people are celebrating nato s 70th anniversary. were you aware that the president was going to be in london next week when the chairman sent him in letter asking him to show up next wednesday before the hearing? no, that is the first that i m hearing of it. i m cheered to know the president would celebrate anything having to do with nato because he hasn t been a very big champion of it so he might decide to stay back anyway for our hearing on the constitution and impeachment. of course he haven t been a very big champion of the constitution either. he thinks that under article two of the constitution he can do whatever he wants which of course is in complete violation of the spirit and the letter of the constitution. the founders of our country wanted the president to be a salaried employee who accepted a salary and no other emoluments from the government and faithfully executed the laws of people. that is the core job of the president. to be commander-in-chief in times of actual con
a smoking gun later on in this case, is leading to some of the confusion about, well, why isn t the public opinion moving? we may find the public opinion is simply set on this. the president, whose approval rating at been stuck at 40% to 41% for months if not years simply just isn t going to move up or down from there. right. and republicans keep insisting anyway that simply that call and him asking for a favor, though, is not impeachable. so i mean in this day and age, it seems to be if you keep saying no and keep denying it, then that seems to be sufficient. now, the problem for the democrats here is the politics of it, the optics, because for them, in one instance they couldn t let this go and they needed to do something. but the other side of this, they re going to look like they re playing politics. well, i think the difference between this and the mueller report and questions about self-dealing and emoluments and other things that have been mooted as potentially impeachable o
congress, abuse of power and possibly obstructions of justice but it would mostly be mueller material. if you want to go through it, emoluments, there s something there. you ve been saying that for a long time. yeah. you want to be get as much of the public behind you as you can and give some of the republicans something to hang their hat on if they decide to put their oath before their party. that s been the issue, has been republicans putting their party before their oath. now you have bolton, who is so important, putting his book profits before his country. we don t know what will happen. that could turn some senators to have to do the right thing. it s a longshot whether it has up to two-thirds majority. how about the number of articles you think your committee needs to draft? have you contemplated that? is it one, many? two, three?
obstruction of justice, trying to keep his wrongdoing, keep his corruption from coming to light. as adam schiff alluded to, george mason, one of the drafters of the constitution, said should the person who is most capable of committing injustice himself be above justice, and of course the answer our constitution gives is no. no one is above the law, including the president. finally, we included in our piece, even though it might be something that comes out of the judiciary committee, the president s violation of the foreign emoluments cause that prohibits officials from getting gifts, profits, benefits, advantages from foreign governments, something we know that the president through his expansive foreign business dealings has been doing since day one. and the problem with that is that we as americans don t know whether or not when he acts on the world stage, whether he s acting to line his own pockets or in the best interests of
whole dual track of foreign policy. it is unlikely we ll hear from any of them. so you can t really if you re nancy pelosi, you could see why she s pushing this ahead. because it is getting them to testify is go out of the realm of possibilities. so lara, i spoke with a source close to the white house legal team and they say they are not convinced that the house is going to vote to impeach. what do you think? what are your sources telling you? no, i think what we re hearing so far if they are fully done with hearing testimony and they most likely are because pelosi doesn t want to wait and it could take a long time with the courts and they ll push this over to judiciary which will write up the articles. beyond that we aren t sure what the articles will include just yet, if they will include emoluments or things related to the mueller investigation in those. but it looks as though the very next step that will come before