It's not a trade war. I did great with China with everything. Look, China came in, they were going to destroy our steel industry. And I put tariffs, big tariffs, 50% to 100%, but 50% for the most part. It stopped it. I have steel people that every time they see me, they start to cry. They hug me. They say, "You saved our industry," but now we're letting it go. Now the Washington Post is saying that you're talking about 60% tariffs on Chinese goods. Is that in the cards? No, I would say maybe it's going to be more than that because we're going to have, look, I want China to do great. And that's former President Trump in my exclusive interview here last week on his plans to counter China's aggression against the United States by leveling major tariffs on Chinese imports. Under the Biden administration, the CCP has ramped up its aggression against America, sending a spy balloon to surveil US military installations, operating secret police stations in major cities across the country, sending the underlying chemicals for deadly fentanyl into America and exploiting the crisis at the southern border, with thousands of military aged Chinese nationals flowing into America illegally every day, among other acts of aggression. Meanwhile, China is strengthening its diplomatic ties with American adversaries. On Thursday, Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the phone, pledging to work together in defending their sovereignty, security and development interests, according to Chinese state-run media. The two planning on doing joint drills soon. Joining me right now with reaction is former director of national intelligence, John Ratcliffe. John, it's always a pleasure to talk with you. Thanks for being here. You bet. Great to be with you, Maria. Let me start and get your take on this classified documents investigation and what you heard from special counsel, Robert Herr. Well, Maria, I think that, you know, contrary to the spin from the Biden White House and the media that's trying to help them, Joe Biden, I think the most important takeaway was not cleared of wrongdoing. The special counsel clearly found that Joe Biden broke the law, that Joe Biden broke the law repeatedly, that Joe Biden broke the law willfully, and that he broke the law knowingly, that he committed multiple felonies under multiple statutes, including the Espionage Act, that he met every element of those crimes. Now, where things kind of go astray is despite all of those crimes, the special counsel in this case, Robert Herr, pulled a Jim Comey. He essentially said, just as Jim Comey did with Hillary Clinton, that even though Joe Biden committed every element of every crime that he set forth, that he wasn't going to recommend charges for Joe Biden, and he offered two reasons for that. One of them is a legitimate consideration. The other one was not. The one that was not was he said, well, we're not going to charge him because he's cooperated. I think you and I have talked about this before, Maria. Cooperation is not a defense under the law. It's something that can only be taken into account by a judge at sentencing. It's as if, you know, bank robbers don't get to return stolen property and not get charged because they cooperated with the government. The only legitimate basis for Robert Herr not to recommend charges is the non-compost mantis defense, which is essentially that Joe Biden was too mentally infirmed to stand trial. The problem for that, of course, is it creates the catch-22 of if he's too mentally infirmed to stand trial, then how is he not too mentally infirmed to run the country? I think that that's going to cause political damage from now until election day for Joe Biden. But Maria, I think that this is actually going to have a significant legal impact, you know, beyond the public's perception of a two tiered system of justice, an actual impact on the same case and the same charges against Donald Trump. And the reason I say that, Maria, is if I'm the federal judge down in Florida looking at this, Judge Cannon, I'm thinking, why is this case even in my court? And the next time special counsel Jack Smith shows up in my courtroom, my question for him would be, look, I've got a 300 page report from another special counsel from the same Biden Justice Department who says that the target in that case, Mr. Biden himself, committed every element of every crime that's set forth in here. But the Department of Justice says we're not going to charge him. And yet here you are in my courtroom saying that it's a matter of national interest that we not only move forward with these charges, but that we absolutely do so before the November election. It just doesn't jive. And so I think that that's very likely what's going to happen here. Well, we're also waiting on the Colorado decision in terms of taking Trump's name off the ballot. So we are basically relying on the Supreme Court for all of this. Yeah, I mean, I think it shows the wisdom of the founders in setting up a system of checks and balances. You know, very clearly here, you know, going back to, you know, the her report, you know, this is the Biden administration using the Justice Department to commit election interference. And I think the Supreme Court is seeing that, you know, the state of Colorado with a completely Democratic Supreme Court following suit here with really just, you know, arguments that don't make any sense under the 14th Amendment. I was heartened to hear all of the Supreme Court justices, the liberal ones and the conservative ones really question the soundness of the state of Colorado's argument that somehow the state would have supremacy over a federal candidate and the ability to disqualify them. You know, Chief Justice Roberts pointed out very quickly that, look, if we ruled in your favor, things are going to turn just the opposite, where red state red states are going to knock liberal candidates off of the ballot and we'll have all chaos. But I think the most important thing was all of the liberal justices like Katonji Brown and Kagan and even Sotomayor pushed back on this idea, you know, where the 14th Amendment, where everyone knows that the history of the 14th Amendment, Maria, was to take power away from the states. And yet here's the state of Colorado saying it actually gave them more power, power over the federal government. And it just doesn't make any sense. And I think the Supreme Court will rule quickly on this and I think they'll rule unanimously on this, that the state of Colorado will lose and President Trump will win. And you're expecting that ruling to come within the next week or two. I really think they have to move quickly. You know, more states, Democratic blue states are trying to knock Trump off the ballot. You have Super Tuesday come up. They really can't wait. I think that's why they're moving with urgency. They took this case. I'd be very surprised if they don't rule in favor of President Trump within the next week or two. Let me get your take on what's going on.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
AI Day Analysis
Machine-generated analysis of the 2024-02-11 posts below. Not written by their author.
Super Bowl Sunday Serves as Backdrop for Property Preening, Legal Grievance, and a Preemptive Strike on Taylor Swift
Trump spent Super Bowl Sunday in Las Vegas mostly in self-congratulatory mode, cycling through property promotions, favorable poll links, and rally recaps. The one notable flare-up was an early-morning attack on the attorney general prosecuting him, calling her a "Lunatic" and framing the case as Biden-orchestrated election interference. The day's most culturally significant move was a preemptive post aimed at Taylor Swift -- claiming credit for her financial success and framing any future Biden endorsement as personal disloyalty -- timed precisely to the Super Bowl broadcast her boyfriend was winning.