kyrsten sinema, who put out a statement two days ago, saying she still wants that 60-vote threshold in the senate. so that makes it impossible to pass voting rights. however yeah, go for it. they re still talking, though. and i m told that senator tim kaine of one of the members who was negotiating this in their closed-door lunch yesterday, for the first time, gave a presentation on how they would change the senate rules, which would implement a talking filibuster. and after a very long process, that it would be a 50-vote threshold. but they don t have the votes, steph. okay, and isn t that the whole ball game? joe manchin and kyrsten sinema can say all day long, they re onboard for voting rights, but if they re not willing to scrap the filibuster to get this done, they re not actually behind anything and we re going nowhere. and there s a lot of frustration with democratic senators. senator manchin is at least at the table and he s talking. senator sinema is not. she is not part
know, this big lie has worked. so even if the committee gets all of the information and holds people accountable, this lie isn t going away. the damage has been done, yamiche. and that is the thing that is underscoring all of this work. will it actually matter, even if we have public hearings, even if the january 6th committee gets all of the phil waldrons, who are people who were not sort of at the center of the white house, but who were talking to, in his case, mark meadows, the former chief of staff, he said eight to ten times. he was working with john eastman, who had that memo, laying out how to overturn the election, which would have been fraudulent and would have been overturning the will of the american people. but here you have a sort of gop that apart from sort of whatever the evidence shows, is in the grips of this lie that former president trump continues to tout. and really what you see is this has become a litmus test. this lie, a falsehood about the credibility of amer
option. we could at that point drag the wagons around of a giant lie that would protect everybody willing to lie. i didn t run around trying to bribe anybody or shred documents. we preserved the documents. the president, erlichman and i made no attempt to take over the watergate case. the view was that the truth must be told and quickly. when i testified i knew clearly, was i in or out was the question? and i decided i could not play that game. i made mistakes. d gotten ourselves in a deep problem and further lying and living that lie isn t something i m comfortablwith. thanks for the ride around
but was it prove that believe day? i m not sure it was provable that day. no, i agree, it was not provable that day, but i ll give you an example of richard nixon when he ran against helen and douglas in 1950 for the u.s. senate. he called her communist. it was provable that she was not a communist but the press didn t do it s job and he won that election in large part of that lie. that s where he picked up the nickname tricky dick. he was a liar before he ever got to the white house. when he got to the white house. he used enormous lies to try to ewe suffer the constitutional ending in watergate. i agree, there is something different about trump s almost compulsion to lie. he lies and lies and lies and i think you re right when he says sometimes he lies when a lie isn t necessary. my favorite was the nfl. he got a letter from the nfl telling about the debate