how would you present that case to a jury. you re in a tough spot as a defense attorney. that s a good analogy. let s turn it and pretend we re in a courtroom. let s say you were representing somebody who planned a bank robbery. and there was lots of evidence. there were meetings about the bank robbery. discussions about how the bank would be robbed. over the course of weeks and months. and then when the guy organizing the bank robbery becomes aware that there s a wiretap in place and they are onto him, i.e., in this case, the whistle-blower report. because the president in mid-august became aware that the whistle-blower was making a claim that military aid to ukraine was being held up to force them to give information and investigate joe and hunter biden. okay? you find out about that. the next thing out of the president s mouth in early september to his ambassador sondland is, there s no quid pro quo. that s like the bank robber saying, we re not going to rob a bank. okay, guys
impeachment. and i wanted to get your take on what you say to what we ve heard from top house republicans, just over the weekend. either, it ranged from congressman turner saying the call was bad, but not impeachable. and other members of other republican members saying, well, ukraine eventually got the money and ukraine never launched the investigation, so essentially, no harm, no foul. yes. well, they re throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. so far, nothing s sticking. the latter argument is absurd on its face. essentially they re saying, because the president got caught, because the whistle-blower came forward and congress launched an investigation, and therefore they let the money go, there was no crime. but that s like a bank robber saying, you know, on the threshold of leaving the bank with a bag of money, who gets caught by the security guards, oh, well, you know, no harm, no foul. all s well that ends well. you guys stopped me, there was no crime. so essentially
he immediately lept to all questions about hunter biden and why he was on the board and whether or not ambassador taylor and undersecretariy kent though that was appropriate. he pushed him to say this was bad, this back channel foreign policy they were running, giuliani and others, but it wasn t outland inn. bill taylor could only laugh at that claim and suggestion. and then you go down the line. the aid was eventually released. that the ukrainians didn t know the aid was being held up. all of those have been shot down previously. as a defense attorney, what did you think with those set of facts, how would you have defended him and could you have defended him? yipes. i sat there watching the hearings and i was thinking i m a good lawyer but i don t know what i d say if i m the defense lawyer at that point. the argument that they did make were weak. one, the aid ultimately flowed. that s like the bank robber saying, well, i didn t rob the
and critical issues. thank you. thank you, wolf. we will continue our conversations down the road for sure. we will get more with our reporters and commentators and analysts and jackie, what did you make of the secretary s explanation for why the administration is missing today s very important deadline for the children? i mean, it i guess they have to say something. but, you know, one of the things that struck me about the secretary s comments is that he said all the bad people coming with the children. i was on the call today, they outlined 14 people, he outlined it there. what he did not mention was the fact that they are separating children from parent who is are asylum seekers. that is legal, that is how people come to the counsel, the has not addressed that and the administration should. what did you make from what we heard from the secretary? the whole thing remind med of a bank robber saying i m working