Deal with the messaging on the ukraine, on all the scandals going on. Harris josh kraushaar, Political Editor for the national journal. Great to have you. Thank you very much. I am harris. Here is dana. Dana President Trump said to speak any moment as the fight over impeachment hits a new level. Hello, everyone. Im dana perino and this is the daily briefing. President trump is about to hold a joint News Conference with the president of finland but the big focus right now obviously, impeachment. The president attacking what hes calling the donothing democrats, accusing them of wasting time and not focusing on other issues. President trump also going after the whistleblower who reported on his july call with the ukrainian president. They come up with this impeachment nonsense and everyone knows. All based on one phone call that
i had. There was no quid pro quo. The whistleblower was so dishonest. The whistleblower said terrible things about the call, but i then found out he was secondhan
disruptive, and highly partisan impeachment witch hunt. he called the whistle-blower fake and joining some g.o.p. allies, urge he be outed. the whistle-blower is a disgrace to our country! a disgrace. the whistle-blower, because of that, should be revealed. i say tonight, to the media, do your job and print his name! rand paul s challenge has drawn flack even from news anchors. he is a small man. what he just did there is small and cowardly. right there. mainstream journalists who know the cia officer s name have held it back. the whistle-blower may not testify. ivanka trump tells the ap he s no longer particularly relevant. featuring the same players, the same lines already been made public, the production may not make rave reviews. bret: will tune into media buzz this weekend in the long fluids of 29 people
questions of the whistle-blower, and, so betsy, why have the republicans not taken the attorney up on the offer or have they? do we know? so, i don t have reporting of whether or not the republicans have offered questions to the whistle-blower s lawyer, but i can tell you that at this point the republicans are less interested in the actual information of the whistle-blower may or may not have and more interested in the whistle-blower s credibility as someone who described the activity that unfolded. republicans have seen the report and the report is public and everyone got the read it. they want to be able to argue that because the whistle-blower, they will allege is sort of infected by political bias, and again, no evidence of that, but the republicans will argue, that and they want to argue that because he is allegedly affected by political bias he or she is not a reliable narrator and therefore the entire impeachment inquiry the fruit of the poisoned tree.
that person for a long time was the whistle-blower. the whistle-blower doesn t have a name. the whistle-blower doesn t have a face. and the whistle-blower may never be known. and now there are all of these other people who do have names and who do have faces who are coming out and they have characters that can be defended. and it s becoming very difficult for the president to make them the enemy. so there s a level of frustration about this. and in some ways, that s why there s some questions about whether republicans in the house are trying to ferret out the name of the whistle-blower. they know, to joe s point, that that s what the president wants. they are not sure if they ll be able to do it. but they re trying to do their best to sort of get a little closer to that because that is something that the president believes will be helpful to him. at this point, i don t know that it will be because there is this other information out there that is so much more informative that is happen
administration including that needed to go through the factual the state department is being, quote, attacked and hollowed out investigation. of course, the critical issue from within. has to do with the president s that raised alarm bells among role in all of this apparent other things in our next guest. wrongdoing because the wrongdoing is clearly on the former u.s. ambassador to russia table. what has to be made is the bill burns who writes in foreign affairs this morning the political case for or against following. in my three and a half decades the president being removed from as a u.s. foreign service office. kim, on that, let me ask you officer proudly serving five quickly because you have also presidents, ten secretaries of house intel chair schiff saying state from both parties, i ve never seen an attack on now over the weekend and now diplomacy as damaging to both that the whistle-blower may not be called to testify looking at the state department as an institution and our