that day that only two republicans voted yes to this committee? i mean, to be honnist with you, don, i don t have a great answer for it. on the one hand, right now, the republicans are wanting to use the crime issue against the democrats and say we re for the cops and the democrats are for the criminals, but that s complicated because of the video that we all saw, we all watched live on television unfold on january 6th. so i don t have a great answer for that question. the political argument, kerstin started to go down this road and i think she s right, is that republicans think the democrats simply want this committee, which is redun ddant in their eyes. so i think that s the political tactic that s being used. as it relates to this law enforcement matters, i m very sympathetic to officer fanone, to every single officer who was on duty that day because of the way they were treated by people
fact was actually legal. that really throws water on the gop s defense there was nothing wrong with what the president did. there s also another big development this week and a lawyer for the indicted associate rudy giuliani tells cnn his client is now willing to tell congress that republican congressman devin nunes was meeting with a former ukrainian prosecutor. to be clear nunes has emphatically denied this reporting calling it demonstrably false, but how significant could it be? this reporting is mpandora s box of problems. he s a ranking member on the intelligence committee. his jurisdiction is oversight of the intelligence community. his work is not supposed to include using his official perch to do domestic political errands for the president or to look into investigations for the president s political rivals. we have the department of justice for actual law enforcement matters. plus this also raises even more questions about nunes competence to sit on this
nationals she did not want to see prosecute you had. let s take it away from yovanovitch. he said, she said. the witnesses that adam schiff has called from the state department have testified affirmatively, that the u.s. under yovanovitch applied pressure, multiple time to ukraine prosecutors to drop prosecutions of people that the u.s. embassy. these were ukrainian nationals and ukrainian prosecution decisions. and our embassy was applying pressure, interfering in those law enforcement matters. that is no longer in dispute. it s under oath by her own deputies and aides confirming that that pressure was applied in 2016. sean: okay, in your column this week, you talk about the convention geneva cons it relates to ambassadors particularly not getting involved in the country, for example, she is a u.s. ambassador to ukraine. that s right. sean: not as a u.s. ambassador. she is not supposed to get involved in anything political or electionwise.
gave him names of ukrainian nationals she did not want to see prosecute you had. let s take it away from yovanovitch. he said, she said. the witnesses that adam schiff has called from the state department have testified affirmatively, that the u.s. under yovanovitch applied pressure, multiple time to ukraine prosecutors to drop prosecutions of people that the u.s. embassy. these were ukrainian nationals and ukrainian prosecution decisions. and our embassy was applying pressure, interfering in those law enforcement matters. that is no longer in dispute. it s under oath by her own deputies and aides confirming that that pressure was applied in 2016. sean: okay, in your column this week, you talk about the convention geneva cons it relates to ambassadors particularly not getting involved in the country, for example, she is a u.s. ambassador to ukraine. that s right. sean: not as a u.s. ambassador. she is not supposed to get involved in anything political or electionwise.
the conversation, the former white house associate counselor, both still with me. ian, as a former white house counsel, what is your raekds to th this news. there s three problems with this. we had an extensive policy that had been honored not just by the obama white house but the bush white house on when it was appropriate for white house staff to call the department of justice and what sort of communications were permissible and one generally is not and coordinating about individual law enforcement matters, investigations and prosecutions. and this sounds an awful lot like that. the second problem with it is the individual law enforcement matter issue involved the president so the conflict of interest is quite insane. and the third problem with it is it doesn t matter whether the president broke a loll or not, the founders are very clear the impeachment clause does not