bill kristol and doug thornel. that video talks about the challenge for some republicans. here you have nancy mace. she is trying to hold on to her seat walking a very fine line with seat. donald trump has endorsed her appointment and she s in front of trump power. yeah, it was not to criticize donald trump and stand in front of trump tower, and that does say it all, right? so pathetic. does this work? voters want authenticity, and she s been all over the map when it comes to trump and where she stands and then to do this, i don t know. let me read what donald trump said in endorsing her opponent.
too. bolton was not subpoenaed by this house but they re the only ones to clear up this order from the president. did this come from the president? why did it happen? i suspect there s a paper trail somewhere suggesting that the president wanted this for x purpose, what we understand to be the pressure to put on democrats and especially joe biden and we don t have that yet and once we have that i don t know how many republicans can maintain nothing happened here. noah raises a point of smoking gun. doug, some people felt the president told president zelensky to talk to william barr and rudy giuliani and trying to say the investigation must be announced against joe biden and his son which is a motive. this is a potential political rival. wouldn t that be a smoking gun to many people?
so i think those are, of course, you know, fundamentals that would be difficult for any campaign to overcome. now, when we look at the fact that there may be no black or brown people on the stage unless the polling data changes and we only have four days to do that, doug, do you think kamala harris should have stayed in at least past the next debate which is not that far what? less than two weeks away. and because she had, in fact, qualified for the debate. would you have advised her, doug, to because the ideas and because of the need for diversity of the debate, she should have waited to drop out? what would have changed in two weeks or less? well, rev, i think the financial situation was pretty dire. i don t know you know, i don t have all the numbers at the ready here but i do get a
nothman, editor of common term magazine. noah, let me start with you. what are the things you will be looking for coming out of the hearing tomorrow heading into the final stages toward an impeachment vote in the house? a digestible case of what we know so far from both judiciary side about what this means, what is impeachment and why it s necessary and the intelligence committee counsel to play out the facts in evidence. democrats do not have what we all talk about now is the smoking gun. the president s express intent. we know the order came from him but we don t know why with regard to this waylaid aide. everyone testifying is the same story. it is a concise argument, sufficient for me. i don t know if it was for voters. republicans should hear from mick mulvaney and john bolton,
of at least if not echo entirely then affirm the notion that this was a perfect call. nothing bad actually happened on the call and any evidence to the contrary is doctored or false. it just doesn t make a lot of sense. once this process if they do that, doug, then aren t they saying that we are established and that using noah s words to last as a legal precedent for decades that we re establishing that a president of the united states can use a foreign power, threatened with withholding funds the congress approved for their aid, to determine something in a united states election? isn t that having some real broad consequences that americans may not want to see their country go toward? it s an awful precedent. i think looking at the history books in 20, 30, years, maybe ten years from now, you got to be looking at how you if