articles of impeachment against president trump. and for all of the aggravation and repetition. the debate and the statements by the members of the committee sometimes is pretty good. if you haven t been watching. here s an example of what the hearing was like when it was at its best today. i don t mean to put my finger on the scale. there was a lot of good moments. members on the both sides who whether you awe gree or disagree. members are making arguments that are rational and interesting. and thought provoking. here s an example. that shows today at its best and shows proceedings at its best. as long as they are and repetitive. and occasionally aggravating. there s moments. here s maryland congressman. a constitutional law professor. which helps.
reporter: that is right. dzokhar tsarnaev is in federal prison, he won t be in court for the appeal but his lawyers are making arguments why he should get a new trial. one of the main reasons, location. dzokhar tsarnaev was found guilty in a courtroom in this building only three miles from where the bombs went off at the boston marathon finish line. lawyers will make several arguments. dzokhar tsarnaev was convicted and sentenced to die after the bombing in the spring of 2013. arguments will be made from his lawyers that it should have been move far away from where the bombings happened in two jurors talked about the case on social media and tried to hide their votes before the trial started. they brought up his older brother who was a radical influence, but he was the mastermind behind the bombings and dzokhar tsarnaev helps carry
david ross. dana, who do you think bchted most from today s hearings. it s hard to say if anybody really did if you are are talking about the ultimate goal of mouse democrats in having the hearing in the first place, which is the broader goal in general moving public opinion towards what they want to do which is impeaching the president. and listening to the law professors for us was, you know, was really interesting but for the public i m not so sure that any of these four swayed them in in re point of view. it could possibly that jonathan turly the one republican witness making arguments not on the substance that what the president did was right but on the reasons that the process. when you say republican witness he said knows not a supporter of president trump. precisely but he was brought by the republican side by the
read about the news, he certainly was happy. alex? okay, hans nichols from the white house. hans, thank you for that. joining me right now, betsy woodruff swann with the daily beast and msnbc contributor, and john harwood, cnbc s editor at large. big welcome to you both. john, first up to you. i want to follow with what kellyanne conway said right there, what we heard. is this what the white house s defense is reduced to? is it the president s mind and soul? is it not the facts? reporter: they don t really have a defense, alex, legally, politically, on the facts here. what we ve seen from the white house, that is one iteration of a broad attempt to throw a bunch of stuff against the wall, mostly involving outright resistance from trying to defy congressional subpoenas to making arguments in court that the president can t even be investigated for a crime, from sending a bunch of house
to attack the democrats in every way shape and form to make them seem as toxic as possible. it doesn t work with joe biden at the very least by a large margin. just to make clear what these numbers are showing. in 2016 people who didn t like either voted for president trump because they knew hillary clinton. they knew what the clinton style of governs was going to look like, they thought. so they went with president trump because they didn t know what he was going to look like. with joe biden and president trump, looks like they re picking joe biden. just to make sure that s clear for people. that is going to be a concern for them because that s what they banked on. with the president making arguments like you saw with the economy one. what the hell do you have to lose if you do vote for me? that was the argument they ve been counting on. that s why the president is worrying about expanding his base, trying to get those voters who aren t in his core supporters, that s the argument he