on the impeachment question nadler s argument to pelosi in effect is one it will help us streamline all these investigations under one process here, impeachment proceedings, but also there s the argument that it gives you more investigative powers, et cetera. explain from a lawyer s perspective how that would work. it s a notion that the impeachment power for congress is kind of at the it s the heart of their powers and once they commence that they believe that the courts will be much more sympathetic to what they re asking for in terms of enforcement of contempt and such. that s why there is a push which i think is hard for people to follow of open the impeachment inquiry. doesn t necessarily mean they will vote to charge him with impeachment articles and still different from con testing him in the senate. is it true that judges traditionally see investigations under the impeachment umbrella as more protected if that s the
all under the impeachment umbrella. that allows them to play a game they are going to win and trump to take the narrative they are out to get me. let the narrative be trump saying i m not a criminal, i m not a criminal. it s not branding in lieu of but an overarching umbrella. i m saying convict him in the court of public opinion. be more ruthless. don t leave it to the senate. convict him as a criminal now. internally house democrats are with you. they felt it s been six, seven weeks since the mueller report and the entire argument is semantics, is impeachment a politically viable idea, where are the votes. very few people are actually talking about the substance of the mueller report. obviously few people have read the mueller report. tactically what they are trying to do at this juncture is to educate the public to the extent they can about what is actually the substance of the report itself. my suspicious is that by calling john dean in, you can have a