the statement that mcconnell made it not one that i can defend. so they demanded a more open trial where the house managers are able to call witnesses. that is clearly what shumer is trying to do. what do you make of the argument that if you want mick m mulvaney than we want hunter biden. they are supporting the witnesses that have knowledge that directly bears on the facts be e.g. discussed in the house. that will be mick mulvaney, michael duffy, who had direct involvement in this process. but what schumer is saying and it makes a lot of sense, is that the senate should not go on wild goose chases bringing in witnesses that have no bearing on whether or not the president
negotiation. the senate minority leader wants the trial to hart on january 6th. he wants to see the senate back up the house by subpoenaing hundreds and thousands of documents. he also wants to hear from mick mu mu mulvaney, john bolton, and he wants to set time limbs for the testimony here. whether or not any of this is able to happen will be something he has to negotiate with mitch mccancel, and mcconnell is the majority leader calling a lot of shots here. mat jor i did leader signalled that he doesn t want any decision about witnesses now. he want this is to will b something where the white house coming in for their first part of the debate, mcconnell made it clear that he is working in lock
chief of staff, mick mulvaney. what did he say? he said he had a conversation with mr. mulvaney, this is what was required in order to get a meeting. here s how hill rekounltd thcou. he talked about how he had an agreement with chief of staff mulvaney for a meeting. if ukraine wanted a meeting with the president, they needed to investigate biden. a quid pro quo that the ukranians were made aware of. according to testimony. and then there s another quid pro quo, relating to military aid to ukraine. according to vinman s testimony, that came from the chief of staff s office, and it came as a direction from the chief of staff s office.
with either rudy giuliani or people who understood what rudy giuliani was doing? these are all folks opinions. he said that in his statement. he says it was his presumption. yeah. not based on a fact. it was his presumption. you served with those men, congressmen. what do you make of this apparent new strategy? is it effective? no. i mean, trying to throw all of these people under the bus is simply not going to fly. nobody s going to believe for a second that mick mulvaney or rudy giuliani was acting on their own without any consultation with the president. i think just like michael cohen paid off stormy daniel, didn t he? he just did that on his own, under the direction of the president. they may try to throw these guys under the bus and they ll do it in this order and they ll throw
the communications in question have to be for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice and there cannot be an exception like the crime fraud exception that applies so that s basically it. i think it s clear that rudy knows everything about this ukrainian deal and to the extent the president continues to talk to him, i think the common sense explanation is he wants to keep rudy close so as to try to control rudy and what he says publicly. i wouldn t be surprised if he would do that with with mick mu mulvaney. thank you all. michael bloomberg takes a closer step tonight to running for president. does he have a chance in a new book claims white house officials resigning en masse. what stopped them? we ll discuss that next.