a trade democrats would take any day. we know those three people have firsthand knowledge. the truth of the matter is this, if those three people can exonerate donald trump, you sure as heck believe he would have had them testify in the house proceedings. he has put out evidence that he thinks is helpful to him and he s withheld everything that s damaging to him. trust me, if that were a deal, and i don t think that s a deal that would be offered, i think that s a deal democrats would happily take. at what point, susan, would republicans turn on the. the? do you think there is anything that could happen in this trial that could sway them? no. most well, i shouldn t say no. i think there are a few republicans that could change or could go into this with an open mind and listen to the evidence presented and think that the president did something wrong. at least if we even just hear what s been presented so far. but chris makes a really good point. this is a political back and for
independent counsel investigation. there was testimony in the house. there was an enormous record of witness testimony that the senate trial was already dealing with. that s a totally different context than the situation we re dealing with here where the president of the united states for the first time in history blanket refused to participate and to hand over documents and allow witnesses to participate in the house proceedings. the comparison is bandied about a lot. the bottom line for me is that there s an enormous amount of evidence that the house proceedings gathered despite president trump s stone walling. as max said, the country should hear and is required to hear from these public officials paid by your tax payer dollars and they re refusing to testify in a legitimate constitutional
michigan, home state of john dingell. this historic figure in congress. he recently died. his wife debbie dingell is a congresswoman. she is grieving. rick, did you hear what the president said about debbie dingell and john dingell. i did. i knew john dingell, served with him in the house. know debbie. two fine people. two very distinguished public servants. frankly, even if they weren t, you don t say that. and the reality is, this is, you know, what i say and many republicans say. we love what our president does. we don t like often what the president says, particularly when it comes to these types of personal attacks. it s bewildering to me that he d go into michigan where john dingell is still revered. he did a lot for the state of michigan, and then make that type of comment? it s not helpful to him. it s not helpful to his cause. and i wish as many, many republicans do, that he would stop these gratuitous, nasty
those comparisons. i ve done it. every politician has done it. just don t go there. there s certain places you don t go, and hithitler, jesus christ you just don t do that. let s look at congressman s argument. what he s saying is the president didn t have the right to face ha cuesers. that s an interesting argument because the president chose not to participate in the house proceedings where his accusers showed up and swore under oath and testified but he didn t allow anyone in the white house to participate. so how does that work that he couldn t face his accusers? that s exactly right, alisyn. as we know, he ll have the opportunity again in january when there s a senate trial, should he decide that he d like to testify. i m sure the democrats would welcome that even if mitch mcconnell may not. it s certainly never the answer.
he s trying to put four or five senators in a political box. this has bloin up in their face. nancy pelosi is refusing to send it to the senate because the case is falling apart. if you had a strong case, wouldn t you want to present it? here s the thing i want to end on. if you were accused of something you didn t do, wouldn t you want to demand your day in court? so the president of the united states told me tonight he s demanding his day in court. nancy pelosi is doing to deny the day in court. in the house proceedings, they denied him the right to counsel, the ability to confront his accusers, to deny him witnesses on his behalf and denying him the day in court. other than that, this has been a good proceeding for america. bret: i get your point. from what you re saying and what i hear from the white house, he believes politically he has the wind at his back when talking about impeachment and other things, as the economy and other points. but when he goes to michigan and