ballot. that s true. but he is casting a pretty big shadow as he continues to endorse some, it s not always clear, i might add, who he is endorsing, more on that in just a moment. and the timing will be pretty interesting here. it isn t just post january 6th. it s post the first series of january 6th hearings. we ll see whether it impacted voters and which way it did. it hasn t seemed to impact the platforms, though, of candidates in several swing states. some continue to echo the baseless fraud claims and there is a whole slate of them in arizona who are running for top positions like governor and attorney general, secretary of state and senate, you know, consequential office holders for those who run elections. also closely watched, the senate race in missouri. trump has endorsed an eric. okay, but which eric did you mean to endorse, sir? rivals eric greitens and eric schmitt both claim trump meant them and trump for his part has yet to clarify, now, on election night. it s
republicans, yet again. no, donald trump is not on the ballot, that is true, but he is casting a big shadow, as he continues to endorse some, and it s not always clear, i might add, who he is endorsing, but more of that in just a moment. the timing is going to be interesting here. it is not just post january six, it is post the first series of january six hearings. whether they see it impacted voters and which way it did. it has not seemed to impact the platforms of candidates in several swing states, some continue to echo the baseless fraud claims. there is a whole slate of them running for top positions like governor, attorney general, secretary of state and senate, you know, consequential officeholders who may be over running elections. also being closely watched, the senate race in missouri. trump has endorsed a erik, okay, but which eric did you mean to endorse, sir? rivals eric greitens and eric schmitt, they both claim that trump met them. trump has yet to clarify it,
when somebody comes in that people trust or think they trust and says this is my person, it can make a big difference. i have a very serious question for you, ron. i want to know which eric do we think he was endorsing. i think these are the different people who it possibly could be and i m wondering which of these people do you think. it must be is it eric holder? it could be any one. clapton? eric church? we re doing them all. he hedged his bets. the point, to scott s point, looking at trump s personal win/loss record is the long metric, because it s not only his like tap on the shoulder. it s the fact that he has reconfigured the republican coalition over these last six years in a direction that makes it more likely for trump to style candidates to win. the party is more dependent on the kind of voters who respond to a trump appeal, culturally conservative, nonurban, noncollege, older, evangelical
give you credit, you ve won. an important primaries, lot of candidates saying the same things. same issues, same talking points. so when somebody comes in that people trust, or think they trust, and says this is my person, it could make a big difference. i m a very serious question for you, ron. i want to know which eric do you think he was endorsing? i have full screen here. i think these are the different people who could possibly could be. and i m wondering which of these people do you think. is it eric holder? is it eric carter? it could be anyone of them, clapton is up there? eric church? we are doing them all? he hedged his bets. i couldn t help. it to scott s point, i think looking at trump s personal win loss record is the wrong metric. because it s not only like his top on the shoulder, it s the fact that he reconfigured the republican coalition over these past six years in a direction that makes it more likely for trump to style candidates to win. the party is more
was it john brennan? was it eric holder? was it samantha powers? was it susan rice? was it ben rhodes or was it, perhaps, obama himself that used the intelligence community as a political weapon? we will find out. leland: doctor, you laid out a number of names here. and if any of these people did what you are implying that they did, if it was one of these people. that s a crime. unquestionably. totally. leland: unquestionably that s a crime. absolutely. leland: is there any proof that you have, other than what we have heard from nunes that doesn t mention any of those names? is there any proof before we go accusing these people of a crime of that? the relevant authorities and committee also lay out their proof when they have the timing to do so. i m not a member of the committee. i worked in the white house. i had a clearance, but i m not going to discuss on live national television what the committee does or doesn t know. i will leave that to devon and then law enforcement