so essentially what it shows is consciousness of guilt. you were a prosecutor for years. i was going to ask about that. using the frayed quid pro quo before anyone else uses the phrase quid pro quo, that you think shows consciousness of guilt? combined with other circumstances, absolutely, if i were arguing in case to a jury, i would say that we had enough evidence even before this report to rest my case. but here is another piece of evidence that is very powerful that can be used in building the case. and saying that it should go forward toward impeachment. and let me just add, if the president wants to tell the american people about his innocence, he ought to come forward. well. and talk to congress about it in public under oath rather than hiding behind a computer screen. he has an opportunity or at least people have an opportunity next week. the house judiciary committee is getting in the game here. they are holding public impeachment hearings. and what they re going to d
have a great thanksgiving. you too. senator richard blum blumenthal a democratic member of the snt judiciary committee. the president had been briefed on the whistle-blower complaint in august, that is before he unfroze the military aid to ukraine. so just that alone is this an example of two plus two equaling four again. it s bigger than two plus two equaling four. this really terrific report i think shows why the president was in effect objecting to the potential charges about him before the charges were made, that clip that you showed where he says no quid pro quo. and it was well before that phrase entered the public lexicon. but it also raises the very, very profoundly important question about whether the president participated in attempting to conceal that whistle-blower report, as both the department of justice, the office of legal counsel and his
and that s why he released the aid because he didn t want to be caught anymore. he wanted an excuse to get right with, you know, a situation where he had been caught. you know, kirsten it s interesting. this is one more the piece of evidence not in fibrin of congress here but a report here more evidence on top of a mountain of evidence. yeah. what does that matter. i think the more you know the more evidence you can get i mean it supports pretty much everything that we have already seen. but i think it s really important because, you know, you have the president insisting, i said there was no quid pro quo and somehow that s meaningful. now we know why he was using the phrase which always seems strange because it s not how anybody talks frankly. specifically not how he talks. the fact that he knew he had been accused of quid pro quo because he had seen this report i think is meaningful. i think also just extremely troubling that he was being told
in august, that is before he unfroze the military aid to ukraine. so just that alone is this an example of two plus two equaling four again. it s bigger than two plus two equaling four. this really terrific report i think shows why the president was in effect objecting to the potential charges about him before the charges were made, that clip that you showed where he says no quid pro quo. and it was well before that phrase entered the public lexicon. but it also raises the very, very profoundly important question about whether the president participated in attempting to conceal that whistle-blower report, as both the department of justice, the office of legal counsel and his own legal adviser said they should do. and only because the inspector general of the intelligence community insisted that whistle-blower report be made public was it evenly given
jeff, the timing here has always seemed convenient. and there are always those noting the president released the aid after the white house knew of the whistle-blower report and same thing with the quid pro quo. but now you have a report that says he was specifically told. right. specifically told. why in matters why this matters is that one of the defenses has always been that was raised in the intelligence committee hearings is what s the big deal? they released the aid. and the president of ukraine never did the investigation. how could there be an exchange if the president of ukraine never came through? what this story establishes is the reason he released the aid is he got caught. he got caught in this illegal or improper or wildly inappropriate enterprise of trading taxpayer money for dirt on joe biden. he got caught. that s what the whistle-blower letter says.