what was going to happen at the trial. that s not the case here. but i don t think that it s wise politically for pelosi to hold on to them too much longer. why? because it does look so political, a, and b, because the democrats have argued all along that president trump was a danger, is an imminent danger to the nation because of his meddling with national security for his own empowerment, grandiosity, et cetera, et cetera, so to hold back on the articles when he could be continuing with his meddling, continuing with all of this, you can t sort of have both arguments. except that s what s interesting here, because you ve got mitch mcconnell who says this president will not be removed for office. there you go. from office. so he has already said before a trial is to get underway and
warning that if he was impeached it would trigger a civil war. i m joined now by an astute about serv observer of these thing. there is a lot going on, but widening out with you as we sometimes do, what do you see here? i think that it is trump s grandiosity. and you know we know this, the people who have observed him long before political life knew this about him, but he imagined himself on a skap of great consequential actions and his potential removal from office would create a fissure the likes
of the civil war. i m not sure how much he knows about the civil war, but it was a cull mmculmination of things. it was not a single person or election, it was like these huge questions that the country had failed to grapple with legislatively over the court of nearly a century before they wound up in war. but what does disturb me about think, and what makes me worry, is a person who is given to those kind of flights of grandiosity is also prone to thinking of themselves as being persecuted on a similar scale.
domestic terror, most acts of domestic terror are shootings. that they don t feel we should we re interested in that. say so directly. and also it comes from having a motivation and how did he obtain the gun are the most important lack of historical context things. it doesn t form the bulk of our themselves in order to describe. if you study the history of race conversations, though. we re more focused on what bits of this story could contribute in this country, you know this to the conversation that could is old language, not something possibly shape policy. what about this manifesto new, that he s recalling the worst rhetoric that black and brown people have faced in this point? how should news outlets approach country for a long time. let s get into what is really covering the words of an attacker, whether it s in uncomfortable here. in this racist essay that christchurch, california or elsewhere? i like calling it an essay. appears to be published by the el paso attacker, he
his not suiciding because he really wanted to tell law enforcement and the fbi why he did what he did. there s a lot of grandiosity there in the el paso shooter. in that manifesto he says he expects to die that day. he did say that. and he gave up right away. he gave up. and oftentimes we know it s a split-second decision. suicide, suicide by cop or to surrender. but i think in this case there may have been a last-minute decision for him to say, you know what, i want to tell everybody about why i did this. and you see that type of arrogance as you read through the manifesto about how important he is, that he has to take on this fight. and he is telling everything apparently. local authorities say he s answering all of their questions in these interviews they re conducting with him. mary ellen, thanks very much for your insight. thank you. former senior fbi profiler. we re waiting for an update from el paso police any moment now. they re about to have a news conference.