Stay updated with breaking news from Withholing. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
and check out the modern ruhles podcast. third episode drops today. we re talking feminism. right now, our dear friend, katy tur. i m here. you know i have a bernie sanders campaign manager and i m going to talk to them about how they feel about the surge. she s peeling away the voters. i m going to guess they re not that into it. we ll see. we ll see. they are, they re proposing bigger and broader and deeper plans compared to what the other democrats are doing on everything from the wealth tax to the climates. housing. is that the way they re going to make a difference. thank you very much. good afternoon. i m katy tur. it s 11:00 a.m. out west and 2:00 p.m. in the east and today, the dam is breaking on impeachment. at 2:30, joe biden will make his strongest statement yet on the trump ukraine controversy. he ll tell reporters if the president doesn t comply with investigatio investigations, congress has no choice but to impeach. at 4:00 p.m., nancy pelosi is leading a ....
ukraine had a statement about fighting corruption and mr. yermak would say burr mace in 2016. mr. yermak provided me a draft statement, and i wanted to be assured that this statement would actually correct the perception that mr. giuliani had of ukraine and what they stand for now so that that would also be conveyed to president trump and solve this problem that i d observed with our may 23rd meeting with the president. the problem that he s getting a bad set of information, statement like this could potentially correct that. so was mr. giuliani satisfied with this statement? no, he was not. why not? he believed that it needed to say burisma and 2016 specifically or else it would not be credible, it would not mean anything new. so, in fact, mr. jewel yagiu wanted it to state burisma and one specifically for president trump. mr. ambassador, here s the text you sent to the ukrainian official on august 13th, let s put that up on the screen. you said hi, andre. good talk ....
He said, i don t think it s hyperbole to say that the house and senate majorities and my presidency will be determined by what happens in the next week. you don t set the stakes higher than that, john. reporter: absolutely. but that s what happens with presidencies. you have the first year, when you ve got the wind at your back or the maximum wind at your back, to try to get your agenda through. i m reminded of when bill clinton was a first-year president in 1993. he was struggling to get his budget program passed. he had a phone call with bob kerry, democratic senator from nebraska, who d run against him and he said to kerry, withholing his vote, if you want to bring this presidency down, go right ahead. kerry ultimately flinched from that, voted for the package, al gore broke the tie as vice president, and it passed. that s exactly what joe biden is trying to repeat this time. so in effect he is issuing that call both to house progressives, saying my presidency is on line, you need ....
Correct? a very terse readout, but yes. in this tersery readout of the call from the u.s. participant, was there any reference to withholding aid? no, was there not. any reference to bribery? a. no, was there not. any reference to quid pro quo? no, was there not. any reference to extortion. no, was there not. i presume you got feedback with your ukrainian countser parts as to how the call went? did they mention aid? no, they did not. did they mention quid pro quo? no, they did not. did they mention bribery? no, they did not. the july 26th, in that meeting he made no mention of quid pro quo? no. he made no mention of withholding the aid? no. he made no mention of bribery. so the fact is that the ukrainians were unaware of this withholing of aid, is that correct? correct. you were in contact with the ....
And we have to make clear. what the president has admitted to already in my estimation, is impeachable. think that is that is important. what he admitted was corruption was his reason for withholing the aid, right? he also wanted joe biden to be investigated, in your view that s enough. you do not need a quid pro quo where he specifically says it was for i m going to hold up the military aid although the timing does line up with that, but if you don t have it on paper it doesn t matter to you. like i said, erin, we need corroborating evidence relative to the president s conversation and whether or not there is a quid pro quo i think is incidental. when the president of the united states of america should know that when he or she engages in conversations with foreign leaders that almost implicitly there is a quid pro quo when you express a desire for anything to be done. the president should know that. this is where the line has got to be drawn and this is also an inflexion poin ....