grand jury, amaze things happen. you make a great point right there. we divided the line in thinking about what the claims are. we saw mulvaney move and sondland. you re adding a detail is every one on the right has been compelled in person to give testimony under oath at this point. mr. mulvaney, ducked that today. absolutely. i know why he ducked it. he knows if he takes an oath and testifies in front of a proceedings whether it s a trial or congress, he knows that he cannot tell the truth. he would have to commit perjury because you don t go from saying in front of millions of people in the united states and throughout the world that it s done all the time, quid pro quo, arms for dirt and then back away. if they put him in a grand jury right now, he would sing like a
quo. and that he had been told that by the eu ambassador sondland. and so that was really bad for the president. by the end of the week you have the vote in the house. and you had a president who was able to keep all republicans together on a vote against authorizing the impeachment inquiry. so he believed that was a huge victory for him. and a sign of things to come in the senate. you look at what witnesses reportedly said so far. the rough transcript and the phone call. the white house put out. which president keeps referring to as perfect. where did the credibility of the president s defense stand? one of the problems is we really don t yet know really what the president s defense is. it s ranged started off as this was a perfect call. we heard that for a while. we don t hear that so much anymore. we saw mulvaney the white house chief of staff come out and say
think your copd medicine is doing enough? maybe you should think again. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy and the power of 1 2 3. trelegy 1-2-3 save at trelegy.com after such an astonishing week, the president held up ukraine aid to get it to investigate democrats. we thought you might have some questions so what better time for cross exam with cnn legal analyst and former federal and state prosecutor. one viewer wants to know to what extent did mulvaney s public comments undercut trump s no quid pro quo defense and can the house use his comments against the president? that was certainly an interesting press conference. we saw mulvaney get behind a microphone and publicly engage in an act of self-destruction. he admitted there was a quid pro
to what extent did mulvaney s public comments undercut president trump s quid pro quo defense? we saw mulvaney get behind a microphone and admit it, and get over it is a new low. the white house was not over it. they walked it back quickly and ran it back, and came up with a spin, and trump is that about busting up corruption, but the problem is it s contrary to facts and reality. can his statements be used against president trump? yes, if i have somebody that speaks for me, an attorney or spokesperson or chief of staff and they say something relating to that relationship, yes, it can be used against me, but keep in mind it s impeachment so the