and over again i m simply here to tell you what i saw, what i heard and what i knew. these judgments are for you folks to make. i thought that made for very credible testimony. and neither one fueled speculation of either side. both sides tried to say wouldn t you say, wouldn t you have thought? they backed off both times. i thought it was cheap when jordan said i can t believe you two are are the best they have out of the box. he did make the point of saying neither of you spoke to the president, know anything firsthand. that s a valid point. they have very little ground to stand on to attack these gentlemen. al also, particularly in the case of taylor, he s backed up by a contemporaneous record, his handwritten notes and his texts at the time. at the time he sent a contemporaneous text. and a staff that forgot to
substance. it is a senate trial and a senate controlled by his party. why wouldn t you, if the facts are on your side, seize on that, to lay it out, what hatched, what was on the call, what did you do, what was as an earlier guest raised the question, what was the legitimate question to freeze the funds, all that stuff. we re certainly not seeing that defense yet. and neal katyal, thank you as always, and everyone at home. in you want more neal, and why wouldn t you, go to msnbc.com/opening arguments. and the book impeach: 2 cathe against donald trump. still ahead, one of the most guilty aides from the mueller probe is back. we ll tell you why with the stone trial. that s just ahead. (burke) at farmers insurance,
good point. a lot of people want a african-american face. someone else. maybe it is doug jones because they feel like jeff sessions already had his time. steve: doug jones is a democrat and jeff sessions is a republican. and alabama is a republican state. but, for the president who is transactional, you know, he is a businessman, he might not like jeff sessions. he might hate his guts. at the same time he might need him. pete: look at him and say listen, could be a good u.s. senator. steve: going to put that on a bumper sticker. ainsley: there have been people who think about the last election. is he friends with a lot of the the people he ran against and on stage talking negatively about them. pete: transactional. ainsley: the party is more important than the republicans. party more important than the president. steve: he is still steamed. wouldn t you be? pete: with the video he put out too. the ousted u.s. ambassador to ukraine meet with a democratic staffer over ukraine-related que
i if you were. questions the witnesses. leland: if the president was your client, you d want to be there, wouldn t you? this is not a criminal inquiry. leland: you just compared it to the doj, you can t have it both ways, a political inquiry. what i said under ordinary circumstances the department of justice would be having an independent prosecutor do an investigation. that was not that would not hold on if we re not talking criminal charges, prosecutors investigate crimes, what would they be investigating? we know, there was a criminal referral to the justice department which they declined to investigate, during an investigation during. but let me answer your request he. leland: you re saying there was a crime. i did not say there was a crime, there was a referral. leland: does the doj get not to say it s not a crime we choose not to investigate, to your point there was a referral and they said, we pass? well, yeah, but they passed on something that s very, ve
exculpate themselves. but it s as you say, if you believe taylor, and why wouldn t you, as frank says, an honest, earnest guy with no motive to lie, it s game over. for a prosecutor the question is do you put him up first or do you put him up last. it s overwhelming testimony. here s one piece you haven t read. trump said no quid pro quo but he did insist that zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of biden and 2016 election interference and zelensky should want to do this himself. you don t need to know latin to know that s a quid pro quo and exactly what they were talking about. the facts of the matter will now be 100% clear and it will fall to republicans to somehow make some defense and saying it s not no quid pro quo, a, it s nonsense, but b, i don t see any purchase there. all right. let s bring in laura. we need you to put your stamp on