall is disgraceful. take a look at the border. take a look at what is happening. anddministration conservatives in congress worried elected to uphold your rights. our military which we are doing a great job of. prosperity, to secure ou

legal action against their employers the five to four ruling written by chief judge by justice neil gorsuch president trumps nominee to the high court effectively overhauls the terms of employment for roughly twenty five million workers in the us preventing them from bringing class action suits a critical tool for individuals harmed by general patterns of employer abuse and the absence of class action as a remedy any of the twenty five million workers seeking to sue their employers would now have to file a separate legal case on their own and assume the cost and risk as individuals justice ginsburg read her dissent from the bench on a rare in a rare strong disagreement the result of the new precedent she wrote will be a huge under enforcement of federal state statutes designed to advance the being well being of vulnerable workers and other business related arbitration news over is facing their first sexual harassment discrimination lawsuit after rescinding their policy requiring binding armor to. aeration for individual cases which they announced and we reported here last week to be clear s

legal action against their employers the five to four ruling written by chief judge by justice neil gorsuch president trumps nominee to the high court effectively overhauls the terms of employment for roughly twenty five million workers in the us preventing them from bringing class action suits a critical tool for individuals harmed by general patterns of employer abuse and the absence of class action as a remedy any of the twenty five million workers seeking to sue their employers would now have to file a separate legal case on their own and assume the cost and risk as individuals justice ginsburg read her dissent from the bench on a rare in a rare strong disagreement the result of the new precedent she wrote will be a huge under enforcement of federal state statutes designed to advance the being well being of vulnerable workers in other business related arbitration news over is facing their first sexual harassment discrimination lawsuit after rescinding their policy requiring binding arbitration for individual cases which they announced and we reported here last week. to be clear ober sti

agree just really wrong who's right ginsburg citing the national labor relations act or chief justice gorsuch citing a federal arbitration act of one thousand nine hundred twenty twenty five settled us for a good good ginsburg is right all day long that's what the case law shows that's what the president shows this is a surprise. court majority that had to go out of precedent had to go out of trim and had to go out of just common sense on what benefits the worker to reach a decision like this and that's why ginsburg was so outraged they realize that in arbitration the worker loses loses ninety percent of the time ninety percent of the time is the only show in an arbitration setting we've got about so we've still got about sixty seconds mike in the technology space it seems that companies have been requiring you know binding arbitration like we've talked about with wal-mart and others but microsoft notably said they are going to stop and forcing arbitration agreements and sexual harassment cases and and over last week just did the same thing this may be may think of the silly question of me mi

the successful confirmation of neil gorsuch, the stunning dismantling of isis.ingle moment more remembered at this point of this administration than the moment last night, the welcome of three former us prisoners held captive in north korea landing overnight at joint base andrews. the pres. thanking the leader of north korea, kim jong un, so that upbeat about the planned summit between the two which could take place in singapore in early june. >> we have a meeting scheduled in a short time, we have the location set, and see if we can do something we did not think was going to happen. >> reporter: this is happening after the bilateral overture, mike pompeo, outreach that could soon face diplomatic dividends. >> the capability, on the military side, we see there is reason for optimism. we said this is a diplomatically led effort by military force. it will be fruitful. >> a sober assessment that i would know. and what studied between these countries. and a few others in his presidency and we are looking forward to a rally in indiana as the president makes his way t

maybe they wanted gorsuch on the supreme court. so could be a single issue thing. but to answer, you tell me your names. but for the gentleman, all say they remain behind trump because he's lasting between them and the america they fear. issues -- even though -- so this was come hell or high water. it's what he symbolizes. while in think they would abandon him, but they're not. if i'm wrong you nor am at. if i'm wrong, tell me i'm wrong. they know not. >> so taking into account the information today, what you think the implications are for the future of the democratic party? and expanded on that, the implications for the movement on the left in general. >> okay. democratic party is a mess. an unmitigated mess. you have a couple of factions committee of the brittany faction all but class many of one about race and gender. until he figured out bozo -- i guess bozo the clown. so yeah, this guy, your presidents is number 45 as far as i'm concerned, he's going to win again. because democrats are divided. who are they can run and was could be the platform? it's a mess ri

mitch mcconnell deserves a debt of gratitude for being able to hold a supreme court seat open so neil gorsuchon the supreme court today. what i'm interested in doing is getting through the november election bringing a much-needed republican vote to the united states senate and then we will see who's running for senate. i'm not ruling anybody end, i'm not ruling anybody out. nobody has asked for my support. what i would do is make a decision on who is going to lead the senate to support the president trump agenda. >> bret: i'm noticing you are not raising your hand either. >> i'm not the product of the liberal establishment. i think that's why you are saying all the conservatives come out for me.