donald trump and try to control the narrative because trump himself always controlled the narrative. now if you talked to any of his senior advisers, they are making no plans for him to go to present his lawyers believe they have a good case for him not to go to prison. they think is age, the fact that he doesn t have any kind of criminal record, make that case and they are insisting that he will not go to prison. however, donald trump is making his own personal phone calls privately saying that he thinks he could very well be behind bars and that he is okay with it. i will note that almost anyone you talked to, who knows donald trump does not think you would actually be okay with going to prison, but that is what he is telling people. and you also have some reporting on this vetting process in the search for trump s running mate yeah, things are really starting to heat up and they have in the last several weeks, several of those potential vice president that i m sure can
whether or not he is actually being vetted or has been caused taken by the campaign and the indicated at the moment, he is not have you have even reach out to the trump campaign as part of the vetting process i haven t talked to trump. no information the aspirin documents for you? i haven t talked to him about vice president. i talked to you guys about vice president are not damaged so the question is, if that will change, if there s been in discussions with any intermediaries, rubio very much making clear their jake, though there has not been much back-and-forth with the trump campaign at the moment. but we ll see if things change as we get closer to the republican convention. we should also note they re currently from the same state, so that would be problematic, i guess trump would have to move back to new york or rubio would have to move to georgia? i don t know. monitor raju. thanks so much. appreciate it as trump comes to terms with his guilty verdict, he and a significan
catherine, on the hill today. this is an exchange between cnn s monitor raju and congressman mow brooks testimony. br brooks, mr. brooks, the opening statement says very clearly the opening statement doesn t make any difference. let me finish my question. you should not be relying on it. what s not to be relying on public testimony? if you were in a court of law, would you rely just on the opening statement of an attorney or the first witness called? or would you have cross-examination? would you allow rebuttal witnesses to determine, to explore i am asking about the substance of what he said. that doesn t make any difference. we don t know whether what he said is true or not because of the sham process that s being used. look. but he is calling the process a sham. this is where we are instead of talking about the facts and the testimony and the merits of what
it s just become theater of the absurd. i think we are going to see you know, john dean had a great comment today. he said it before. these impeachment things go very slowly until they don t until they pick up steam. and i think with ambassador taylor s testimony, which is a nightmare testimony for the president yesterday, i think we are seeing the steam picking up. speaking of steam, let s talk about steaming tempers here, catherine, on the hill today. this is an exchange between cnn s monitor raju and congressman mow brooks testimony. mr. brooks, mr. brooks, the opening statement says very clearly the opening statement doesn t make any difference. let me finish my question. you should not be relying on it. what s not to be relying on public testimony? if you were in a court of law, would you rely just on the opening statement of an attorney or the first witness called? or would you have cross-examination? would you allow rebuttal witnesses to determine, to explore