tonight, hey, we have to understand exactly how this is going to proceed before we send this over for that process.ro the other way of putting that, jeremy, rather perversely is it would keep the president from getting what he wants, and that is a fast acquittal or an acquittal at all. if it goes on forever, democrats just keep referring to him as an impeached president. yeah, and, brian, he is going to be impeached no matter what happens in the senate. but i think your point is well taken. t i think the speaker and others who worry about the constitution don t want to see the entire import of this moment simply go up in a puff of smoke by mitch mcconnell if he just simply says there s nothing to do here, the president s off scot-free, let s move on. now, annie karni, it has been noted already that more members of the house voted to impeach trump than clinton. do you think that ll be a meaningful thing to him? i think what he cares about is the republicans sticking
complications to that. one is he s going to claim that s attorney-client privilege information, a lot of what he has to give. or, two, the president will assert an executive privilege or, three, it is public authority. david, he wasn t exactly filing court motions in ukraine, was he? no. but that s not relevant. he s kind of all over the map. they need to the problem is that think, ti think, that they didn t pick their theory and stick with it. right. they have been all over the map. i think there is going to be a collision of those and ultimately a day of reckoning where you can t have it both where you can t have it all ways. it is one or the other. and whatever route they pick there will be certain legal hurdles that need to be met or overcome. as always, thanks for coming by. appreciate it. and i should also mention david will be back with me for a special event in new york with several of the top federal prosecutors from the same
associate white house council and now founder and executive director of protect democracy un a nonpartisan democracy watchdog group. and melissahd murray, professorf constitutional law here. it does seem at this point like the facts are fairly established.se i don t want to get out ahead of anything. i m sure there could be other evidence that upsets the t applecart, but is that your read of this testimony in line with the other ones? t i think the ambassador made a clear case there was a shakedown on the ukrainian officials to get them to undertake this investigation of burisma, to excavate whatever ties the bidens might have had or might not have had to it and make it conditional on the receipt of the aid that had been appropriated. whether it s a quid pro quo again i think it depends on the fact that a quid pro quo generally means we re exchanging something for something and it seems like the ukrainians wanted
forward some real rationale for doing that and it might end up in the courts but clearly the administration thinks they can just dismiss it after the time being and see what the consequences are at later date. we in a completely different world. this newest letter makes clear failure to comply is evidence of obstruction of justice. we will move forward on a negative infer rens. the white house is in a lose lose position. it becomes impeachable. t i think that s what they know and they think they headed to an impeachment vote any way. if they are heading there any way, they are saying we don t need to bother putting forward these documents because you are going to vote to impeach this
in place in the people s house. not in the senate, but in the people s house. themp senate will eventually hae its that is the role of, in our constitutional structure, of checking the president. now, there is this 25th amendment process in light of the assassination of john kennedy and so forth, but that s at a level that involves the cabinet. it does not involve the federal bureau of investigation with folks involved in the decision were appoint by the president and confirmed by the senate. that s a huge check and a huge balance we have in our system, the idea of a pas, presidential appointment but senate approval. we had, essentially, anpproval. unaccountable branch or the leadership, i should say an unaccountable branch of the executive that t i think was jut taking very strange steps. and you re right, i think, mark, i think it was unprecedented. it sounds in the nature of a