what president trump was interested in why did he never bring that up in the call? he brought up crowd strike, a conspiracy theory and brought up the bidens. so there is no evidence that the president actually was was holding up the money because of corruption. i think we have now have more information from omb showing how disturbed they were about it. dave gergen it s interesting next week the house judiciary committee holding public hearings what constitutes an impeachable offense. and by the rules the president can go and send his lawyers to take part in the hearings and can ask questions. what do you think the white house should do here? what do you think the white house attorneys should do as part of the hearing? listen i ve said this jeff and kristen maffe heard before as well as david. i don t think again i don t think the president is under any obls to prove himself innocent here. the house they made the decision want to bring impeachment charges and bring the charges
combined with other circumstances, absolutely, if i were arguing in case to a jury, i would say that we had enough evidence even before this report to rest my case. but here is another piece of evidence that is very powerful that can be used in building the case. and saying that it should go forward toward impeachment. and let me just add, if the president wants to tell the american people about his innocence, he ought to come forward. well. and talk to congress about it in public under oath rather than hiding behind a computer screen. he has an opportunity or at least people have an opportunity next week. the house judiciary committee is getting in the game here. they are holding public impeachment hearings. and what they re going to do first is talk about the constitutionality or what constitutes an impeachability offense and have dollar zlars in to talk about. but the spt welcome to go invited himself if he wants to. but it s more likely he sends
corruption. i think we have now have more information from omb showing how disturbed they were about it. dave gergen it s interesting next week the house judiciary committee holding public hearings what constitutes an impeachable offense. and by the rules the president can go and send his lawyers to take part in the hearings and can ask questions. what do you think the white house should do here? what do you think the white house attorneys should do as part of the hearing? listen i ve said this jeff and kristen maffe heard before as well as david. i don t think again i don t think the president is under any obls to prove himself innocent here. the house they made the decision want to bring impeachment charges and bring the charges. they need to bring the evidence prove that the president did these things. he is under no obligation. and more ever there is going to be an upcome senate trial following in white house whatever you the hearings, and if i was if i was the white ho
his legal testimony there. what do you expect them to say. i think what they ll say is that all of these facts, whatever they are, in the legal history here don t constitute an impeach. able offense. but clear i there was bribery, which is specifically mentioned in the constitution as an impeachable offense. the president offered to perform a legal responsibility, namely releasing that military aid, in exchange for sog of value and benefit to him. except the republicans say there was no explicit promise of the release of military aid and in exchange. there is no recording of the president saying out loud even though witness after witness say it s their understanding that was the case. well as a prosecutor, i used to sometimes wish for recordings and videos of crimes. they re not all that common. what you have is circumstantial evidence. and the powerful witnesses that were on display last week, they had nothing to gain.
criticisms that you re making, katie points out so well in her speech, bill barr gave his speech at the federalist society. documents and memos he has written to folks in the justice department. what s novel about it, it got parroted on capitol hill. what he said about the impeachability is something we hear emulated, repeated by folks on capitol hill in defending this president. and the danger. what the lawyers are doing is pulling the fire alarm on bill barr. this is very serious. the founders intended to pit ambition versus ambition. they knew it would try to grab more power. anecdotally we considered bush and guantanamo, that was executive authority. become become with daca by executive order. he said i don t know if i have the constitutional authority to do it, but i m doing it. under enforcing federal