>>> WELCOME BACK.
>>> WELCOME BACK. PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS REBUKED
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS REBUKED THREE TIMES BY MEMBERS OF HIS
THREE TIMES BY MEMBERS OF HIS OWN PARTY ON CAPITOL HILL.
OWN PARTY ON CAPITOL HILL. TO END THE WAR OF YEMEN, LARGELY
TO END THE WAR OF YEMEN, LARGELY IN RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT TRUMPS
IN RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT TRUMPS HANDLING OF THE MURDER OF THE
HANDLING OF THE MURDER OF THE JOURNALIST.
JOURNALIST. AND 12 REPUBLICANS JOINED 47
AND 12 REPUBLICANS JOINED 47 DEMOCRATS TO REJECT HIS ENERGY
DEMOCRATS TO REJECT HIS ENERGY DECLARATION.
DECLARATION.
PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE HIS FIRST VETO OF HIS PRESIDENCY.S FIRST
VETO OF HIS PRESIDENCY. THERES NOT ENOUGH VOTES TO
THERES NOT ENOUGH VOTES TO OVERRIDE IT.
OVERRIDE IT.
THIS IS LIKELY THE END OF THE DEBATE. LIKELY THE END OF THE
DEBATE.
THE SUPREME COURT COMES NEXT.
JOINING ME NOW THE ONE OF THE
REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED AGAINST
THE PRESIDENT, SENATE EVERY PAT
TOMBOMEY OF PENNSYLVANIA.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHUCK.
>> I FEEL LIKE YOU AND YOUR
OTHER 11 REPUBLICANS THAT VOTED WITH THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS,OTED
WITH THE DEMOCRATS ON THIS, TRYING TO SEND THE PRESIDENT A
TRYING TO SEND THE PRESIDENT A MESSAGE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION,
MESSAGE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION,
A MESSAGE ABOUT ARTICLE ONE VERSUS ARTICLE TWO.ICLE ONE
VERSUS ARTICLE TWO. HE DID NOT HEAR THAT VERSION OF
HE DID NOT HEAR THAT VERSION OF THE MESSAGE.
THE MESSAGE. THE PRESIDENT WAS ALMOST GLEEFUL
THE PRESIDENT WAS ALMOST GLEEFUL IN VETOING IT.
IN VETOING IT. IS THAT DISAPPOINTING THAT HE
IS THAT DISAPPOINTING THAT HE DIDNT HEAR YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL
DIDNT HEAR YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT?
ARGUMENT?
>> THE PRESIDENT CAME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION ABOUT THE
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW, AS DIT
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW, AS DIT THREE-QUARTERS OF MY REPUBLICAN
THREE-QUARTERS OF MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES.
>> DO YOU THINK THEY MEAN THAT
OR THEY VOTED THAT WAY?
>> I DONT QUESTION THE MOTIVES.
I LOOK AT WHAT PEOPLE DO.
YOURE RIGHT, THIS WAS NEVER
ABOUT THE WALL. IM PRETTY SURE THE REPUBLICANS
IM PRETTY SURE THE REPUBLICANS THAT VOTED IN FAVOR OF
THAT VOTED IN FAVOR OF
DISAPPROVEING THE ENERGY
DECLARATION.
IF WE DID HAVE THE VOTES TO
OVERRIDE THE PRESIDENTS VETO, THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE ABLE TO
THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD THE WALL.
BUILD THE WALL.
WHATS IMPORTANT IS THE SOURCE HE USES TO FUND THAT.E SOURCE
HE USES TO FUND THAT. IT SHOULD BE A COMBINATION OF
IT SHOULD BE A COMBINATION OF
SOURCES, THAT CONGRESS HAS
APPROVED OF, NOT DUBIOUS BASIS.
FOR ME, IT WAS ABOUT THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS.
THATS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. >> DO YOU HOPE THE SUPREME COURT
>> DO YOU HOPE THE SUPREME COURT TAKES THIS UP?
TAKES THIS UP?
AND WHICH PART -- HOW DO YOU WANT THEM TO LOOK AT THIS?OU
WANT THEM TO LOOK AT THIS? DO YOU WANT THEM TO LOOK AT THE
DO YOU WANT THEM TO LOOK AT THE
APPROPRIATIONS ASPECT OF IT?
OR THE LEGISLATIVE DISAPPROVAL
OF THE EMERGENCY? >> I MIGHT HAVE AN OUTLIER AND
>> I MIGHT HAVE AN OUTLIER AND NUANCED VIEW.
NUANCED VIEW.
IM NOT SURE ITS AN ILLEGAL
ACT.
I THINK ITS A STRAINED ARGUMENT
BUT A PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT FOR THE LEGALITY OF WHAT THE PRESIDENTHE
LEGALITY OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID.
DID.
THERES A PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT FOR
THE CONSTITUTIONALALTY. WHAT WE VOTED ON ON THURSDAY,
WHAT WE VOTED ON ON THURSDAY, WAS NOT A QUESTION IF THE
WAS NOT A QUESTION IF THE PRESIDENT HAS BROKEN A LOT.
PRESIDENT HAS BROKEN A LOT. WE VOTED ON WHETHER WE APPROVE
WE VOTED ON WHETHER WE APPROVE OF WHAT HE DID.
OF WHAT HE DID. I APPROVE OF BORDER WALL
I APPROVE OF BORDER WALL
CONSTRUCTION.
I DONT APPROVE ON THE WAY HES
FUNDING IT.
I VOTED TO DISAPPROVE THE DECLARATION.ISAPPROVE THE
DECLARATION.
THE COURTS MIGHT SIDE WITH HIM.
>> YOU DONT KNOW FOR SURE IF
THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE EMERGENCY ACT WAS USED TO
EMERGENCY ACT WAS USED TO ESSENTIALLY -- TO OVERTURN A
ESSENTIALLY -- TO OVERTURN A REJECTION OF A FUNDING PROPOSAL
REJECTION OF A FUNDING PROPOSAL
TO REFUND IT.
THATS SOMETHING THAT HAD NEVER
BEEN DONE BEFORE IN THE EMERGENCY ACT.RE IN THE
EMERGENCY ACT.
>> I TOTALLY AGREE.
THATS WHY IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE, I THINK.Y IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE,
I THINK.
THATS WHY I VOTED AS I DID.
COURTS ARE RELUCTANT TO OVERRULE A CALL ON WHATS AN EMERGENCY.ULE
A CALL ON WHATS AN EMERGENCY. AND CONGRESS DID DELEGATE
AND CONGRESS DID DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO THE PRESIDENT.
AUTHORITY TO THE PRESIDENT. SO SHGS
SO SHGS
SO.
>> IS IT TIME TO REDO THE EMERGENCY ACT?TO REDO THE
EMERGENCY ACT? >> ABSOLUTELY.
>> ABSOLUTELY. >> DO YOU WANT THAT THE
>> DO YOU WANT THAT THE
30-DAY --
>> YEAH.
>> ITS THE OTHER WAY. CONGRESS DOESNT FLIP IT THE
CONGRESS DOESNT FLIP IT THE OTHER WAY, ESSENTIALLY?
OTHER WAY, ESSENTIALLY?
>> YEAH.
YOURE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
>> I THINK FOR DECADES NOW,
CONGRESS HAS BEEN TRANSFERRING
TOO MUCH CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY FROM THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH TO THE EXECUTIVE.
THATS BAD FOR A RESPECTIVE
DEMOCRACY, FOR A REPUBLIC SUCH
AS OURS.
THIS IS ONE AREA WE SHOULD
RECLAIM THE LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE IN
RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE IN THIS REGARD.
THIS REGARD.
WE DELEGATED THIS AUTHORITY TO
THE PRESIDENT.
YOU KNOW, INITIALLY, THAT
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY, THE
NATIONAL EMERGENCY ACT, INCLUDED
CONGRESSIONAL-ONLY VETO POWER.
THAT WAS STRUCK DOWN.
REQUIRING ASSENT BEFORE A
DECLARATION CAN GO FORWARD.
I FULLY SUPPORT THAT. IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE
IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES
WHAT OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES
DO, CHUCK.
THEYRE HAPPY TO POKE PRESIDENT
TRUMP IN THE EYE.
WILL THEY JOIN US TO MAKE SURE
IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN?
>> A LOT OF YOUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES SAID A LOT OFCAN
COLLEAGUES SAID A LOT OF RHETORIC ABOUT BARACK OBAMA AND
RHETORIC ABOUT BARACK OBAMA AND
EXECUTIVE POWER.
>> RIGHT.
YOU CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT,
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS WUSHPUSHING T
LIMITS EVEN FURTHER.
WHEN DO YOU REALIZE WE ARE IN A
BAD PLACE HERE?
>> WE ARE IN A BAD PLACE. I DONT THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP
I DONT THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP PUSHED IT FORWARD.
PUSHED IT FORWARD.
I THINK OBAMA DID IT FURTHER.
THE DACA AND DAPA.
I WAS VERY CRITICAL OF THAT. AND THATS WHY I THINKF THAT.
AND THATS WHY I THINK REPUBLICANS SHOULD STAND UP.
REPUBLICANS SHOULD STAND UP.
AND IF THE PRESIDENT GETS INTO A
GRAY AREA OR USES LEGISLATION IN
A WAY THAT CONGRESS DIDNT INTEND.HAT CONGRESS DIDNT
INTEND.
I AM HOPING THOSE OF US THAT ARE
CONSISTENT ABOUT THAT, THAT WE
RESTOREERRE SOME OF THE AUTHORIT
WHERE CONGRESS BELONGS.
>> I WANT TO ASK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN NEW ZEALAND.HAT
HAPPENED IN NEW ZEALAND. I WANT TO ASK ABOUT IN TERMS OF
I WANT TO ASK ABOUT IN TERMS OF RHETORIC
RHETORIC RHETORIC.
RHETORIC. THE PRESIDENT OFFERED
THE PRESIDENT OFFERED CONDOLENCES TO THE PEOPLE OF
CONDOLENCES TO THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND.
NEW ZEALAND. AND HER ANSWER WAS, CAN YOU SAY
AND HER ANSWER WAS, CAN YOU SAY BETTER THINGS ABOUT MUSLIM
BETTER THINGS ABOUT MUSLIM
COMMUNITIES AROUND THE WORLD.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT USES THE TERM
INVADER
INVADERS, DOES THAT DEHUMANIZE
TO THE POINT WHERE IT CAN GET MISUSED?OINT WHERE IT CAN GET
MISUSED?
ITS NOT HEALTHY FOR ANYBODY,
FOR CRAZY PEOPLE TO BE CITING
OUR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES IN THEIR MANIFESTOED. >> I OFTEN DISAGREE WITH WHAT
>> I OFTEN DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID AND WHAT
THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID AND WHAT HE HAS TWEETED.
HE HAS TWEETED.
BUT ITS A LONG WAY TO ATTRIBUTE A REAL LINK BETWEEN WHAT THEUTE
A REAL LINK BETWEEN WHAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT SAY AND TWEET
PRESIDENT MIGHT SAY AND TWEET AND THE EXTRAORDINARY TYPE OF
AND THE EXTRAORDINARY TYPE OF MADNESS THAT LEADS SOMEONE TO
MADNESS THAT LEADS SOMEONE TO MASSACRE PEOPLE IN LARGE
MASSACRE PEOPLE IN LARGE
NUMBERS, WHETHER ITS IN PITTSBURGH AT A SYNAGOGUE OR IN
PITTSBURGH AT A SYNAGOGUE OR IN INSIST DMZNEW ZEALANDINSISTNEW Z
INSIST DMZNEW ZEALANDINSISTNEW Z
>> THIS PERSON IS FIRED UP ON THE DARK CORNERS OF THE UP ON
THE DARK CORNERS OF THE INTERNET.
INTERNET. LETS BE HONEST.
LETS BE HONEST.
IF THIS PERSON HAD USED NBCS AIRWAVES OR COMCAST EQUIPMENT TO
AIRWAVES OR COMCAST EQUIPMENT TO PUSH OUT THAT MANIFESTO AND
PUSH OUT THAT MANIFESTO AND
KILLING, THE WORLD OF HURT WOULD
BE BROUGHT DOWN ON US BY THE
FCC.
THERE ARE REGULATORS OUT THERE. THESE INTERNET COMPANIES HAVEE.
THESE INTERNET COMPANIES HAVE DONE NOTHING ABOUT THIS.
DONE NOTHING ABOUT THIS.
THEY WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE FACT.
DO WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO
TREAT THE COMPANIES AS MEDIA COMPANIES?COMPANIES AS MEDIA
COMPANIES?
THAT FACEBOOK WOULD BE HELD AS RESPONSIBLE AS ANY BROADCASTAS
RESPONSIBLE AS ANY BROADCAST MEDIA COMPANY WOULD?
MEDIA COMPANY WOULD?
>> ITS A BIG, IMPORTANT
DISCUSSION, CHUCK.
I DONT KNOW WHERE WE COME DOWN
ON THIS.
THESE COMPANIES ARE AGGREGATORS. THEY DONT HAVE THEIR OWN NEWSRS.
THEY DONT HAVE THEIR OWN NEWS DEPARTMENTS.
DEPARTMENTS.
THEY DONT HAVE THEIR OWN
EDITORIAL BOARDS.
THEYRE PROVIDING A PLATFORM.
I DONT THINK THERES AN OBVIOUS OR EASY ANSWER.ERES AN OBVIOUS
OR EASY ANSWER. >> SENATOR TOOMEY, I WILL LEAVE