nixon situation. neil: and democrats argue you stick with this you re going to get more stuff. i haven t heard that. i suppose their next star witness now that they ve exhausted three of them will ultimately be ambassador sondland himself next week, but remember, he also offers some pretty significant exculpatory evidence depending how you view it. what he ll testify to, the president when questioned by ambassador sondland said, you know, absolutely clear, no quid pro quos. now, you can choose not to believe him, but that s a significant piece of exculpatory evidence if you re trying to prove, as the democrats are, in fact this is constituted bribery. neil: don t you need undebatable proof? you re a lawyer i m not, but i scratch my head, if you re relying on witness is who weren t in on calls, but heard someone speaking on the phone about a call, first of all, it s only half the call and secondly,
completely speechless on that one. jonathan lemire, the defrsen is going well in a sort of washington general sort of way. the globetrotters are only boating th beating them by 103 points. there s only so many things, i suppose. you re right. i think that was representative of what we ve seen from the beginning of this intire impeachment inquiry, that the represents have really struggled to defend what happened. the facts are not on their side. they re left grasping for conspiracy theories. david nunes spent the first minutes of his opening statement in the fever swamps of the extreme right trying to push back on some of this stuff. we ve seen the president, you know, ordering the republicans in the house and the senate to not fight on process, to not suggest that, hey, quid pro quos, maybe it s not the best scenario but it s not unusual.
political, halwhat s legal what moral i think that s a hard sell because the justice department is apined with regard to that. so you can say you disagree with the trump justice department led by bill barr, that you don t think that s a proper interpretation of law. that s rather thin read to hang on to for impeachment. you know when the constitution was created there was the federal criminal code was pretty much nonexistent. so getting into that as the basis whereas abuse of power, which means using the authority of your office and implicit quid pro quos we recognize all the time. we recognize when there was a power differential, which is what is happening, they don t need to sigh what they re
don t fire the prosecutor, you don t get the billion. who is the prosecutor? the prosecutor is the guy he was told is investigating his son, zero experience hunter who is being paid millions and millions of dollars.id now, that seems like a quid and a pro and a quo. we actually found one.em why is there zero interestun these people that claim this is so bad, the quid pro quos are bad, claimed election interference is bad. we have evidence of both here except not on their side. this is not about getting to the truth. it is about destroying the president of the united states. adam schiff is not an independent person here. mueller and everybody else involved in impeachment in then past were outside of politics. here is my point. did the president of ukraine, the previous president, did he receive a call from joe biden and was that call related to the investigation of the gas company that hunter biden was sitting
least so far, who spoke directly to the president. americans are skeptical about testimony, especially an aide who overheard this phone conversation? of course, there s a number of witnesses who are going to be coming to testify before us this week and next week. many of whom spoke with the president. on top of that we have mick mulvaney, who basically blurted out a very candid admission the other day, in his opinion it s normal practice to have these types of quid pro quos, in this case, conditioning military aid to ukraine based on a political investigation happening by ukrainians on americans. this type of stuff, i think, will be scrutinized, as it should be, but there are a lot of data points now piling up point ing the same direction, which are the underlying allegations of a pressure scheme