service. because they are so aggressive in that particular part of the world. i can explain it. i m not sure i will. i will say as an fbi guy that worked bribery and corruption and mob cases in chicago intent on bribery is not as easy to get to. this isn t a rules of evidence kind of proceeding. but that intent is hard. one of the things i thought happened this week that showed that the intent might not be there is you had all the meetings that taylor was in and it never came up and he didn t know about the fact of the money. if you are trying to defend this, that would be a logical way to come at it. in the committee hearing. they need the trial to be today. because as soon as you get these witnesses next week, you re going to get a different reckoning. you point something out. it s important for the people at home, did the president have corrupt intent? did he think he was doing something wrong. that could be very important in
i should add that in some jurisdictions, it may be admissible if both sides agree to it. it can be put into evidence. but it has many other uses outside of court. but we know that naturally there is information that we find valuable just because it may not be admissible in court. a great example is hearsay. a lot of evidence in this case so far is hearsay. it s certainly interesting to all of us, even if it may not be admissible in criminal or civil court. all right, danny, thanks very much. msnbc s legal analyst. coming up, for the third time this year, the federal reserve has increased interest rates with more hikes expected in the next year. what does this rate hike mean for the economy? plus, a reminder not to miss the global citizen festival this saturday with performances by janet jackson, sean mendes, and john legend. join chris hayes, ari melber and jacob soboroff for live coverage beginning saturday, 3:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc.
democratic senators be asking questions of the people who are being questioned? it s unclear as of yet and it s unclear the timelines and what exactly is going to go forward tomorrow because this isn t a rules of evidence situation. this is whatever the senate agrees upon situation. and, even the witnesses coming before it have significant bartering power. the fact that this is a situation right now doesn t mean it will be the same in a couple of hours or even tomorrow morning. that s something we need to watch for. you talk about the prosecutor, mitchell. my sources in arizona tell me that she is very highly regarded. she s very victim sympathetic and a reasonable prosecutor, but i will say this, that no matter who the lawyer is, lawyers always have a mission in cross-examining you made this point the other day. this is really interesting. yeah. a lawyer s mission, as you said, is not necessarily to get to the truth. it s not at all. whenever a witness is on the stand, you
describe the logical decision-making or not of teenagers but i ve heard another senator use that same language earlier today, bill cassidy from louisiana suggesting to try to undermine this argument logically by saying people would not keep going back. i think that s worth paying attention to. thirdly, the presence of michael avenatti in this is a big deal. he s a polarizing figure in capitol hill just as he is in the country. you have some on the left who have fought against the president and some on the right who see everything he has touched as overly politicized. by injecting avenatti into this they have turned this even more into a political suspect cal. i think some republican senators who might have been inclined to listen more openly to dr. ford who will now see the involvement of avenatti in this as further evidence that this is somehow a politically organized smear campaign. his involvement could be a double edge sword here and play
present. shortly after the incident i shared with what had transpired with at least two other people. during the incident i was inkpai incapacitated without my consent. i believe i was given quaaludes or something placed in what i was drinking. tell me what this document is. it s a sworn declaration and she said she s prepared to testify. her lawyer has said. she hasn t said anything. we ve been trying to reach her and have not spoken directly to her, so nbc news cannot verify directly any of these allegations or, in fact, that she made these allegations. but her lawyer, michael avenatti, has been on the air at least twice this afternoon saying this is her sworn statement to the committee. he says that he was in touch with the judiciary committee on sunday. remember he was tweeting about this and talking about having evidence they would be interested in. he says they didn t really get back to him. they went back and forth a