than 260 other. the brothers killed mit police officer sean collier. now his defense attorneys are arguing that his trial wasn t fair. they re seeking new proceedings arguing this past week before the first circuit court of appeals. leland: you ve been covering this literally since it happened, since the first bomb went off at the marathon. the question is this: is this sort of normal after death penalty conviction appeals, or is a fair reading of in that they really have some teeth to bite into on this? molly: well, i spoke with one law professor who thinks there is some teeth here, potentially that the case at least partially, there were two parts of the case, the conviction phase and the penalty phase, and that potentially these air pell late judges appellate judges could decide to begin again. the defense is making three central arguments, that the trial never should have been held in boston, and this is daniel habib explaining why. they traumatized an entire
also had communications. and i can tell you on behalf of both they would like to see something done with it. does that mean they ll agree to do something? i m the one that terminated the agreement. i terminated it because they were not living up to it and we don t want to be living up to an agreement and they don t. so it wasn t fair. it was also very obsolete agreement. it covered things that frankly didn t matter anymore. we are looking at doing a new agreement with russia. and we re looking at doing a new agreement with china. and maybe the three of us will do it together. they do want to do it. with china, we were at a trade meeting and the subject i broached the subject and they were very excited about it. they would like to do it. we may do it with russia first and then go to china or may do it all together or it may not happen. to be honest with you, maybe it won t happen. but we are spending a lot of money on nuclear and we have new nuclear and we have
look, we ve had discussions and we ve also had communications and i can tell you on behalf of both they would like to see something done with it. now, does that mean they ll agree to do i m the one that terminated the agreement and i terminated it because they were not living up to it and we don t want to be living up to an agreement and they don t. and so it wasn t fair. but it was also a very obsolete agreement. it covered things that, frankly, didn t matter anymore. we are looking at doing a new agreement with russia and we re looking at doing a new agreement with china and maybe the three of us will do it together. and they do want to do it. i can tell you that with china, we were in a trade meeting and the subject i broached the subject and they were very excited about it. they would like to do it. we may do it with russia first and then go to china or may do it altogether. or it may not happen. to be honest with you, maybe it won t happen. but we are spending a lot of
stick to the schedule they could vote on articles of impeachment before christmas. cnn s kristen holmes is in west palm beach this morning in florida and where the president has also been celebrating the thanksgiving holiday. good morning to you. reporter: good morning, martin. that is exactly right. so essentially yesterday, chairman nadler, the chairman of the judiciary committee, sent out a letter extending the deadline for when the white house had to respond whether or not they were actually going to participate in this impeachment hearing. right now, our sources say they are reviewing this proposal, but that they re leaning towards not sending an attorney. here is why that might raise some questions. during the entire beginning of the impeachment proceedings we heard president trump over and over again saying that the entire reason that this wasn t fair was because he didn t have representation. take a listen. there was no due process.
should handle that. there was something interesting that we heard from hugh hewitt over the weekend that struck me. listen to this. i don t think the senate should take it up. i think they should reject the motion to proceed and never touch it. otherwise, we will have this done again in secret hearings, ex parte contacts. just a bad president. i should note that in september, on cnbc, mitch mcconnell himself said the senate would have to and would take up an impeachment trial, if you will. but then he said, quote, how long you re on it is a whole different matter. how should mcconnell handle this? well, listen, i think what hugh hewitt was describing was this notion that there are all of these other meetings, they re not giving access to the whistle-blower, who by the way, the ig did determine that there was political bias, but he thought the facts of the case overweighed that. that s great, except that you should give access to republican investigators to make that determination