plus she was very, very nasty to one of the reasons it surprised me, she was very she was probably nastier than even pocahontas to joe biden. she was very disrespectful to joe biden. and it s hard to pick somebody that s that disrespectful. when she said things during the debates, during the democrat primary debates that were horrible about sleepy joe. and i would think that he wouldn t have picked. reporter: but it was biden earlier this year who said just what he would be looking for in a nominee. it s incredibly presumptuous for me at this stage to be talking about a running mate, i ll get killed if i get specific. but let me tell you what, rather than who. i d very much like my administration to look like the country, like barack and our administration looked like. black, brown, women, men, gay, straight. across the board, to look like the country. as vice president, i think it
president did things right. the one way they ve made that claim is to say the military aid to ukraine ultimately did flow. so kind of no harm, no foul. and what the democrats have been saying for the last couple of weeks is, that the timeline looks a little fuzzy because it looks like the aid flowed only after you got caught. only after you knew about the whistle-blower complaint. and what this new story overnight tells us is, that s exactly the democrats are exactly right. that aid flowed only because the president knew he had been caught. it s really not a good defense in the law to be like, oh, well, i didn t rob the bank because i got stopped on the way by the cops. they arrested me. that s still attempted bank robbery and this is an impeachable the fact that the aid flowed doesn t matter. it s what the president intended to do when he set out a secret plot to do. he just got caught red-handed. he wouldn t have had to release it if he didn t know he was wrong. he could have s
misconduct. that s exactly right. so it s a fair question to ask these witnesses, whether or not they spoke directly to the president or participated in all these meetings, to show that their knowledge is limited. that doesn t mean that what they said is untruthful. and to your point, nicolle, she is the victim. she s patient zero. it s a great way to think about her. this is what started the process. and so of course the answer would be she didn t speak to the president. he wouldn t have, you know, given her what she was entitled to, which was an explanation for why she was removed from a job she was doing well. he doesn t have that sort of grace. we know he knows who she is because he smeared her in a call with zelensky. absolutely, and did it again today. and so i think it s really interesting to think of her in that way. her knowledge will be limited. she s the victim. claire, you ve been as impassioned as i ve seen you, watching this testimony this morning. what are you lo
covering the case for us. let s get to roger stone, who we know is accused of lying to congress about the contacts for wikileaks. what kind of evidence has been presented so far? well, the jury has seen a mountain of evidence, videos, emails, text messages. probably the most compelling evidence is audio clips of stone s testimony before the house committee. the defense said in their opening arguments these same clips would exonerate roger stone, once the jury heard those, they couldn t find him guilty but the prosecution has weaponized those audio clips to prove he lied to the committee. what about the steve bannon factor. he was something of a reluctant witness when he testified on friday but how about his testimony, how compelling was that connecting stone to wikileaks? well, one thing was clear from the get go, and that was that steve bannon didn t want to be there. he testified that had he not been compelled to testify, he wouldn t have. but i think bannon was a good
with ukraine giuliani, mulvaney, and gordon sondland were working on their own. why is he still there? why is mulvaney going through this? why is he putting himself through this? he is there because he is exactly what donald trump wants. mick mulvaney s theory of the white house chief of staff is he s the guy who lets trump be trump. and we re seeing the results of that. so that s why he s there. and this notion that, you know, there s no discernible impeachment defense here. the first defense was get over it, this is normal behavior. now the notion that these three guys are running around conducting this rogue operation unbeknownst to the president is just laughable and not only that, but mick mulvaney is was a constitutionalist and he was a member of congress. he wouldn t have accepted the idea that the president can take congressionally money to ukraine and decide for his own personal reasons not to send it. this is one of the problems when you get too close to donald trum