sometime in early 2021. i want to ask you about your date on that, too, because obviously that s important in the context the operation? i m thinking about the impeachment conversation. you told the new york times in july, quote, you never thought joe biden would be the nominee. do you still feel that way? i don t know. i think that i think it s wide open. i think any number of five or six or seven people, i m not going to let you narrow it down to which five or six. i think it is a wide open race. the leader in state by state at this time in the campaign often isn t the one who wins that state. i think we all have to talk about it. that s what we do. i m not really that concerned. i think we re going to win. in your new book you write about the generations of progressives who occupy your seat in desk 88. president obama has been ta p
kamala harris and cory booker talked about how they could recreate obama coalition a bit of a digs at joe biden if they think he can t make it across the finish line or pete buttigieg but playing up the fact that as black americans they could speak to voters in a way that obama did and the other candidates can t. so it is interesting to see how campaigns progress closer to iowa how much they continue to hammer that point. campaigns getting lost in the impeachment conversation. i ll close with this. a bit like phil said. there plight be bipartisanship in town. but watch the house speaker in the week ahead to see if she gives a green lice to the u.s./mexic u.s./mexico/canada trade agreement and many house democrats support it and would like to prove that impeachment has paralyzed washington. on thursday the speaker is worried it is getting too late to resolve the maining issues in
a bombshell and so pivotal. so then to come to this debate, it s just a very, very interesting situation. remember, a handful of these candidates would be part of a senate trial. but they re all in agreement this is impeachable conduct. take a listen. i learned something about these impeachment trials. i learned, number one, that donald trump doesn t want me to be the nominee. just to be clear, the president s already confessed to it on television. we have a criminal living in the white house. what this impeachment proceeding about is really our democracy at stake. how did ambassador sondland get there? this is not a man who had any qualifications exception. he wrote a check for a million dollars. we cannot simply be consumed by donald trump. because if we are, you know what? we re going to lose the election. and bernie sanders there with an interesting point because all of these candidates trying to walk that fine line between engaging in this impeachment conversation, mak
corroborated it all. folks, the impeachment conversation now no longer seems to revolve around whether democrats have the evidence to make their case because it s clear they have the evidence to make their case. instead, it s question of how are they going to lay it out publicly? potentially open to impeaching the president. my guess is he wants to know how is this process going to work? let s start with the latest from our nbc correspondent. jeff bennett is in capitol hill. hallie jackson is at the white house. jeff, let me start with you in today s bizarre standoff. it was clearly a planned stunt. the timing of it and all of that. where do things stand right now? and when are we going to hear when are they going to resume their ability to hear testimony? you know what, chuck, i have to credit dan balls i think for perfectly distilling the current moment. he says it s no longer a question of whether or not president trump withheld this ukrainian military aid to compel
thus, thou where for as. republicans and democrats are saying this is wrong and the president did the right thing by pulling back. michael, to you. the former vice chair of crew, the government watch dog group, which is suing, based on a claim of emollients violations, richard payner said on the show yesterday this should be part of the impeachment conversation. speaker pelosi wants to keep this narrowed to ukraine. but is this a clearer case of an emollients violations getting payments from foreign states than hotel bills and bar tabs and trump international in d.c.? so nothing about the emollients clause is simple or straightforward. it s possible one could say if there are decisions by courts that these payments violate the