Investigating former v. P. Joe biden. And that he had valid reasons to raise those issues with ukraine to fight krupgds. And setting a uniquely trumpian and quote, president donald j. Trump used his official powers to precarForeign Government to interfere in a u. S. Election for his personal, political gain and then attempted to cover up his scheme by obstructing congress. The constitution provides a remedy when the president commits such crimes of his office. The senate must use that remedy now to safeguard our 2020 u. S. Election and eliminate the threat it poses to National Security. Democrats may have succeeded in turning one member of trumps legal team into a revisionest and hypocrite. Heres Alan Dershowitz. The articles of impeachment are two noncriminal as, namely obstruction of congress and abuse of power and those will have to be voted on by the senate. Is it your position he should not be impeached, even if all the arguments laid out by the house are accepted as facts . Yes. And heres from the opposite side. It certainly doesnt have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great dachger to our liberty, you dont need a technical crime. Ill take the 1998 answer. And lacking any substantive defense of trump, the gop threatening encryptic signals to have the trial go on into the wee hours of the morning in the coming days. Chuck schumer wondered out loud why that would be last night. He wants to rush this thing through so quickly because hes afraid of what the American People might hear. If the president was so sure hed be vindicate, if mcconnell were so sure, they want all the facts to come out in a serious trial, not something lets just get rid of this as quick as we can. That is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. White house reporter for the Associated Press and former democratic congresswoman, and former assistant director at the fbi and nbc news corspandant and jeremy bash is back. Im going to start with you. I have never had High Expectations for what they might decide to argue. But even i am blown away that none of the facts are in dispute and if you take the case that the House Intelligence Committee laid out, you take the 17 witnesses weve heard from, add to the prospect of john bolton corroborating and enhancing our understanding, it would seem their very narrow argument is pressuring and extorting a Foreign Government as not impeachable. Is that where things stand right now . Afterall, donald trump will be on trial tomorrow. There will be only the third president on trial for high crimes and misdemeanors. The first president to go on trial in his first term and the first president in our nations history to go on trial for violating and undermining American National security. The charges are so grave, theyre so serious, and the charges and facts are not in dispute. The only basis upon which to defend the president is a narrow legal basis that says actually trump was acting in furtherance of the national interests. In other words, he wants us to believe that in trying to get dirt on his political opponent, joe biden, that was somehow in Americas National interest, when this administration has done precisely nothing to take on corruption. And you could argue theyve been guilty of corruption. Lets hit pause right here because i think were entering a real snow zone where theyre going to throw disinformation into the either. A former Senior Justice Department official told me to search for anywhere where donald trump had corruption anywhere in the world and the u. S. Is what you just articulated, something thats going to pass mustered eve within the zombielike Senate Republicans who seem to be in lock step . They certainly wont buy it in their inner voices. The question is what will they do publicly. And the president is arguing whats in his personal interests must be in his national interest. I am the state. Its actually the very definition of corruption. Its saying when i benefit myself, im furthering Americas National interest. And americas had a long tradition to say no, it is not what we expect from our public leaders and when you cross that line, youre crossing a very significant constitutional line. Frank, can you sort of hold court on what the criminal questions would be if this were anybody else. If this were a senator or anyone el , would we be having a conversation like this . I said it before, if this were the building inspector in one of your counties a viewer lives in, this is a nobrainer bribery charge. This is offering a thing of value in exchange for an official act. You get your military aid i have know the democrats have chosen to not go the route of saying we think this is a federal bribery crime and i get that because its a matter of principal the constitution does not require a crime to be committed. But youre going to hear that from dershowitz and starr. The i did it so what defense is actually, maybe their best bet for avoiding needing to call witnesses. Because what they can say is if we call witnesses, what would we do that for . All theyll do is tell you what we already are telling you. He did it and we dont think its impeachable. In a way were used to this and it shocks the conscience but we shouldnt be surprised because its a smart way to go. You know this is also ive tried to study the patterns of trumps presidency. This is it the constant patdern. Deny the Stormy Daniels affair, say we dont know anything about the pay offs. So you have to talk to Michael Cohen. Then on the front page of the New York Times is the photo copy of the check signed by donald j. Trump to keep Stormy Daniels quiet. Deny any coordination with russia and say theres nothing wrong with taking help. So, anyone would do it and i would do it again. The pattern is always to deny it and when the truth comes out too, normalize it and sell it to the base. Here we have, as a back stop, john boltons book will tell the whole story. We will know the whole story of the criminality. Do you sense any consideration this argument doesnt really look particularly innocent . This is the pattern. Deny it, move the goal post and say its no big deal. Any other president would do this too. The burden is on the white houses radar. They prefer book form than testimony in front of congress, i suppose. And certainly if he were to be called as a witness, i think well hear lot about executive privilege. Its more of a political document than a legal one. Im quoting from it. Quote, do us a favor, in the context of international diplomacy, and the favors have nothing to do with the president s personal interest. The president cannot be removed because House Democrats misconstrue one of his commonly used phrases. So, when reading the transcript, the white house summary t is very clear, that its a favor not for the United States but for me personally. If you want this military aid, you need to do what i ask you to do and thats to launch an investigation into the bidens. None other than Chris Christie went on television before the transcript was released and said this isnt bad for trump yet but if theres any evidence of do me a favor, buddy. And thats precisely what he did. And now theyre trying to say thats okay. He didnt mean anything by it. Get us up to speed on your latest reporting and tweeted about the inclosing of some of the patterns here. Interesting to see them after the rush and its ubstrulkting mueller is like ubstrulkting house inquiry. It would seem smearing the witnesses is something theyve done to Michael Cohen and everyone thats come out of the inner circle and usually ended up in jail. What did that look like on the democratic side about whether to include patterns . They obviously did not include patterns in drawing up the articles of obstruction. And i read through the brief here, that the president could not have obstructed congress, ignores every argument that has come from a lot of top constitutional law experts. The president made clear, when he issued his letter back in october, i think it was, saying youre entire investigation is constitutionally invalid. And now we know why because they have adopted this argument from Alan Dershowitz that abuse of power is not a premise for impeaching the president. Theres an important point that needs be made. And that is the question is not whether Alan Dershowitz is contradicting Alan Dershowitz from 1998. The question is whether anyone, and i mean anyone, other than the president s legal team, actually agrees with Alan Dershowitz. You have the 500 constitutional law experts, several weeks ago, who said the president clearly committed impeachable crimes. The only person making the case is Alan Dershowitz. Even jonathan turley, the president s republican star witness in the house, didnt make this case. He just said they didnt have the evidence there yet. They werent quite there yet. The question sdh challenge Going Forward we should be focusing on, as well as the media, is not just whether Alan Dershowitz, whos a celebrity criminal defense attorney is contradicting himself from 19 nal 98, its whether any constitutional law experts in this country agree with him. I think heidi issued an appropriate caution for anyone covering this. We stair at the trees in our own peril. I mean, the trees are what heidi just articulate said. There are no conservative legal scholars. These are tv criminal defense guys. And this is the peril for the president. Because if you look at the brief the democrats filed, they go through a constitutional argument rooted in the framing of the constitution. And the impeachment clause. They go through the legal basis for obstruction and abuse of power and abuse of the public trust. And the president s brief does none of that. You could read like you were reading it at a rally because its that kind of political document. That is not a basis on which to defend. And the president has decided hes going to invoke the Mick Mulvaney defense, i did it, get over it. Its now a tshirt or a hat . Exactly. And i think for sitting senators to read through this, theyre going to see the factual basis has been laid for abuse of power and obstruction of justice. The question is whether they are going to call the witnesses that then bolster that argument. Everyone. All of you have spoken to the b absurdity of the legal arguments. I want to turn to the solemnity. Chuck schumer said hes going to force a vote as early as tomorrow. I think Susan Collins and mitt romney and maybe Lisa Murkowski are the only three out of the closet witness, being witness curious. Wrl does that sort of soul searching go for an elected official . Even if you want to even if you want to get to what all of you have articulated as a ludicrous legal argument that abuse of power isnt a real thing, and im sure that will be on a tshirt too. The truth is this is the most solemn thing officials do. How do they take a vote about witnesses and whether they want the facts before them, with anything other than the solemnity it requires . I think were all going to go back to that quiet moment where each is signing the oath that theyre going to do impartial justice. And i think it becomes really difficult, especially some of these senators, to know theyve taken that oath but then to say, okay, but i dont want to hear anymore. Lets just get on with it. I think it becomes unaccessible in your gut. I dont know broabout you, but n that oath was given by john roberts, i was taking the oath as a private citizen, that i was going to view and look at the evidence with impartial justice. And as donald trump is on trial, so is the Senate Whether they take this seriously, whether they live up to the oaths of the constitution. And we know some have already said they reached their conclusionses. Its a dwegz question of gettine as quick as possible. I do think, i hope, anyway there, will be a number of them who will take this seriously and maybe they will go along party lines, and thats fine. But this is your job and the most solemn thing youre going to do, probably in this office. So, do the right way. Whats your personal reaction to the idea someone like lindsey graham, who i think, notably, during the house impeachment investigation said on camera he wasnt watching. See no evil, hear no evil, do no evil. Of course their responsibility, their duty is to protect the country. And the constitution requires the president withhold his oath of office and protect the nation. Imagine if a president basically said to russia you can invade the baltics and move Nuclear Weapons close to the United States, as long as you hack the democrats or dig up dirt on my opponents. Everybody unanimously would say that undermines National Security. And we have the defense counsel saying thats just a policy difference. Something like that would not rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Its unfathomable to look into their souls and agree. Let me give you the last word and we have the luxury of staring at the forest and not the trees. Let me ask you if there were any sort of merit to any questions about illegal corruption, didnt donald trump have the fbi and the cia and all of americas premier Law Enforcement agencies at his disposal . Why did he have to say do me a favor though . Why did he have to send rudy to do what the department of justice and our intelligence, Law Enforcement structure could do. Weve got fbi legal atashays overseas. If it was really about corruption. And of course it was not. And the senate knows that. The senate doesnt want witnesses for that very reason. And the lens the senate needs to look at this issue of witnesses through is the lens of their constituents look at it through because they want this to have credibility no matter where this comes out. When we come back, the president s impeachment was put in motion when they found a whistleblowers complaint about the president to be credible. Now, the Intelligence Communitys credibility is back on the line. Well go back inside that story in a stand off over documents with the nsa. And joe biden goes on offense, warning about disinformation on the very same day the Washington Post clocks more than 16,000 lives from donald trump. And New York Times endorses two candidates and pulls back the curtain on its interview process. Well be joined by a member of at fidelity, you get personalized Wealth Planning and unmatched overall value. Together with a dedicated advisor, youll make a plan that can adjust as your life changes, with access to taxsmart investing strategies that help you keep more of what you earn. And with a new brokerage account, your cash is automatically invested at a great rate thats at least 20 times more than other advisory firms. Personalized advice. Unmatched value. At fidelity, you can have both. More than this tharp rr beginning to with hold documents from congress on ukraine. The nsa in particular are withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our Oversight Committee and the senators might want to see during the trial. That is deeply concerning and there are signs the cia may be on the same tragic course. Were counting on the Intelligence Community, not only to speak truth to power but to resist pressure from the administration to withhold information from congress. A new and alarming fight between House Intel Committee chairman and the nsa in the public. That was chairman adam schiff making two big accusations against the entire Intelligence Community. First, that theyre withholding documents and second, its doing so as a result of pressure from the administration. A potentially explosive new moment in the parent effort to stonewall congress. And one would only add to the ubstrukds article of impeachment. A committee official, who spoke on the condition anonymity, said mr. Schiff was angered because of the national and an Administration Official said the document production was simply going slowly and had not been blocked. Jeremy, i have to start with you again. I remember how this all started. There was a fight and the president wanted to fire the watchdog, the ig, the dni because he ultimately did the right thing. I think its debatable whether going to the Justice Department before turning a whistle employeer complaint over to congress is the right thing or not. But ultimately made it to congress. Donald trump wanted the him fired. Now, adam schiff, who is in his post, seems to have pretty functional relationships within and throughout the Intelligence Community. Your thoughts . This need to hear from chairman, senator richard burr, the senator of the committee on intelligence. Because he should be joining the House Intelligence Committee with the demand that they produce material. 57 National Security act as amended said congress can receive and look at essentially any Intelligence Holdings of the community and the director is duty bound to present this information to congress. The only time ive seen it get slowed or delayed is whether the white house got involved. And were concerned the white house is basically saying to the nonpartisan, political Intelligence Community, do our bidding. And that is a huge redline for the inc. For the nonNational Security bust among us, what kind of stuff does the nsa have and of the stuff that they have, what is the congress have a right to see . So, were talking about potentially some of the most sensitive material our Intelligence Community develops, the most sensitive sources and methods. The nsa is in the business of signal intercept. The imagination runs wild here. Is there perhaps intercepted communications between ukrainian officials and the white house that we dont know about . Are there communications that would indicate ukrainians saw this as a quid pro quo and saw it pressured . Are there indications the russians had anything to do with guiding trump or the white house on withholding military aid to ukraine . And if well never know that, the American People should be livid, that the people with the highest clearances arent getting access to this. They have a right to know it. I find it interesting the president , not long ago, said you have the power to declassify anything. But, now, apparently, now when it might implicate him further, we wont see it. You can always mask it, dumb it down and give it to the hands of congress. What this is about is the selective withholding of classified material because it might damage the president. If all this is true, this is not only the most disturbing thing we may hear this week, but we may be watching another pillar of our executive branch start to crumble. Weve seen the doj and attorney general role crumble before our eyes. I hope were not seeing the Intelligence Community falling right in the president s trap of just enabling the demise our of democracy. If that dooms day ske nair yedescribe bide frank hes harassed the Intelligence Community privately and publicly. And famously on iran, on north korea. A politico report that Intelligence Agency officials dont want to testify in public on Global Security threats, asking the session be held in priechb private instead. Might that be so its not on cable news, heidi . Another way to and it has been three years now, bullying campaign against our intelligence agencies, which only suddenly changed after the iranian hostilities situation. And this is just part of yes, a is a complete blockage of Things Congress isnt able to obtain. I know from my own sources, who were in kiev with ambassador taylor and with the ukrainian officials desperately trying to figure out what it was going to take to appease donald trump and get the release of those funds. And so it would really boggle the mind if there were not some kind of communications that reflected that kind of anxiety we know is bouncing around within the ukrainian government. Congress will have to decide how theyre going to respond to this. And his silence is notable. And thats where it turns to people like myself to go up there this week and ask him about it. Because certainly weve seen a lot of this happening at the Justice Department and now its infecting the intelligence agencies that have been bullied for three years. That is yet another pillar of our checks and balances crumbleing before us. Let me just put you on the spot. Do you think they would have former members looking into all these questions . I think what they would welcome is not having the white house breathing down their neck politically. I personally know the leaders of cia and nsa. Theyre not political actors. So this must be a direct order from the white house. Theres no other possible explanation. Thats a stunning accusation. Can you tell us anything else, jeremy . Ive been in so many discussions in which the question arose what should we provide the congressional committees and i was chief counsel. So i know what was requested of the agencies. The way the agencies approach this is they provide the committees information. Its only been in circumstances where the white house has political agenda where they said stop right there, dont go any further. And that must be whats happening right now. Thank you for spending the first half of the show with us. After the break, on the eve of impeachment, joe biden is launching a preemptive strike on the misinformation were all guaranteed. L guaranteed we have breaking news and i guess you can call it extended fallout from lev parnas with Rachel Maddow. Lev parnass attorney has just released a threepage letter with exhibits he sentd to attorney general william barr, asking for the attorney generals recusal from lev parnass case and the investigation and calling for a special counsel to be appointed. Its a question weve asked on this show, whether attorney general barr, being invoked by donald trump on the ukrainian call with president zelensky and that involvement of barr being corroborated by lev parnas, who was someone Rudy Giuliani was defending, who rudy was for before he was against him, was something that would pred kate a special counsel. And said in normal times it would indeed. But these are not normal times. They are not. Barr, as you say, was involved in the first moments. Hes invoked in the National Phone call as President Trump urges president zelensky to work with not just his personal attorney but the president of the United States. Much has been made about lev parnass credibility. But much of what he said has been corroborated. There have been other people come forward and back him up. Weve heard giuliani totally flip on him now and say he keent be believed. But he was his ally, close confident and supported him throughout. Whether this falls on deaf ears or not is unclear. William barr, to this pointed, has prized his loyalty to the president over anything else. It is going to raise questions. It certainly gives democrats things to push. So the breaking news just crossing the wires, if we have those, lev parnas, Rudy Giulianis associate whos been indicted by the Southern District of new york. Theyve called for the attorney generals recusal from the case and the broader investigation. Lets watch some of rachels pushing and probing around the attorney generals knowledge and role in the ukrainian Pressure Campaign in the interview with lev parnas. Do you know if he was talking to mr. Barr particularly about the investigations in ukraine . Yes. He knew . He had to know. Not only Rudy Giuliani. Barr was attorney general barr was basically on the team. Joining our conversation, former republican congressman, now an independent, david jolly, joins us. Let me come to you because i think that the idea that lev parnass credibility is on the line and the narrow question of barr is a false hood we could easily knock down with Donald Trumps own words. As transkriebcribed in the call released. Its donald trump who brings barr in the criminal scheme. Trump who says to zelensky, talk to barr. Its donald trump who throws his attorney general under the bus. And lev seems to have maybe pressed the gas a little bit with his recusal today. And barr is the administrator of the department that is investigating lev parnas. It is right for parnass attorney to say you have a conflict and you cant officiate this. More importantly i think what parnas is doing, what we saw in the interview with rachel is he is saying to the Southern District of new york, i will serve up these individuals to you. I will give you Rudy Giuliani. I will give you a mike pompeo, donald trump. And you cant reasonably expect the u. S. Department attorney general to be age to preside over that if parnas is saying i will give you your associate. Its the right move. Frankly, im a bit surprised we havent heard a calling for a special counsel before this. It meets the facts. The facts seem to come true with everything hes saying. Im going to yet if in the weeds because the weeds include two individuals name victoria and joe degeneral let me read from our colleagues reporting on what level parnas and his attorney writes, specifically, about barrs relationship with those two. And we can do some former republicans explaining their role in the Republican Party and the small kabal of conservative legal figures that include william barr, and joe. So this is from our reporting. Bondy, parnass lawyer, writes, in recent days evidence has been brought to light linking you, attorney general barr, further to your longterm colleagues as well as Rudy Giuliani. As we reported, evidence from the former statements, nbc news has previously reported a news to have an indictment dropped against their client. It was rebuffed by barr. So, barr and giuliani dont have a good relationship. Welcome inside its doors. Rudy giuliani left here. And Justice Department and it seems like theres a lot of smoke here around doj around bars relationships. And on Rudy Giuliani popping up, even after its under criminal investigation. And they call Rudy Giuliani would be on his way to justice. Rudy giuliani would be the target, not lev parnas. Who was parnas working with . Rudy giuliani. And prosecutors like to go after the high profile cases. Everybody knows americas mayor and Rudy Giuliani. But they know, at this point, based on fact witnesses, presented publicly to congress, that Rudy Giuliani was at the center of the scheme, not just to aid the president s impeachable behavior but to break the law when it came to e being an unregistered Foreign Agent parnas was assisting giuliani. Parnas was the principal. And i think parnass attorney is asking the right questions. Why not . Why am i the fall guy . Just like Michael Cohen is the fall guy and Trumps Campaign finance violation, why is parnas the fall guy here and the cronies are getting off scott free. I know william barr has a big fan with the guy in the office with no corners. But ive not heard he built as much good will on capital hill and his well of support is not involved in a way that can be vocal defenders of attorney general william barr. I think youre absolutely right about that. The bigger question right now thats been out there, that is now being answered is why lev parnas has behaved the way that he has, nicolle. We couldnt figure out for weeks and were teaseing all of this to the media, instead of working through sdny, where his real problem is. Why would he put all this information out through the media . Now we know why. Because he is terrified that william barr, whos been accuse of acting more like the president s personal attorney, would not be fair to him. He was terrified when, in jail, he alleges that his former lawyer, who was approved to be his lawyer by President Trump, paid him a visit in jail and according to parnas and his old words, was told to, quote on quote, be a good boy, which, to him, when Rachel Maddow clarified, that meant to basically, in his words, be the fall guy. Its a great point and a great reminder theres a pattern here too with attorney general barr. He didnt have to put his finger on the scale with the Mueller Report or the census question ppt but time and time and time again he has. And well see where these calls for a special counsel go. Heidi, david, thank you all so much for spending time with us. Coming up a historic decision. Who theyre endorsing and why its so irregular. E endorsing a its so irregular. My agerelated Macular Degeneration could lead to vision loss. So today i made a plan with my doctor, which includes preservision. Because he said a multi vitamin alone may not be enough. And its my vision, my morning walk, my sunday drive, my grandsons beautiful face. Only preservision areds2 contains the exact nutrient formula recommended by the National Eye Institute to help reduce the risk of moderate to advanced amd progression. Its how i see my life. Because its my vision. Preservision. Mornings were made for Better Things than Rheumatoid Arthritis or Psoriatic Arthritis. When considering another treatment, ask about xeljanz xr, a oncedaily pill for adults with moderate to severe Rheumatoid Arthritis or active Psoriatic Arthritis for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. It can reduce pain, swelling, and significantly improve physical function. Xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; dont start xeljanz if you have an infection. Taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. Serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. As have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. Tell your doctor if youve been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if youve had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. Dont let another morning go by without asking your doctor about xeljanz xr. This is my favorite story of the day, the New York TimesEditorial Board has been endorsing candidates for over a century 1 2. But this time they broke with convention, endorsing two candidates in the democratic primary, proving themselves not helpful at all. Senators Elizabeth Warren and amy klobuchar. Quote, there will be those dissatisfied the page is not throwing its weight behind one candidate, but its a question weve been itching to have and one that should be played out in the voting booth. Thats the very purpose of primaries. Right now theyre the democrats best equipped to lead that debate. May the best woman win. The fact that i have passed over 100 bills since ive been in the u. S. Senate. Everyone of them bipartisan. I think the t shows, compared to every other candidate left, maybe with the exception of the Vice President , that i have the ability to get things done. You want to just give up say, oh, dam lets go with a begging ball and say give me a crumb or two . You start by pby disrupting. You start with some wins. You start with where people wanting to be and Immigration Reform is one of them. If youre not willing to get out there and fight, nothing is going to change. We are so lucky to be joined by one of the members of the new york ed board, friend of our show, marg gay and juanita tolliver. First of all, this was great that you pulled back the curtain on an impeachment process. Yeah, the transparency was something that we really wanted to live up to. Its so helpful because having worked for candidates who frankly got the New York Times endorsement but its good to see you talking amongst yourself. I have to ask you why not one or the other. It was difficult because contrary to popular belief, we actually saw a lot of strong candidates so it was very difficult for us after seeing such incredible, persuasive arguments from them to choose just one. So we didnt. We basically decided that we were going to present two different pathways. I mean, listen, we dont make endorsements just to support our help candidates. What we do is we do it to try and help voters and to try and help readers and americans. And so we did need to narrow the field down. Right now theres a big debate going on in the Democratic Party as you and your viewers know about whether folks should go in the progressive direction or whether moderation is required. Yeah, but i think people look to the times and the times is hard on anyone. And i know the Editorial Board is different from the news coverage. If your news page was cover get editorial page, youd say, listen, we were tough on other people that dont make a choice. Why didnt the ed board make a choice . People especially on twitter are very upset. Listen, right now there is some hubris involved in picking one candidate out of all of these guys because no one has voted yet and we do really want to give some respect to the American Voter and let the people decide. But giving some parameters and choosing two of the best candidates who, by the way, happen to be women, very impressive women which was exciting for us, its also a really big deal that the New York TimesEditorial Board which is really a traditionalist liberal newspaper is endorsing someone like Elizabeth Warren. She doesnt have half of our endorsement, she has all of our endorsement, and so does senator klobuchar. The other thing is that the two women have the two senators, i could say, are both people who dont see this necessarily as left or right or moderate. What they see is a middle class that is in crisis and they have two, albeit slightly different prescriptions for that, but we felt they made a very compelling case that they understand where the American People are and where theyre struggling and they understand the crisis that income inequality has brought to bear on this country, its institutions and now the democracy. Juanita, your thoughts. So of course reading this last night, my first reaction was, oh, okay, the new york ed board said yall go figure this out, balls in your court and were going to back off here. Ultimately that reminded me of two things. One, this primary is going to be long and drawn out and ultimately going to be have some divisive components between voters who do want that return to some degree of normalcy versus voters who want to break and disrupt systems. And i think that kind of highlighted the reality that not one candidate in this entire field can meet both of those demands. So that might have some negative externalities down the line. Second thing was shoutout to the ladies, right . But klobuchar and warren are not playing in the same field when it comes to polling, fundraising, any other realistic benchmark that would determine success for our candidate. And so it really highlights like, okay, really throwing away that traditional playbook here from the New York TimesEditorial Board. But klobuchar definitely must have had some massive midwestern appeal that didnt come across to twitter folks. I wondered watching it the times is often right. They were wrong in the primary in 08. They picked clinton and president obama prevailed and won the presidency. But i wondered if maybe there was some sort of coded messages that i know people hate when people suspect them of grand conspiracie conspiracies, but is this a possible ticket . I think what the times is hanging a bright light around is the democrats have a problem. There is a conflict within. Its often regional, you pick someone who helps you in a part of a country. Is the ticket now going to have to solve an ideology problem . Well, i mean that but i think, first of all, women rock. And then, second of all, what they said was both of these women are electable and maybe theyre electable together, but each of them is electable on their own. What was really striking to me in reading the editorial was the comfort zone in saying, you know what, all of these candidates actually have something to offer and there are actually very few differences among them. That was comforting. And so i thought, well, as a voter, okay, however it shakes out, i could be comfortable with these candidates. And so that was really important for me to read even though i do say women to rock. That is im glad you picked that up, because that is in the spirit of transparency, this is not a secret, part of this message was saying, hey, you know what, theres a lot of talent here and we feel comfortable with more than one person. And by the way, the popular wisdom that joe biden is the only person who can beat donald trump, we dont necessarily agree with that and thats not a slight to the former Vice President. Its just a way of saying lets rethink what it means to be electable. And when you have someone like donald trump who won michigan by only 11,000 votes, theres a lot of different winning coalitions that can be put together, and its not just White Working Class voters that can make that up. Joe bidens pitch to us is that hes going to win those voters back. He was really good with you guys. I have an idea. Ill save it for the other side of the break. Well all be right back. He break well all be right back. Wednesdays. At outback, theyre for steak and beer. Walkabout wednesdays are back get a sirloin or chicken on the barbie, fries, and a draft beer or cocacola all for just 10. 99. Hurry in wednesdays are for outback. Outback steakhouse. Aussie rules. Laso you can enjoy it even ifst youre sensitive. Se. Yet some say it isnt real milk. I guess those cows must actually be big dogs. Sit i said sit i wish we had more time. My thanks to juanita, donna, and marg. My idea is your ed board should do a debate because you brought out the best in the candidates. It was the best ive seen biden, the best ive seen warren, cory booker and andrew yang. Thank you, most of all, for watching. Well be here all day long tomorrow. Brian and i start at 11 00, chuck todd at 9 00. Sit down, pop some popcorn, but right now mtp daily with katy tur starts