here is what she started five years ago, and this the last you ll hear about it on this program. this is less about her and her deemly stupid remarks and more about the people leading the republican party. you know, we can look back at a time in history where people were told to wear a gold star and they were definitely treated like second class citizens, so much so that they were put in trains and taken to gas chambers in nazi germany. and this is exactly the type of abuse that nancy pelosi is talking about. she later doubled down and then tripled down this morning, but it was all cut from the same cloth. nothing today was any more ahistorical, offensive or provocative than her first remarks. so what changed? why did it take a full five days for leadership to maybe invoking gas chambers and nazis is not a good idea for the republican party? well, we have some breaking news on that shortly. in a nutshell, leader mccarthy had to be pushed. but first, here is what he and the rest of
the process. he denied president trump the same sorts of procedural rights that houses of both parties have provided to past presidents of both parties. president trump s counsel could not participate in chairman schiff s hearings, present evidence or cross-examine witnesses. the house judiciary committee s crack at this was even more ahistorical. it was like the speaker called up chairman nadler and ordered one impeachment, rush delivery, please. the committee found no facts on its own. did nothing to verify the schiff report. their only witnesses were liberal law professors and congressional staffers. there s a reason the impeachment inquiry that led to president nixon s resignation required about 14 months of hearings, 14 months. in addition to a special
process. he denied president trump the same sorts of procedural rights that houses of both parties had provided to past presidents of both parties. president trump s counsel could not participate a in chairman schiff s hearings, present evidence, or cross-examine witnesses. the house judiciary committee s crack at this was even more ahistorical. it was like the speaker called up chairman nadler and ordered one impeachment, rush delivery, please. the committee found no facts on its own. did nothing to verify the schiff report. their only witnesses were liberal law professors and congressional staffers. mr. president, there is a reason that the impeachment inquiry nor nixon required 14 months of hearings. 14 months. in addition to a special prosecutor s investigation.
republican minority out of the process. he denied president trump the same sorts of procedural rights that houses of both parties provided to past presidents of both parties. president trump s counsel could not participate in the hearings, present evidence, or cross examine witnesses. the house judiciary s crack at this was even more a-historical. it was like the speaker called up chairman nadler and ordered one impeachment, rush delivered, please. the committee found no facts on it s own, did nothing to fer i have the schiff report, their only witnesses were liberal law professors and congressional staffers. there there is a reason the impeachment inquiry required about 14 months of hearings.
history. nixon called it a kangaroo court and a witch hunt. the echoes are clear. this was a desperate letter coming from the white house counsel. i think that s why we need to acknowledge it for what it is. they are fighting their own sort of ahistorical, aconstitutional argument here. in the meantime, it s going to go on here. but they don t like the facts emerging. that s going to get worse. the letter almost seemed to be taken directly from president trump s mouth. some of it was sort of written in a legalistic way. then other words, the call was perfect. by the way, the call was perfect. but there s no real defense of the substance of what is happening there. the reason there s an impeachment inquiry is because there is a complaint. there are facts that do not look proper. and the white house is not even bothering to address any of that. the process argument, though, i m not sure how this is going to move public opinion if that s what they re trying to keep the