community while also helping too create these permanent supportive housing units or trans and gender nonconforming youth. so if you re transgender nonbinary or genderqueer, whatever that actually is, youac might end up with free housing . now reidsh points out the data showing that lgbt people, particularly youth, are overrepresented in the homeless populatione, you. in that s certainly true , but it s just the data pointgn that ignores a big chunk as to why they become or at least stay homeless. ou and it ssa the same reasons that thousands of other people in san francisco are living o on the streets tonight substance abuse and mental health issues. the homeless. lgbt population is more likely to suffer drug or alcohol addiction l and or suffr from a mental health issue. but their lives are no more important than any other homeless person. she could very easily offer c more funding to get the homeless people who arere currently on the streets regardless of identity into treatment. but
tucker: right. i mean, of m course, the irony is that he was not the first choice. jerry nadler really should be running this out of judiciary he was consider inept and unappealing he couldn t do it. i wonder if this line of argument that he unveiled tonight that if you are smart, like a lawyer would understand. a lawyer would be impressed by the arguments i m making. if you don t understand mr. and mrs. america, maybe you should consult your attorney answered will convince that you donald trump must be removed by impeachment. is that a winning message? it ssa almost sad. i think he gave that message in part because he knew how poorly things had gone with this entire proceeding. but, you know, republicans had a big challenge here. they had an entire sort of media consensus agreeing with democrats that there was an impeachable offense. and they managed to make the case that this proceeding was not done in a fair manner. that there were legitimate concerns about ukrainian corruption.
it s so temporary can t be that! sean: giraldo , geraldo, i heard the argumente last night and i was screaming. because you are right. in our sleep, all of us could have done a better job. this was not donald trump s attorney general. he had not been approved yet. that was the problem with the obstructionism, right? you can say that jeff sessions had been in place, something would ve been different. i tendth to doubt it. for example, you and i, we had a debate over the order. said, this isn t something to do. this is hubris. this is action for actions sake. it ssa not decisive in the sense that it s designed to accomplish a result. for example, why do you not exclude people who already have green cards from your order? what about people with valid visas?ut people who have global passwords are