determine about the overall health of the trump organization? it is difficult because like you said you can t see everything. based on financial disclosures and documents we gath eered for this, the real e state properties have quietly sort of been the backbone or steadying force for the trump portfolio in the presidential and campaign years with other headwinds and see steadying by the sort of unknown properties. what is interesting to me among many things that are interesting in this article is that these big commercial properties are largely in new york and san francisco. you wept to san francisco. do the people that work there two liberal bastions realize that he is making money off the building where they were? i didn t get the sense they did. either they sort of knew it and putt it out of mind. the name isn t there. not walking under the lettering
with a couple of the buildings so it s not much of a presence to you or you didn t know at all. that was the other thing that surprised some people. is it a steph too far to say that the trump brand is worse for business if the name is there in big lotteetters? it is a good question. it seems to be it depends on where you are. where you are in the country, some of the we have done some reporting on the elect ral map aligns with branding or doesn t align with branding. there s also just factors as president there s, you know, a self imposed ethics that brought deals in the work off the table. to be fair, to look at whether or not the president lost billions and a lot of folks disputd disputed that, an argument for his says the brand is damaged or
republicans have started being so talking points of the president, they re going farther than the president. he says yes, i did it, but there s nothing wrong with it. legal process argument makes sense and legal scholars have said make sense. it s not a point here. it s not. it s actually not a point here. it s just not because you say it isn t. where we are right now is this is a legal process. there s no argument against it. do we believe there will be a senate trial? correct, there is a legal process, and they didn t follow it. does anyone hear me? so yim, do we believe there s going to be a senate trial? i do believe there s going to be a senate trial, and i believe nancy pelosi has hurt the democratic party by holding the thing up, and look, when they wanted to put their process forward they weren t asking for input from the other side in the house. they did whatever they wanted to do. they held it in the basement, they started out in nadler s committee. that
the white house has, you know, kept people from testifying, right? correct. and isn t that one of the articles. and lawfully because they had a colorable claim to not have the witnesses testify, and therefore it goes to the courts. if they have nothing to hide, they would let them testify. if they had nothing to hide, they would let them testify. congress does not have the last word on that. well, actually a separation of powers, congress does have the right to have this word. they don t have the last word. let s talk about where there s a third branch. i m not sure if you know about that or not, it s called the courts system. you only have to fight your way in court if you have something to hide from the congress. really, did does that mean everybody who goes to court has something to hide. members of congress have the right to consider why are you even arguing things that the president trump doesn t argue. i don t get that. that s what s happened is
failures and all the other things that are not there. the american people, we should be taking this to the american people and we shouldn t be doing this political side show that we re calling impeachment. admitted there was a quid pro quo, you had the president that invited china to look into his political opponents, so what portion are you saying is not there. that really is what the impeachment is about, jim. no, what the impeachment is about is two things, obstruction of congress, which isn t there. and hasn t been there because they didn t avail themselves of the ability to go through the courts. doesn t the white house admit it withheld evidence. abuse of power, what are the facts that lead to the abuse of power. the white house has withheld evidence and not allowed people jim, stop it, you re abusing power on air. stop filibustering her. go ahead, fred, ask the question. it s the same question, jim, it is. on the issue of obstruction of congress, the white house