Trump's DISASTROUS record leaves Vance struggling at confrontational press briefing

[0:00] Okay. Yesterday, Vice President J.D. Vance got his own turn at the briefing room. Everybody gets [0:06] a chance. I guess that is what Daddy Trump thinks about. And he gave Marco Rubio, his other favorite [0:13] son, a chance last week. So J.D. Vance got his turn. And I figured I've had so much fun with [0:18] Caroline Lovett. Why not give a little whirl of seeing what J.D. Vance has to say? And then I'll [0:24] give my own take on the actual answers to the questions. All right. We're going to start with [0:28] a question from Jonathan Carl of ABC News. Why should taxpayers be paying to settle a $10 [0:36] billion lawsuit that was brought by the president of the United States? And should people that [0:41] attacked the Capitol building and assaulted police officers, should they be eligible? Should [0:48] they receive money? Should they receive money from this fund? This is about compensating Americans [0:52] for the lawfare that we saw under the last administration. And by the way, anybody can [0:57] apply for it. Republicans can apply for it. Democrats can apply for it. As you know, the [1:02] president of the United States has pardoned a number of Democrats who he felt were actually [1:06] subject to this lawfare. I mean, if Hunter Biden wants to apply for this particular fund, [1:11] he is welcome to. It's going to go through a normal process where we vet everything, where [1:15] we try to identify whether people's claims are actually legitimate. But here's the question. [1:20] You say, why should taxpayers fund this? Whenever the United States government incurs legal expenses, [1:26] it pays out those legal expenses. When it's settling a lawsuit, it pays out money to settle [1:31] that lawsuit. And the question is, is a dollar of this money going to the Trump administration? [1:37] No. Is a dollar of this money going to Donald Trump personally? No. Is a dollar of this money [1:42] going to Donald Trump's family? No. [1:44] First of all, of course, it is going to benefit Trump. This is a political slush fund that Trump [1:53] can use at his disposal and his discretion to basically pay off, to reward his political [2:02] buddies, including people who were part of the insurrection on January 6th, which, by the way, [2:08] happened on Donald Trump's watch when he was still president and trying to hold on to office, [2:12] as did all of the fake electors who also could benefit from this and surely will apply. We will [2:19] certainly see. But the other part of what J.D. Vance had to say there, I mean, so many parts to really [2:24] unravel there. First of all, lawfare. I mean, lawfare, that's what we're referring to this as. [2:31] These are, again, people who went through a court of law, who were convicted, and then they were [2:37] pardoned by Trump. And now he's saying he's sending out a bat signal. You can apply for this [2:42] funding. And by the way, I'm going to have a committee of five people, but I can decide who [2:47] they are. And also I can fire them at any point in time. And there's also no evidence at this point [2:54] that we, the public, are going to have any information about who gets paid what and when [2:59] they get paid and how much they get paid. That's what we're talking about here, J.D. Vance. Okay. [3:03] No surprise, Jonathan Karl had a follow-up question. So let's take that question. [3:08] Well, isn't it just as easy to say that people that attacked police officers should not get [3:14] taxpayer money from this fund? Well, look, John, we're not trying to give money to anybody who [3:18] attacked a police officer. We're trying to give money, not give money. We're trying to compensate [3:23] people where the book was thrown at them. They were mistreated by the legal system. Sometimes, [3:29] you know, we are, we do have, John, in this, in this country, innocent until proven guilty. [3:33] We do have people who were accused of attacking law enforcement officers. That does, that, that, [3:39] that, that, that doesn't, that doesn't mean that we're going to completely ignore some of the claims [3:44] that they're going to make. We're going to evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis. And if we [3:47] think that somebody, whatever they were accused of, if we think that somebody was unfairly prosecuted [3:55] and deserves just compensation, then that's what this fund is going to exist to provide. [3:59] Okay. Let's just go back to the original question here. Cause I'm going to start there. The original [4:04] question from Jonathan Carl was, isn't it just as easy to say that people that attacked police [4:10] officers should not get taxpayer money from this fund? The answer there should be yes, no, they should [4:16] not get money from this taxpayer fund or any money from taxpayers. That is a very easy question. This is [4:24] the law and order party. J.D. Vance is the vice president and one of the leaders supposedly of the [4:29] party. That is an easy question should be an easy answer. Also, many of the people they're talking [4:35] about here, people who marched on the Capitol were convicted innocent until proven guilty. You went [4:42] through the whole legal process and you were convicted and Donald Trump pardoned you. That's [4:46] not what we're talking about here. Anyway. Okay. Let's go on to the next one because there were a lot [4:51] of good questions in this briefing and there's many to address. Let's go to one from Caitlin Collins. [4:56] This is a different topic, but still an important one to talk about. You last week denied that the [5:00] president said he was not taking Americans financial situations into consideration when he's making [5:06] decisions on the Iran war. He was asked about that again. He stood by it, called it a perfect statement [5:11] and said he would make it again. Do you believe that Americans financial situations should be taken [5:16] into consideration when you're making decisions as an administration about the war? What I said is that [5:21] a question that was asked where the president allegedly, he allegedly said that he didn't care [5:26] about Americans financial situations. He never said that. What he said is that when he, it was totally [5:31] taken out of context. Okay. It wasn't allegedly, it was on camera. Let's just roll the tape for this one [5:39] and wish they had this in the briefing room because Caitlin Collins could have used it if they had it. [5:43] Okay. Let's play the tape of what Trump said. When you're negotiating with Iran, Mr. President, [5:48] to what extent are American financial situations motivating you to make a deal? [5:54] Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran, [5:58] they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about American financial situation. I don't think [6:04] about anybody. I think about one thing. We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. [6:09] That is the full context. You heard the question. You heard the answer, not in any way out of context. [6:17] J.D. Vance also could have said, no, Americans financial situation should be thought about [6:23] whenever we're making decisions in the federal government, but that would have pissed off [6:27] Donald Trump. So what was going on in J.D. Vance's mind in that moment? I suspect this. [6:32] Did he really say that? I can't believe he said that. I'm going to say it's out of context because [6:36] that's an easy thing to say, even though, as I just played for you, it's clearly not in any way [6:40] out of context. And I, that's obvious what I should say, but I'm not going to say that because [6:45] I'm going to make Trump mad and I really want to be president. I can't make him mad, but I don't [6:49] want to echo what he said because that's a crazy thing to say if you want to run for president and [6:53] in general. That was what was going on through J.D. Vance's head. Okay. Let's take another one. [6:57] And this one is from Garrett Hake from NBC News. Garrett. Okay. Let's hear what we have to ask. [7:02] You and the president ran on a platform that included no new wars, cutting gas prices, [7:07] cutting inflation. What do you say to the people who are going to the polls today and who feel [7:10] like those promises are unkept? Well, I'd say a few things. First of all, [7:15] we've delivered great wins for the American people. We are very aware that because of what's [7:19] going on in the Middle East, gas prices have gone up and a lot of Americans are struggling because of [7:24] that. Our view is that it is a temporary increase. We're taking a number of steps to [7:29] try to push back against it and try to ensure that Americans are paying as little at the pump [7:34] as possible. But I feel quite confident after we've taken care of business in the Middle East, [7:38] those prices are going to come down. I mean, let me, I'm going to go back to the question on this [7:44] one too, because I think this is an important part of it. The question, a very good question from [7:49] Garrett Hake of NBC News. You and the president ran on a platform that included no new wars, [7:52] cutting gas prices, cutting inflation. What do you say to people who are going to the polls today [7:56] and who feel like those promises are unkept? Okay. First of all, let's be real. They are unkept. [8:03] No new wars. We're currently in a war with Iran. Cutting gas prices. We all know that's not the [8:07] case. Gas prices are now $4.55 a gallon. And that most experts are predicting that that could drag well [8:17] into 2027. What was the third little promise you made here? Oh, cutting inflation. Well, we know [8:22] that is not the case either. So promises unkept. Now, here's the other thing I just wanted to touch [8:28] on in my little critique of what the vice president had to say in response to that question. He literally [8:33] said when we, but I feel confident after we've taken care of business in the Middle East, those prices [8:40] are going to come down. First of all, what on earth does taking care of business mean? Ending the war? [8:44] No one knows how you're going to end the war. Nobody knows why you're in the war, [8:47] but certainly there's no clarity on how the war is going to end. So that's not like a little just [8:51] to-do list item you can check off on a Friday. That seems like a pretty pivotal part of that. [8:56] Okay. We're going to do one more question. This one is from Nick Gilbertson from Breitbart. Why the [9:02] heck not? All right, Nick, go ahead. Today, we saw the president endorse Ken Paxton over John [9:07] Cornyn in the Texas Senate race. Do you think that sends a message going forward for the next cycle to [9:13] senators considering running for reelection or any mega-aligned potential candidates that are [9:20] considering challenging them? I've known John Cornyn for a long time, but unfortunately, [9:25] you know, when it really counted, Ken Paxton was there for the country, was there for the [9:30] president, and that's why he ultimately earned the president's endorsement. He thinks he's going [9:33] to be a better senator, thinks he's going to make a better candidate. And so I do think it sends a [9:38] message, but really not just the endorsement. And I think one of the things we've seen in the [9:43] Republican Party, while I can't say that all of our representatives are perfect or all of our [9:47] senators are perfect, we have seen a much better crop of talent come into Washington since Donald [9:54] Trump has been the leader of the party and the leader of the movement. Okay. Let's just start with [9:59] Ken Paxton because J.D. Vance described him as, when it really counted, I just wanted to get this [10:05] quote exactly right, Ken Paxton was there for the president, was there for the country, was there for [10:11] the president. Okay, in case you're not familiar with Ken Paxton, and you probably are familiar with [10:15] Ken Paxton, just a couple of things from his kind of rap sheet here. In 2015, he was indicted over [10:21] accusations of defrauding investors. He pleaded not guilty. In 2024, he struck a deal with prosecutors [10:26] where he agreed to pay almost $300,000 in restitution and complete 100 hours of community [10:31] service in exchange for the charges being dropped in 2020. While the case played out, he was accused [10:36] by members of his senior staff of taking bribes, a real estate developer, from a real estate developer [10:41] and abusing his office. Paxton ended up firing four of the whistleblowers. I could just literally go [10:47] on. I mean, his wife also divorced him on biblical grounds, as she described it, and accused him of [10:52] adultery. Lots of things to say about Ken Paxton, maybe one of the most corrupt people on the ballot [10:58] this November, but he was there for the country. I don't even know what that means. Now, there's also [11:04] John Cornyn, and that is a sad state of things. John Cornyn, not a great year for him for a million [11:09] reasons, including this is not a pro-Washington, Washington establishment year. That guy is incredibly [11:15] pro-Washington. But you know what else he's very much been? Very pro-Trump. I mean, he literally [11:22] read Trump's book on social media in order, in hopes, I guess, of having the president see him. [11:28] He has voted with him an over, overwhelming majority of the time. Even after he didn't [11:34] endorse him, he posted on X, basically kissing up to Trump. He has embraced and hugged the man [11:41] and done everything he's asked him to do. So what message does this send to Republicans? Just to go [11:45] back to the original question, surprisingly a good one from Breitbart, I will say. It basically says [11:50] loyalty. You say it's loyalty. That's what Trump argued it was in the Massey race. It's clearly [11:56] not, because if you look at John Cornyn, few people have been as loyal to Trump who have been [12:01] in positions of power as John Cornyn, and it didn't matter. Why? Well, I don't know. I would guess [12:08] that maybe Trump thinks Ken Paxton may win the primary. Maybe he thinks his core base, the only [12:12] people who really care, he cares about, like Paxton better. Both of them are possibilities. [12:17] But John Cornyn's loyalty basically got him nothing. So there's a little take on J.D. Vance's briefing [12:25] that happened this week.