you mentioned she was the only republican sen door the vote against brett ckavanaugh. and if you look at what she said, chris, she said nothing about witnesses. she said she didn t like coordination and she said she thought there should be a fair trial, but she said she thought she wanted to hear from the house managers and for the president s lawyers, again to go back to the math what you would need is four lisa murkowski s to not omsay they want witnesses but to agree with democrats on the specific witnesses that the democrats want. we re a long ways from that in just these individual comments she made here. i tried to talk to her about it, other reporters have tried to talk to her about, and she s been very mum so i don t want to discount this, but we re a long ways from four republican senators saying they want witnesses who the president has been blocking and who we know have more information to offer
and her stance represents a crack, a real crack publicly in mcconnell s efforts to forego a real trial. it s a sign that mcconnell s decision to go on trump tv and declare he was coordinating with the white house was a big tactical error. heidi, i guess i wasn t shocked that murkowski said that, but it struck me as notable, highly notable that she said that publicly in terms of what it means for what she might be saying privately or what others in the senate caucus might be thinking. notable but let s not misinterrupt this or overinterpret it.ru she was a new week and case as you mentioned she was the only republican sen door the vote against brett kavanaugh. and if you look at what she said, chris, she said nothing about witnesses. she said she didn t like coordination and she said she thought there should be a fair trial, but she said she thought