to put that on the record. when you were asking yvette cooper about the other side of migration, we were talking before about legal migration, it made me realise it is barely into the general election campaign. when i was trying to work out on the morning of a couple of thursdays ago whether rishi sunak was about to call a general election, one of the rationales that so many conservatives came out with was if you have a general election before the rwanda flight takes off, as they hoped it would, although now they are saying it wouldn t, before july the 4th, that becomes a huge feature of the election campaign. who do you trust more to stop the boats? but i think it has barely featured at all partly because the conservatives have not talked about it and ijust wonder whether that will change. or whether both political parties have decided it doesn t necessarily move the target voters they are fighting over that much.
the prosecutors said they would introduce testimony about weinstein, the judge said i would allow that and led him not to testify in his defense at trial. and it s become something suzanne foreshadowed a moment ago, an appeal issue in the weinstein case. so, too, here. i m really glad to see the judge taking his time to think through these issues for monday. the prosecutors i think according to the news transcripts have offered three rationales for introducing this evidence. one is repeated fraud and illegality by the defendant, donald trump. that s a tough argument because the fact that you committed one crime doesn t necessarily mean you have propensity to commit another. the second, the one you were seizing on, i think is the strongest about credibility. and in particular, the prosecutor today talked about wanting to introduce evidence in the gag order proceedings in new york because there the judge summoned trump to the stand and found afterward that he had lied
and there really is no comparison. we know that trump has 91 counts pending against him for a reason. so, as we were just talking about, with on capitol hill, hunter biden s attorney sent a letter to the oversight committee yesterday saying if the committee submitted new subpoena, he would comply. , so the question is, where she didn t have an answer to get, because i haven t told her, will the committee do that, and when they prevent him from being held in contempt? do republicans on the committee just wants him to be held in contempt, so they might not consider issuing the new subpoena? but do they have to lose by doing that? they do just want him held in contempt. one of the reasons and rationales they gave before for why they needed to take this impeachment inquiry vote, was because they didn t want to put some power behind their subpoenas. one of the things that was learned in the last impeachment that s look place as it relates to trump s the courts really require that cong
supporters thought it is president do we come and of it wasn t. there is pressure and an expectation that our guys will take it away. trump himself is careful to say you have to go out and get there and vote, got to close the deal. what do you think? i believe the other candidates are going to hold him to his pledge that he would get a majority of the vote in iowa. that is the number i am looking at, does donald trump get 50%? it was one of the rationales he used not to debate. is one of the rationales he used to encourage other candidates to get out of the race. so for him, 50% is the key number. for desantis, the key number, there really isn t one. he just has to clearly come in second place. he spent over $100 million, at this point. he has gone through more money than any other candidate since michael berg, and the question becomes, what does he have to show for it? s numbers have been dropping
folk octa is a good word. construction, which is a weird impeachment thing, and you re saying, by constructing the fall back so you are not making the extreme argument, you are also undercutting the clarity of the argument itself. that s exactly right, and it goes beyond the fact that it s an impeachment judgment clause is inconsistent with absolute presidential criminal immunity. the rationales that he was presenting were inconsistent. his rationale that he kept pleading to the panel, trump s lawyer, he kept saying there isn t what we have to have absolute criminal immunity is because the specter that some other president, his client actually, might go and start prosecuting and engaging in portable prosecutions. that punishes his enemies.