et cetera. he found arguably at least five pieces of obstruction of judgment. it depends what metric you re judging by. whenever i argued for impeachment after the mueller report, people would say the public isn t with us. the public isn t there yet. the public wasn t convinced. it was never a substantive argument. it s always a political argument. i don t know any democrat that actually didn t believe that the misdeeds enumerated in the mueller wort didn t deserve impeachment. they just didn t think they could get to impeachment. it s a political question. he obviously deserved to be impeached for those things. and those things are crimes and i think that s important. some of the things he s being impeached for might be violations of the constitution but not indictable crimes. if he were not president, the things in the mueller report he could be indicted for. it s one of the examples the way he s able to use this office that he utterly shouldn t be in, to protect himself from his o
president thinks this is fertile political ground. sandra: he tweeted. that bring it on. faster the better. you can t avoid inconvenient facts. the first one being she is doing exactly what she has said in the past should not be done. a purely partisan impeachment. jerry nadler has the famous 1998 clip in which he was saying the same during the clinton impeachment and she opened it with a huge whopper. among other things what she said yesterday was the facts of the president s guilt are uncontested. uncontested? there are 197 republicans, every single one of them in the house saying that it is contested. the facts are contested. they re very contested. jonathan turley who was the only nonpartisan legal scholar at that table t. three scholars brought up by the democrats. each one have a long history of dislikeing trump. some saying he shouldn t be in. jonathan turley didn t vote for donald trump. he was nonpartisan when it came to the issue of donald trump
from the president last week, but also the intelligence agency and the so-called deep state. and the president takes a view towards the foreign policy establishment in washington, it s the view that it s running foreign policy and engaged the u.s. in wars in places that the u.s. shouldn t be in. but the facts don t really bear that ouchlt there s approximately the same number of troops in the reason that were there when he started, and this success, which he will most certainly take credit for, comes with the help of that accomplishment and the ideals of that e establishment. you know it will get under his skin when they say good for you, mr. president, but we re going full speed ahead with the impeachment inquiry. you heard from the president s chief of staff, john kelly, who left several months ago saying that on the way out he told the president this. i told him whatever you do, don t hire a yes man, someone
governor dan patrick. good to have you. what is the state of texas role in the case? we have to look out for the health care and the well-being of children. that s why we have child protective services. we always want to focus on parental rights but when we think that child could be in danger or be in harm s way or in a situation they shouldn t be in, that s when the state steps in. that s it s public policy, dana. this past session, we just passed a bill for example raising the smoking age from 18 to 21 in texas. there was dispute on it. people disagreed. we did it for the health care of teenagers because we knew by moving the age from 18 to 21, that it would save lives, say people who get cancer in their older life and save hundreds of millions and billions of health care. so we always pass policy to protect children and there is no rhyme or reason that a 7-year-old should go through
counter nart cynthpart in the u? this lawyer that lawyer, good et it in the vault, recognizing it is a transcript that is highly sensitive, yet not code word, national security sensitive. shouldn t be in i mean, all of this is precisely what this whistle-blower has been saying. correct? right. we have a situation where donald trump is trying to tell us the sky is red. right? that this is totally normal. that for a president to get on the phone and basically ask a foreign government to investigate his political opponents is perfect. but the sky is not red. and the people around trump were freaked out about this because of course they would be freaked out ak this. private republican, freaked out, too. we have this tussle. throughout the trump administration, about whether people will accept the reality in front of their faces or believe the president of the united states. but the lawyers at the white house were complicit with this. i wroshged every day with what we called the l