 Welcome to Think Tech on Spectrum OC16, Hawaii's weekly newscast on things that matter to tech and to Hawaii. I'm Cynthia Sinclair. And I'm Keisha King. In our show this time, we'll review some of our Trump Week episodes, where we try to connect the dots on what's happening in the White House. Every Friday, we do a talk show to examine the actions taken or not taken by this administration in these very interesting and unpredictable times. It has appeared to us that the news by and about this president is often unpredictable and moves from day to day driven by his impulsive decisions rather than on any rational or systematic basis. So we established a weekly talk show called Trump Week, where we look at actions and events generated by and surrounding Donald Trump and the Trump administration and try to make some sense of them. That means looking at the history of what has gone before, the context, the individuals and advisors who participated in the decisions, motivations and impulses involved. It also means looking at the way these events unfold and connect with each other and the implications they have on the United States and on the world. Of course it's complex and we may never actually get to the bottom of what he does or the effects his actions have on the country and the world, but we need to try and we need to share our thoughts to raise public awareness on what is going on. So here's a few clips from a few episodes of our Trump Week series. There are many more. If you want to see these episodes in their entirety or if you want to see all the episodes, check out the Trump Week playlist on our YouTube channel. What happened in Europe? Well, on one hand, he got through it and he was even praised for following his teleprompter. If that's the bar that's been set for this President of the United States. I'll use the word bar on this show. If that's the level of competence that has been established for this President of the United States, we're all in big trouble because, hooray for President Trump, he read the teleprompter and he didn't go off script. I mean, that we've come to for a while. So he received praise for his Normani speech, but really what happened just before that was the interview with Laura Ingram on Fox News Station. What a background was the headstones of all these 4,414 brave soldiers. He decided to take this moment 15 minutes before the actual ceremony began to basically lamb base Nancy Pelosi and Robert Mueller and Chuck Schumer and the whole gang. Well, it wasn't just 15 minutes beforehand. He ended up having the whole entire ceremony late by 15 minutes because he sat there and did that interview. I was telling you guys before the show that a few years ago, my wife and I went to Normandy, went to the American Cemetery at Normandy and it is one of the most powerful, memorable experiences that we have ever had, I have ever had, to be there just to stand and look at it in the flesh in the reality of it. It brings home your national connection. It brings home your sense of history and morality and honesty and the greatest generation and sadness for the people who are buried there. It is the most powerful experience I've really ever had with respect to an institution along those lines and for him to abuse it, to defame it and deface it that way is extraordinary. What it means is he was there, he should have felt the same feeling, but he didn't. He doesn't understand American history, he doesn't understand the American morality, American ethics, American core values if he would do that. So it was particularly disgusting to me to see him make them so interesting. It really did ruin the moment that he got praised for and that was his speech. It ruined it. It completely dis-tarnished the entire speech he gave, given the backdrop and the interview. Did Mueller do a good job here? Mueller did a good job if it was 1962. Right. I'll go on with that. The rules of the game have changed and what are the rules of the game? There are no rules. I respect Robert Mueller and his dedication as an ex-marine and service career individual and what is their model? You don't wear the badge of politics at all when you're in the armed services. You don't bite the chain of command. You don't bite the chain of command. He lives his life and I think it's played out here during the two years of the investigation and certainly in the portrayal of the report. So can I fault him for that? No, because in his heart that's what he's trying to do. Now, he said some things that I think go beyond him trying to be completely neutral on it and let me just read one quote, that the Constitution requires a process other than criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. So he's giving these tidbits, these little trail notes for Congress to follow and he's saying, look at the report, look at the Constitution, it's all there in front of you. In fact, he said, the report is my testimony. There it is. I remember lawyers who used to, you know, in my practice experience go to court. They write it out. They write it out in their brief and when it came time for argument, oral argument with the judge, they would make this strange assumption that the judge read the brief, that he understood it and he was on the same page and then they would lose. They would lose because they miscalculated what the judge was looking at and thinking about and realizing and, you know, you have to calculate your audience. So you want to hit a 448 page deal and you want to get very cute about how you frame everything so cautiously, wouldn't it have been better for him to say in English, expressly, I don't feel that I can charge, you know, obstruction here. But I have had a number of, I have found in my investigation a number of elements that would permit Congress, or if he wasn't a sitting president, a court who convict him of obstruction of justice. I am not going to do anything because I feel, you know, restrained to do that. But you guys can and you should pursue this. OK, so what did he say? He said, had we had the confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. So he's kind of. Why couldn't he say? We think the president did commit a crime and you should do something about it. It's a flip side of that. Why is he being so cute? No, most of the country. I agree he's not clear. He's not. The base is not going to accept anything he says. And then all the other people are confused about what does he really mean? Will the guy please speak his mind already? You know, he's had all that money and he's had all this time and we all all sat around waiting. He was going to be our savior. Girls, I got to tell you, he has not been our savior. And will he be our savior going forward? What did I say about calling those girls off camera? Will he be our savior? Well, you're going to get what you get. This is it. You could take him behind closed doors and have him do further testimony. He's not going to give any more than he already has in that nine minutes. Right. I guarantee you. He's done. He's done. He's done. But you know, I don't think he's done the job the American people had hoped for, or at least the people I know had hoped for. So the cyber command, which is in Virginia, I think, part of the army, I think it's like a separate command, was found to have been hacking the Russian electrical grid. I don't know where it came from, but when the New York Times called them to confirm the story, they confirmed it. They confirmed it and they didn't say anything about how this was a big secret. OK. The Times, if you remember, three or four days ago, published the story about how the American military was hacking into the Russian grid. This is breaking the deterrence factor that we've had. We've enjoyed for the past few years on hacking, on nation-state hacking. And this could lead to really bad things, what they're doing, and making it public. But the Times reported what they found. It was their job. So Trump went after them, called them traders now. So it's not enough to say war on the press, enemy of the people, fake news, which he's been doing since his campaign started in 2015, but it's now treason. Treason in the Constitution. It's a very serious crime punishable by death. OK, he's calling the New York Times traders. That is the biggest attack yet on the First Amendment. Well, a couple of days ago, he threatened the Time Reporter in the Oval Office. There was, I believe, four Time Reporters doing an interview in the Oval Office. And he showed them the document, the letter from Kim Jong-un. And he said, OK, this is off the record. I'm going to show it to you. And apparently one of the reporters took out his phone camera. I don't know if he took a picture or was attempting to take a picture. Sander said, no, you can't do that. And so that was the end of it. And then as they're asking them about whether or not Jeff Sessions was instructed to go light on the investigation and the testimony, he brought this thing up. He said, you know, I could jail you. I could jail you just to let you know that you tried to do something you shouldn't have. Yeah, maybe some jail would be good for you. They said, quote, you make some friends in jail. My God. That's the part that is, I think, the scariest. We have death threats going up to so many journalists right now. And instead of saying this is part of our democracy, a free press, he's doing just the opposite. And he's doubling down and putting all of our reporters out there in more danger, which I think is wrong. And I think a lot of the story does is wrong. AC Salzburg, the publisher of The New York Times, got on, this is interesting, on Murdoch's Wall Street Journal yesterday. And it's a long article about it. From The New York Times on The Wall Street Journal, not on The New York Times, but on The Wall Street Journal. He also got a national public radio and said, you know, we really can't tolerate this kind of thing. He calls us all these names. He calls us The Failing New York Times. And we're OK with that. Because as a matter of fact, all his Mishigas, you know, that craziness, all his Mishigas is actually made The New York Times very profitable. More prosperous than before. And The Washington Post. And The Washington Post. And they're doing a good job. And they're free reporting fairly. But when he calls The New York Times, The Failing New York Times, Salzburg says, it's OK. You can call me that. Because we're not failing. My P&L is looking better. But at any rate, he says, she's not my type. Now, I want you to look at her next to the pictures of all of the people that have claimed that he insulted them. And they all look the same. And they all look just like his wives. So you're going to eat. And he said to each one of them, oh, she's not my type. So what's the opposite flip side of that statement? Well, she is my type. And I'd be happy to rape her. Yeah, exactly. And I'm sorry. But not my type is a really bad response to this allegation. The worst we've lost. She's not my type. And therefore, I would not have raped her. So that's ridiculous. I would not have raped her. Well, you said you didn't know her, too. Yeah. I mean, nobody believes that. Right, because there's a picture of them together. I don't think I've got confirmation of two other women who were consulted at the time. The problem is rape is a felony. It's punishable by decades in jail or worse. And yet, he gets a pass on it. It's a moral sin. She still has the dress. I hope the women in this country unite against him on this. I hope she still has the dress. And it's able to find some kind of DNA on it. She does have the dress. And she's turned it in. So if they can find some DNA on that, she doesn't have to bring the rape case. The state can bring the rape case. Well, yeah, but this goes to a whole new area. Monica Lewinsky. That's what I've reminded them of. Exactly. Let's assume she finds the dress. I mean, she has the dress. Let's assume that the modern science can pull some DNA off it. I know when that's been made. Let's assume it's a suspicious DNA. And we believe it's his DNA. But we have to get a swap from him. Where are we going to get that from? Because he's not going to cooperate. We're going to do phone around and grab his cup. Are you just going to do it? Yeah, he doesn't cooperate. We're reading the process. Think about that part. Thank you. Catch me if you can. So it's going to be hard to make that case without a use to you. I mean, the travesty is, here's yet another woman coming out and making this allegation. And it's yet a peep within the news cycle. And it's a peep within the ranks of the American public. Is this horrific? That's because it's the new normal. Well, the deplorable new normal. The deplorable normal. And I guess maybe I'm just getting too old. I'm just shocked. What I saw in the paper, he's going to do another raise in tariffs right now. Another one, another one on China. $300 billion. Now remember, the other one was, I believe, $200 billion. And he said, we could do this. This is easy. I mean, $300 billion now is subject to 25% tax. Unbelievable. It reminds me of when he fired somebody on The Apprentice. You sat there watching that show. Why did he fire that guy? There was no rhyme or reason about it. And why is he doing this additional tariff? There's no rhyme or reason about it. He's already getting all this pushback from American industry. And as you said, Tim, it's a tax on us. We pay it. It disrupts world trade. Disrupts their economy and our economy. And I don't know what the purpose is, but he keeps on doing it. Did he do something wrong? And he wants to do another, what, $300 billion? What's the problem with him? Again, how many shows have we said is this just another way of distraction? But this tax could potentially cost $900 per American citizen. And we're talking about potentially 200,000 jobs in the state of Arizona. Because Arizona actually will be the greatest state impacted by this act if it goes through. When it goes through, he does it all by fiat. He does it himself. Well, OK. So he's, again, he's taking on to himself the power of taxation. And finally, in the Senate, we have a number of senators, Republican, who said, hey, this is not what we like or want. So they're finally, some of them are raising their head and saying, stop it. We have Ted Cruz saying this is going to be very harmful impact. We have John Cornyn from Texas saying, we're heading to, it's like holding a gun to our heads. We have Joni Ernst saying it's overwhelmingly we oppose these tariffs. And they will count to answer on everything. And then last but not least, even Mitch McConnell, our Mitch McConnell here, he said that there's not much support for this. And they want to sit down with the president before Monday, because that's when the first 5% is going into play. How about national disgrace at the border? OK. What do you think? Against my will. International disgrace at the border. Yeah. Because the whole world's watching. Yes. Cynthia, what do you think? I think it's horrible. I think it's horrific what is happening. And it's all private. This is for profit stuff that's happening down there, too. It's not like our military that are running these camps. This is for profit. Private people that are running these camps, they don't have blankets. They don't have medicine. They don't have toothbrushes or soap. You've got kids taking care of kids. They don't have diapers that are being changed. And they don't allow anyone in. This is the thing that really gets me. Security. Security. Not a single senator gets to walk through that door. Even the Geneva Convention allows the Red Cross to come in and monitor what's going on. Right. Exactly. They're not even compliant with the Geneva Convention. But this was a war. Stalag 17. Oh, yes. Absolutely. And there's people that are bringing. Red Cross is bringing stuff. My own church, the United Methodist Church, Angkor, has been there from the beginning for a year now trying to bring things for these kids. And they won't accept them. Well, maybe the president didn't know the details. Oh, please. Don't give me that. I don't believe it for a minute. He knows all of the details and does not care. You watch his television all day. He's got to know. He knows. Now, you know the Congress, at least the House passed a bill providing $4.5 billion to support those kids in these Stalag 17 installations. But it had controls on it. It said, you can only use this money for the kids and those installations. It said it passed a bill for $4.5 billion without any controls, allowing him to use the money for his long-awaited wall and other things along those lines. Security, OK? Then Nancy Pelosi said, OK, OK, in order to get this passed, we're going to take our controls out of the House bill. And I think it's going that way. That's what's going to happen. So there's no way to be sure. In fact, you can be probably sure that the controls won't be there and he will misuse the money. What are your thoughts about that bill? We carried out. Yeah, she didn't want to. I don't think she wanted to have a controversy while the children were in such dire straits. That's what it was. And that would put it on her. That when you implement a law, you know, it's the devil in the detail. And those controls needed to be in that bill. The important thing is not to limit your attention to the specific events or machinations, however theatrical or shocking those events may be. But to consider the collective effect they are having on our country and society and on other countries and societies elsewhere. And we also need to examine the implications of negative action and nonaction that derides the press, denies the truth in climate science, divides and invokes hatred and racism among us, insults, bullies, destroys or compromises our global relationships, undermines the rights of women and denigrates the rule of law and our sacred constitution and moral and ethical norms. We must include these issues and threats to our democracy in the public conversation. Not just to incite or threaten people, but to enable voters and public officials to develop sound and courageous opinions, fashion the best policies, make the right decisions and of course, protect, defend and save our republic. And now let's check out our Think Tech schedule of events going forward. Think Tech broadcasts its talk shows live on the internet from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays. Then we broadcast our earlier shows all night long and on the weekends. If you missed a show or if you want to replay or share any of our shows, they're all archived on demand on thinktecawaii.com and YouTube. For our audio stream, go to thinktecawaii.com slash audio and we post all our shows as podcasts on iTunes. Visit thinktecawaii.com for our weekly calendar and live stream and YouTube links. Or better yet, sign up on our email list and get our daily email advisories. Think Tech has a high tech green screen studio at Pioneer Plaza. If you want to see it or be part of our live audience or if you want to participate in our shows, contact shows at thinktecawaii.com. If you want to pose a question or make a comment about a show, call 808-374-2014 and help us raise public awareness on Think Tech. Go ahead, give us a thumbs up on YouTube or send us a tweet at Think Tech HRI. We'd like to know how you feel about the issues and events that affect our lives in these islands and in this country. We'll be right back to wrap up this week's edition of Think Tech. But first, we want to thank our underwriters. Thanks to our Think Tech underwriters and grand tours, the Atherton Family Foundation, Carol Mon Lee and the friends of Think Tech, the Center for Microbial Oceanography Research and Education, Collateral Analytics, the Cook Foundation, Dwayne Kurisu, the Hawaii Council of Associations of Appopent Owners, Hawaii Energy, the Hawaii Energy Policy Forum, Hawaiian Electric Company, Integrated Security Technologies, Gailin Ho of BAE Systems, Kamehameha Schools, MW Group Limited, the Schuyler Family Foundation, the Sydney Stern Memorial Trust, Volo Foundation, Yuriko J. Sugimura. Thanks so much to you all. Okay, Keisha. That wraps up this week's edition of Think Tech. Remember, you can watch Think Tech on Spectrum OC16 several times every week. Can't get enough of it just like Keisha does. For additional times, check out oc16.tv. For lots more Think Tech videos and for underwriting and sponsorship opportunities on Think Tech, visit thinktecawaii.com. Be a guest or a host, a producer or an intern and help us reach and have an impact on Hawaii. Thanks so much for being part of our Think Tech family and for supporting our open discussion of tech, energy, diversification, and global awareness in Hawaii. And of course, the ongoing search for innovation and political clarity wherever we can find it. You can watch this show throughout the week and tune in next Sunday evening for our next important Think Tech episode. I'm Cynthia Sinclair. And I'm Keisha King. Aloha, everyone.