means. shannon: couple of sticking points there, one is the most basic about the understanding of what infrastructure is. secretary pete buttigieg says it should be all encompassing because if people can t work, they can t travel the roads, they can t use infrastructure. how do you guys define this? can you get to some middle ground on that? we disagree on the definition of infrastructure and we ve been working with the president to bring it back to the physical core idea of infrastructure that we ve worked so well on in the past. whether that s roads and bridges, waterways, ports, lead pipes, transit, airports, and also the new infrastructure, which is we must have everywhere, broadband. those are great categories i think that we can work together on. i think it s so easy to say let s throw everything and i think that s what the president did initially, human infrastructure, social infrastructure, great things to talk about, things that we need to address, day-care, senior cakes a
means. shannon: couple of sticking points there, one is the most basic about the understanding of what infrastructure is. secretary pete buttigieg says it should be all encompassing because if people can t work, they can t travel the roads, they can t use infrastructure. how do you guys define this? can you get to some middle ground on that? we disagree on the definition of infrastructure and we ve been working with the president to bring it back to the physical core idea of infrastructure that we ve worked so well on in the past. whether that s roads and bridges, waterways, ports, lead pipes, transit, airports, and also the new infrastructure, which is we must have everywhere, broadband. those are great categories i think that we can work together on. i think it s so easy to say let s throw everything and i think that s what the president did initially, human infrastructure, social infrastructure, great things to talk about, things that we need to address, day-care, senior cakes a
of conversations with both of you, i ve been waiting for the presentation of the defense. now i m convinced we ll really never, ever see one. i wondered will it be, well, the call wasn t clean entirely but it wasn t an impeachable offense. will it be that the election is looming therefore why would we get rid of him now. would it be the president ultimately owning holding up access to the oval office as well as the aid instead it s really a throw everything at the wall strategy and hope there s sufficient confusion to rally the american people for an idea that he deserves to be impeached. yeah. i think that mission accomplished. i mean, in terms of sufficient confusion. i definitely think that they ve sowed confusion. but i guess that the ted cruz thing in particular confuses me because is he comfortable
investigation, should they potentially expand the impeachment inquiry beyond ukraine, or should they stay focused on just that one issue? would that be a mistake to expand? yeah, so i m a proponent for picking sort of a middle ground. i do think it would be a strategic error to just kind of throw everything and the kitchen sink in and try and impeach president trump for every single grievance and really using the impeachment process as sort of a way to express policy disagreements. i think that would be a really bad path to go down. on the other hand, sort of pelosi s argument that they should just stick to the ukraine scandal i think has some risks as well. that s that the president has also engaged in plainly impeachable conduct, plainly abuse of office. so if the house of representatives actually doesn t impeach him for that conduct, you know, and doesn t include those articles in these proceedings, it actually risks sending a message to future
impeachment inquiry beyond ukraine, or should they stay focused on just that one issue? would that be a mistake to expand? yeah, so i m a proponent for picking sort of a middle ground. i do think it would be a strategic error to just kind of throw everything and the kitchen sink in and try and impeach president trump for every single grievance and really using the impeachment process as sort of a way to express policy disagreements. i think that would be a really bad path to go down. on the other hand, sort of pelosi s argument that they should just stick to the ukraine scandal i think has some risks as well. that s that the president has also engaged in plainly impeachable conduct, plainly abuse of office. so if the house of representatives actually doesn t impeach him for that conduct, you know, and doesn t include those articles in these proceedings, it actually risks sending a message to future presidents that this is not impeachable conduct, that this is somehow actually tolerab