One of the central themes within the anti-Trump news media is the issue of Republicans – especially conservatives and evangelicals – who stick with President Trump. This issue is strategically designed to use Trump to wipe Republicans out of office across the board.
That is the proper mission of the Democratic Party. That is the nature of politics. You want your team to win. What has corrupted the process is the so-called news media becoming largely the communications wing of the increasingly left-wing Democratic Party. They have abrogated all devotion of journalism principles, ethics and traditions to serve as the propaganda vehicle of the progressive authoritarian class – a key component of the unprecedented effort to obstruct a duly-elected President of the United States under the banner of a #NeverTrump Resistance Movement.
That Movement, however, barely conceals its true purpose. It is to segue hatred for Trump into a broad-brush public enmity for Republicans in general – and conservatives more specifically. And yet the left agonizingly ponders why it is that so many Republicans – 90 percent according to recent polls – stick with Trump.
Folks appearing on left-wing media pretend to not know the reason, even though they do. It is just that the reason does not comport with their anti-Republican strategy to demonize literally half of America. Rather they utilize their self-righteous arrogance to discourage, intimidate and shame all those who do not accept their partisan views and mendacious narratives.
Many on the left pay lip service to “listening” to the American people – especially after their shock and dismay over the 2016 election that they – in all their self-proclaimed wisdom – never saw coming.
So, what is the reality of Trump’s hold on his voters that seems to elude the left at every turn? It deserves a detailed response even though there is a very simple overarching reason – that being, we like you on the left even less. We fear you and your policies more than Trump and his faults.
The left should ponder that for one moment. With all the criticism thrown at Trump – and some even deserved – we would still struggle through with Trump rather than have you and your kind in control of the government and our lives. It is the reason that the leaders on the other side of the aisle – and more specifically on the radical left – are actually less popular than Trump.
Of course, those polls do not get reported in the left-leaning media. Thanks to their one-sided reporting, trust in the American news media is at an all-time low. The ratings and circulation of the left-leaning press are tanking while more traditional and more balanced news outlets are either holding firm or growing.
One answer to your question of Republican loyalty to Trump is that we the people are NOT so easily fooled by your partisan reporting and biased interpretations of events. Your ginned up hyperbolic outrage at Trump and Republicans who do not pile on is itself, outrageous. Your credibility is no better than his.
Most Republicans stick with Trump – warts and all – because he better represents the direction we want for America. Yes, it is that old issue of personality versus policy. You might be surprised that many Republicans and conservatives do not like Trump as a person. You have made the case that he is petty, pugnacious, needlessly pugilistic, braggadocious and too often fact-challenged. Believe it or not, we get that part.
BUT – and that is a BIG BUTT – we see what he is DOING policy-wise – and even more important, what you on the extreme left WOULD DO if elected. In our view, policy will trump politics at every turn. Your devotion to the personality is petty politics – and downright hypocritical.
From day one, I have publicly expressed my wish that Trump was more like President Reagan. Just because I did not get my wish, however, does not mean that I will abandon life-long conservative beliefs to empower people with an ideology that I believe to be an existential danger to the Republic and to future generations.
Like many of my Republican and conservative friends, we see and lament Trump’s personality flaws, but they are not nearly as bad as your exaggerated interpretations of them. We also see through your consistently negative and highly dishonest spin. You doth complain too much – and thereby lose your own credibility.
And what we do despise about you on the left – and especially the Republican-hating cronies of the Fourth Estate – is how you so dishonestly demonizes us as racists, xenophobes, sexists, etc., etc., etc. It is character assassination of the worst kind – and when it comes to public figures who refuse to jump on your hate-the-right wagon, you engage in the unethical enterprise of the politics personal destruction.
Perhaps you on the strident left should be embarrassed to know that despite all of Trump’s faults, we dislike and distrust you even more. Ponder that for a moment. THAT is why so many good and decent Americans stick with Trump. It is YOUR fault.
So, there ‘tis.
Joe Biden remains the so-called front-runner in the various recent polls at 26 percent of the vote – and he has slipped from a 35 percent lead after the first Democratic Party debate. That is not necessarily good news for the former Vice President.
The significance of recent surveys is not just Biden’s numbers but the shift in numbers for other candidates – especially those in double digits. The relative upward improvement of both Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Kamala Harris has been widely reported but still underappreciated.
According to the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, Biden’s 26 percent lead is followed by Warren at 19% and Harris and Senator Bernie Sanders tied at 13 percent. Those four account for 71 percent of the responses. That is significant.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg garners 7 percent with former Congressman – and former superstar – Beto O’Rourke tied with businessman Andrew Yang at two percent. The remaining 16 or so candidates are at one percent or below – so low that none of them will be on the stage for the next debate at the end of July unless the Democratic National Committee changes the rules. This means that virtually all of them will be officially or effectively out of the race before Labor Day.
One thing we have not seen in polling is the voters second choice. In a multi-candidate race, that is an EXTREMELY important bit of information. Even with polling data, we can see a dark-hole effect in the race between Warren and Sanders. Most of Sanders probably terminal drop in the polls has been to the benefit of Warren. She was naturally Sanders supporters’ second choice – now first choice.
If you look at the three candidates giving Biden the greatest challenge – Warren, Harris and Sanders – they represent the progressive wing of the Democratic Party AND they cumulatively have 45 percent of the vote – with another 11 percent held by progressives Buttigieg, Yang and O’Rourke. Concentrate that into one candidate, and that person easily overtakes Biden – and that does not count the distribution of the remaining 18 percent of the vote currently held by the hopeless wannabes.
Where does that vote go?
Since only two or three of them represent more moderate – more accurately, less left-wing – positions, it is safe to assume that the numbers would break in favor of a Biden challenger.
If that sole challenger is Harris, Biden is in even deeper trouble. He currently holds 46 percent of the black vote. If Harris is seen as a serious potential candidate – and potential President – Biden’s support from the black community will most certainly decline in the primaries. One needs to recall that Hillary Clinton was holding onto the black vote until Barack Obama won the Ohio primary – which resulted in a seismic shift in the black vote to the black candidate.
If the sole challenger to Biden winds up to be Warren, Biden could hold much of his black support. For a few reasons, Warren is drawing only 8 percent of the black vote – the lowest of any of the four leading candidates who have reached double digits. But unless Biden can remarkably improve his black vote, it is hard to see how he would hold on against a flow of progressive votes going to his yet-to-be-determined progressive competitor – Warren, in this case.
Biden currently has a perceived advantage, but that is only if you do not look below the surface. His situation is like a long-distance runner who starts out at top speed to get to the front – but is sure to run out of energy before the race is over.
So, there ‘tis.
Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s highly anticipated Capitol Hill testimony – originally scheduled to begin this Wednesday, July 17 — will be delayed one week under an arrangement he reached with House Democrats, the Intelligence and Judiciary committees announced last Friday evening.
The arrangement, first reported by POLITICO, not only changes the date but extends Mueller’s time facing questions from the Judiciary Committee to three hours. Junior members of that panel had grown increasingly frustrated that the initial two-hour time frame would have prevented many of them from having a chance to question Mueller.
It is still unclear whether the Intelligence Committee, too, will be granted that extra hour. Multiple lawmakers said a separate closed-door session with Mueller’s deputies had been called off.
The newly rescheduled July 24 hearing puts Mueller’s testimony on the calendar just one day before lawmakers are scheduled to depart for their month-long annual summer recess.
Meanwhile, ahead of his delayed testimony, President Trump has not missed an opportunity to lay into the former special counsel, and discredit anything he may say.
Trump Gets An Early Start Bashing Mueller
Ahead of Mueller’s delayed testimony, Trump is getting his attack lines ready and is relying on conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch to back up his criticism.
As he has in the past, Trump went on a recent Tweeter rampage, accusing Mueller and his team of carrying out “illegal deletion” of text messages that were exchanged between former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. “This is one of the most horrible abuses of all. Those texts between gaga lovers would have told the whole story. Illegal deletion by Mueller. They gave us ‘the insurance policy,’” Trump tweeted last week, on Twitter.
This is not the first time Trump has made the claim. “Robert Mueller terminated their text messages together,” Trump said during an interview with Fox Business last month. “He terminated them. They’re gone. And that’s illegal. That’s a crime.”
In his further attempts to discredit Mueller ahead of his testimony, the President also retweeted several messages from Judicial Watch, including a quote from the group’s president, Tom Fitton, who claims the Mueller probe was “part of an effort to remove the president from office improperly.”
Trump also retweeted a message from Judicial Watch that calls on the president to order the Department of Justice to reopen an investigation into Hillary Clinton.
President Trump’s promised “ICE raids” began over the weekend. The raids targeting scores of undocumented immigrants nationwide promised by President Trump have begun, a senior administration official told CNN.
The roundup is supposed to target 2,000 immigrants who have been ordered deported in New York, Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans and San Francisco.
According to the undisclosed official, the raids actually began late Saturday night.
In an exclusive interview on “FOX & friends,” Acting ICE Director Matt Albence said while he couldn’t speak to anything specifically from an operational perspective, the overarching concern when the agency conducts any sort of enforcement operation is “the safety and security of both our officers that are conducting the operation as well as the public.”
“We are doing targeted enforcement actions against specific individuals who have had their day in immigration court and have been ordered to be removed by an immigration judge,” Albence told Fox News’ Griff Jenkins. “We are merely executing those lawfully issued judge’s orders.”
ICE Objects to Use of Term “Raid”
Albence, then said that he objected to the term “raid,” as it does not really connote the targeted precision of his agencies operation, and only serves to spread fear.
In his Fox interview, Albence, said using the term raid does everyone “a disservice,” adding that the agency is focusing on people who had had the opportunity to make an asylum claim in front of an immigration judge and chose not to do so or didn’t appear for their first hearing. The acting director added that ICE gave those individuals the opportunity back in February to arrange for an orderly process to be removed from the country, but only 3 percent of people responded to letters that were sent out.
“At this point, we have no choice but to go out and execute those lawfully-issued removal orders from an immigration judge,” he told “FOX & friends.”
Reports of Repeat Immigrant Offenders
In addition to beginning the enforcement operation, ICE also released a report over the weekend meant to illustrate the necessity for removing those who have committed crimes.
The first of what will be quarterly “Declined Detainer Reports” details incidents from the second quarter of fiscal year 2018, where law enforcement agencies arrested undocumented immigrants, ignored ICE requests to hold them until federal authorities could pick them up, and then those individuals were arrested on new charges. The report features highlighted cases, including ones where the arrests were for rape, murder, assault, burglary, car theft, drug possession, and DUI.
In one such case, ICE said an illegal immigrant had been arrested and released 10 times by San Francisco police between February 2018 and January 2019, despite ICE issuing detainers. Each of those arrests included charges related to either burglary or a stolen vehicle.
“That individual is a one-man crime spree,” Albence said on “FOX & friends.”
Mark Morgan, acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, also appearing with Albence, told “FOX & friends” that the raids were about “enforcing and maintaining the integrity of the system.”
“This is about going after individuals here illegally,” he said. “Any city, any law enforcement agency that resists, does not cooperate, they’re actually putting those cities in higher danger.”
Administration officials have said they are targeting about 2,000 people, which would yield about 200 arrests based on previous crackdowns.
Trump has said on Twitter that his agents plan to arrest millions of immigrants who are in the country illegally.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer introduced a bill that aims to end the separation of migrant children from their families while improving living conditions in border detention facilities.
According to the New York Post, the measure has already amassed more than 20 Senate co-sponsors, all Democrats — including some running for president, however, without Republicans on board, it is destined to be Dead On Arrival.
The bill, called the “Stop Cruelty to Migrant Children Act,” was unveiled on Capitol Hill the morning of Thursday, July 11.
“It is not American to treat children like this,” Schumer said, calling for “nasty and vicious” people in the Trump administration — namely immigration hardliner Stephen Miller — to stop using migrant children as political pawns.
Besides legislating the end of child separation, the bill will bump up health and safety protection for detained kids, including getting them swift medical assessments. It will also require that Congress receive monthly reports on the number of children in custody.
No Corresponding House Bill Yet
One of the co-sponsors of the Bill was Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). In June 2018, Merkley set off a national firestorm when he went to the border to personally investigate the administration’s child separation policy and was turned away from a children’s detention center in Brownsville, Texas.
While the Bill will go nowhere without Republican support in the Senate, though it doesn’t yet have companion legislation in the House when it does, it would likely pass there, a meaningless gesture, as in order to become law, a bill needs to be passed by both the House and Senate.
It does, however, have Hollywood support, as actress Alyssa Milano gave it a plug on Twitter Wednesday, calling it “HUGE NEWS.”
The ongoing feud between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and other so-called “progressive” freshman Democratic Representatives continues to heat up.
The left-wing activist group that spearheaded the political rise of AOC is now working to take down several incumbent Democrats who have defied the party’s freshman progressive wing, leaving some of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s loyalists on Capitol Hill anxiously wondering if they might soon fall in the crosshairs themselves.
Justice Democrats, which was co-founded by Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti, has already announced it is looking to unseat seven-term pro-life Texas Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar, who represents a conservative district and has boasted about his endorsement from the National Rifle Association. Also on the list is New York Rep. Eliot Engel, the House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman who’s currently in his 16th term.
Primary Challenges Ahead for Engel and Cuellar
Cuellar and Engel each have primary challengers, and according to Fox News, all indications are that the campaigns will be contentious. While Ocasio-Cortez has stopped short of issuing endorsements in the races, Chakrabarti tweeted a link to a website accepting donations for Cuellar’s challenger in June, adding caustically, “Cuellar votes with Trump more than some Republicans … [and] votes most with big oil, private prison corps, and the gun lobby.”
From Pelosi’s leadership position to the rank-and-file, many House Democrats don’t see much daylight between themselves and Justice Democrats’ two current targets — and that has them worried.
“Members are looking over their shoulders,” Kentucky Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth, who chairs the House Budget Committee, told Politico this week.
Virginia Democratic Rep. Don Beyer, who serves as finance co-chair for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, added, “It’s not just older white men, but everybody including younger incumbent women is looking over their left shoulder.”
Engel, who is Jewish, was among the House Democrats who criticized freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar after controversial remarks suggesting Israel supporters were loyal to a foreign country. Engel said back in March, “it’s unacceptable and deeply offensive to call into question the loyalty of fellow American citizens.”
Internal Conflict on Vote on Border Funding
Both Engel and Cuellar also joined virtually all of their colleagues last month in supporting House Democratic leaders’ failed $4.5 billion proposal to fund border facilities, which was opposed by only four Democratic members of Congress, all in their first terms, Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib.
In a testy interview with ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, Tlaib stood by her “no” vote, saying the system was “broken” and claiming that during a visit to a border detention facility, “three agents took me aside, away from my colleagues and said, more money is not going to fix this, that they were not trained to separate children, that they don’t want to separate two-year-olds away from their mothers.”
That kind of zeal in the face of mainstream and establishment scrutiny has become the hallmark of the new left-wing freshman class in the House, and has also led to a very public spat between Ocasio-Cortez and Pelosi, that began when Pelosi told the New York Times last week that “all these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” referring to the House Democrats who voted against the border aid bill.
Despite the activism of organizations such as Justice Democrats, most political pundits believe that it is premature to gauge whether the enthusiasm progressives say they’re observing will translate to serious primary candidacies.
Traditionally, the overwhelming majority of primary challengers to an incumbent fail due to funding, organizational and name-recognition shortcomings.
Looking to thwart progressives and other challengers, DCCC Chairwoman Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., wrote private consultants earlier this year that her committee won’t conduct business with firms that work with primary challengers to sitting Democrats. She said the DCCC’s “core mission” includes protecting incumbents.
The UK’s most senior diplomat in the US stepped down following a very public row with Donald Trump.
Kim Darroch’s resignation came on the heels of some very choice words the President had for not only him, but Prime Minister Theresa May.
After leaked official cables found Darroch referring to Trump as “inept” and worse, Trump said on Tuesday, July 9, that Prime Minister Theresa May was “foolish” in her handling of Brexit, and he doubled down on the feud with Darroch, calling the Ambassador “wacky,” “stupid” and a “pompous fool.”
“The wacky Ambassador that the U.K. foisted upon the United States is not someone we are thrilled with, a very stupid guy. He should speak to his country, and Prime Minister May, about their failed Brexit negotiation, and not be upset with my criticism of how badly it was handled,” the President tweeted.
Darroch Calls It Quits
Announcing his resignation in a letter, Sir Kim wrote:
“Since the leak of official documents from this Embassy, there has been a great deal of speculation surrounding my position and the duration of my remaining term as ambassador. I want to put an end to that speculation.
The current situation is making it impossible for me to carry out my role as I would like.
Although my posting is not due to end until the end of this year, I believe in the current circumstances the responsible course is to allow the appointment of a new ambassador.”
Originally, the British government stood by Darroch. When the leaks first surfaced, a spokesman said that “We have made clear to the U.S. how unfortunate this leak is” and that “the selective extracts leaked do not reflect the closeness of, and the esteem in which we hold, the relationship.” Adding, “At the same time we have also underlined the importance of ambassadors being able to provide honest, unvarnished assessments of the politics in their country.”
However, as the feud seemed to escalate and tensions grow between our two countries, Darroch’s hand was forced into resigning. However, Prime Minister Theresa May said she felt it was a “matter of regret” that Darroch resigned.
In a recent appearance on BET Digital’s #BlackCoffeeLive, Democrat and Minnesota Congressman Ilhan Omar expressed her uncertainty of whether any of the Democratic presidential candidates have the ability to defeat President Donald Trump in the 2020 election.
When asked by Marc Lomant Hill, one of the hosts of the show, if she had endorsed any of the presidential candidates yet, Omar replied, “I have not, and I don’t intend on making an endorsement any time soon. I think it’s a little too early. There are lots of important conversations that need to be had about particular policies.”
“Everybody has ideas that are closely aligned and so it’s within the details often that you get to pick your candidate,” she added.
Omar continued, “As a policy nerd, those kinds of things really matter to me. I also think there is this question of how do we defeat the occupant of the White House? What does that process really look like? How do we not only energize our base, but also get to the soul of our country and reclaim it?”
“I don’t know if, if we have gotten that, that candidate yet,” she said.
Following the first round of debates where 20 Democratic candidates faced off against one another, a series of polls have been released which have shown a steep drop in support for former Vice President Joe Biden, with an increase of support for Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.
According to a RealClearPolitics average of recent national Democratic Polls, Biden remains in the lead with 27.2 percent, Sanders in second with 14.8 percent, Harris in third with 14.7 percent, and Warren in fourth with 13.5 percent.
The 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries have shown the American people that the party hardly resembles what it was just four years ago. The party has clearly and drastically shifted to the far-left.
The party has veered so far to the left that almost all of the 20 candidates running in the primaries have outwardly expressed their support for providing taxpayer-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants for free.
That’s right. Democratic candidates want to give your hard earned money over to illegals with absolutely right to be in the county.
If you’ve been following the Democratic Party over the last year and a half, it’s clear that they care more about illegal immigrants than they do for our veterans and the vast swaths of Americans who’re dying from opioid addiction.
On Tuesday, July 12, a military jury acquitted a decorated Navy SEAL of premeditated murder Tuesday in the killing of a wounded Islamic State captive under his care in Iraq in 2017.
Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher was cleared of all charges except for posing for photos with the dead body of the captive. Gallagher reacted with “tears of joy, emotion, freedom and absolute euphoria,” defense lawyer Marc Mukasey said.
“Suffice it to say this is a huge victory,” Mukasey said outside court. “It’s a huge weight off the Gallaghers.”
The Defense held that Gallagher was framed by disgruntled platoon members who fabricated the allegations to oust their chief. They said there was no physical evidence to support the allegations.
The prosecution said Gallagher’s own text messages and photos incriminated him. They included photos of Gallagher holding the dead militant up by the hair and clutching a knife in his other hand.
A text message Gallagher sent while deployed said: “got him with my hunting knife.”
The prosecution asserted the proof of Gallagher’s guilt was in those words, which were his own, and his photos and the testimony of his fellow troops.
The defense lawyers on the other hand, called the case a “mutiny” by entitled, junior SEALs who were trying to oust a demanding chief and repeatedly told the jury that there was nobody, no forensic evidence, and no blood found on the knife.
A Rare Public Glimpse at Military Justice
The case gave a rare public view of a deep division in the insular and highly revered SEAL community. Both sides told jurors that witnesses had lied on the stand and it was their duty to push through the evidence to find the truth. Gallagher, 40, did not take the stand.
The panel of seven (as opposed to a traditional 12 member civilian jury) of five Marines and two sailors, including a SEAL, had to weigh whether Gallagher, a 19-year veteran on his eighth deployment, went off the rails and fatally stabbed the war prisoner on May 3, 2017, as a kind of trophy kill, or was the victim of allegations fabricated after the platoon returned to San Diego to stop him from getting a Silver Star and being promoted.
Under the military system, two-thirds of the tribunal panel needs to agree to convict, or in this case five of seven jurors or they must acquit. Military juries also have the option to convict on lesser charges, such as attempted murder.
More Details of the Case Against Gallagher
Gallagher had also been charged with attempted murder in the shootings of two Iraqi civilians, and four other charges that included the unlawful discharge of his firearm by shooting at noncombatants, wrongfully posing with a human casualty, impeding an investigation by discouraging platoon members from reporting his criminal actions and retaliating against those who did.
The two-week trial included the testimonies of nearly a dozen SEALs, including Special Operator Corey Scott, a medic like Gallagher, who told the court that he saw the chief stab the Islamic State militant in the neck but stunned the court when he said he was the one who ultimately killed the prisoner by plugging his breathing tube with his thumb as an act of mercy.
An Iraqi general who handed the wounded prisoner to the SEALs testified that Gallagher did not stab the boy. And Marine Staff Sgt. Giorgio Kirylo said after the militant died that he moved the body to take a “cool guy trophy” photo with it and saw no stab wounds on his neck.
All of this conflicting testimony was enough to cast sufficient doubt among the empaneled jury to not reach the 2/3rd majority required for conviction.
After hearing that most of the charges against Gallagher were dropped, President Trump tweeted he was “glad” to help. “Congratulations to Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher, his wonderful wife Andrea, and his entire family,” the president tweeted after hearing of the acquittal. “You have been through much together. Glad I could help!”
In a series of leaked “Diplomatic Cables” the United Kingdom’s top diplomat, Kim Darroch, Britain’s ambassador to Washington, D.C., has called President Donald Trump “inept,” “insecure” and “incompetent.”
Mainstream news outlets, most notably NBC News, who first broke the story, have confirmed the authenticity of the documents. In a statement, a spokesperson for the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office said, “a formal leak investigation will now be initiated.”
The leaks provide a rare insight into how a key U.S. ally views the Trump administration behind closed doors.
In the full context of the memos, Darroch was critical of Trump’s economic policies, claiming they could wreck the world trade system. He also described conflicts within the White House as “knife fights” and warned “the worst cannot be ruled out” in regard to allegations of Trump’s collusion with Russia.
“We don’t really believe this administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction-riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept,” Darroch wrote in one of a series of leaked documents covering the period from 2017 to the present.
Trump Responds to Snarky Comments by U.K. Ambassador
The President heard about the leaked comments while still celebrating the July 4th weekend at his golf resort in Bedminster, NJ. He had this to say to reporters while he was leaving the resort to return to theWhite House on Sunday. “The ambassador has not served the U.K. well. I can tell you that. We’re not, we’re not big fans of that man — So, I can understand it and I can say things about him as well, but I won’t bother.”
At first, the U.K. foreign office defended Darroch, issuing a statement that basically said that ambassadors are allowed to be candid about their views. However, since then, the UK has rushed to mend fences. On Monday, July 8, U.S. International Trade Minister Liam Fox said he would be apologizing to Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump when he meets her during his current visit to Washington.
“I will be apologizing for the fact that either our civil service or elements of our political class have not lived up to the expectations that either we have or the United States has about their behavior, which in this particular case has lapsed in a most extraordinary and unacceptable way,” he told the BBC Monday.
He called the leak of the emails as “malicious” and said, “leaks of this nature are unprofessional, unethical and unpatriotic and can actually lead to damage to that relationship which can, therefore, affect our wider security.”