This is frequency a many critical partial of Donald Trump’s speak with a New York Times today, but still:
So pre-existing conditions are a tough deal. Because we are fundamentally observant from a impulse a insurance, you’re 21 years old, we start operative and you’re profitable $12 a year for insurance, and by a time you’re 70, we get a good plan. Here’s something where we travel adult and say, “I wish my insurance.” It’s a unequivocally tough deal, yet it is something that we’re doing a good pursuit of.
Trump still doesn’t know a disproportion between health word and life insurance. And yet, he says a senators he met with during lunch “couldn’t trust it, how most we know about it. we know a lot about health care.” Uh huh.
On a opposite note, this speak is usually a prolonged array of relief questions with no genuine try to pin down Trump on anything of substance. Aside from conversational stuff, here’s a sincerely finish list of a questions they asked:
- How was your lunch [with Republican senators]?
- You are generally of a perspective that people should have health care, right?
- Did a senators wish to try again [to pass health care]?
- Where does it go from here, do we think?
- How’s [Mitch] McConnell to work with?
- Will we go to Britain? Are we going to make a state revisit to Britain?
- A lot of people are extraordinary about your review with President [Vladimir V.] Putin during dinner. Not surprising. But what did we all speak about…?
- You asked them [Republican senators] about it [Don Jr.’s assembly with a Russian lawyer] during lunch?
- Sorry to interrupt. The email, though, pronounced something we suspicion was unequivocally interesting, and we consternation what we suspicion of it. It pronounced this “is partial of Russia and a government’s support of Mr. Trump.” So whatever indeed happened during a meeting—
- So, what do we appreciate that to mean, now that we have seen it?
- I do wish to come out, on a email, now that we have seen that email that pronounced Russia’s supervision — we mean, how did we — did we appreciate it that way?
- Given what’s happened given then, though, was it a domestic mistake to have dismissed him [James Comey], given what’s happened?
- But demeanour during a headache it’s caused, we know?
- Do we wish we had finished it on Day 1?
- What would be a line over that if Mueller went, we would say, “That’s too far, we would need to boot him”?
- Did we shoo other people out of a room when we talked to Comey?
- This is since we wish to come behind to that email, because, like — does it regard you? Let’s contend that a choosing didn’t change since of anything Russia did, that has been your point, right? You indicate —
- But did that email regard you, that a Russian supervision was perplexing something to compromise—
- Last thing, if Mueller was looking during your finances and your family finances, separate to Russia — is that a red line?
There aren’t some-more than dual or 3 probing questions in a whole bunch. And a usually try during a follow-up of any kind was from Peter Baker on a Don Jr. email. we get that it’s interesting to let Trump wind and giveaway associate—and we acknowledge that it does furnish news sometimes—but a high propagandize contributor could have conducted this interview. What’s a indicate of bothering with it if you’re usually going to throw a garland of Fox Friends nerf round questions and afterwards let Trump blather?