That because there were several witnesses who contradicted him. You know i guess thats part of what happens sometimes a memory can be refresh store sometimes witnesses slanting testimony to to protect somebody but i think the most important thing now is that hes acknowledged there was basically a quid pro quo here hes still trying to protect the president by saying he didnt know who ordered the quid pro quo but he was delivering the put pro quo message to ukraine many of his supporters is even if it was a quid pro quo thats not a crime. Well 1st of all it could be a crime if you just look at the at the transcript of the june to july 25th telephone call where trump is asking for a quote unquote favor. That call in and of itself was so damaging that the general counsel for the cia forwarded that to the Justice Department as a criminal referral they didnt see this as a big nothing burger they saw this as a potential crime and were not talking about anti trump people were talking about trumps own appointees so i dont think you can just blow this off as as trump and his minions are doing is oh its a big nothing Nothing Happened it was serious enough to warrant a referral to the Justice Department as a potential crime thats something that tells you that right on the face of it it was serious and it is serious now we know more than the phone call we know that the funds were cut off we know meeting was denied. And we know this was done basically to get. Ukraine to do such a trumps dirty work in connection with the 2020 campaign president cant do that to be use of power total abuse of power that was that was if you go back to nixon and watergate that was the centerpiece of the impeachment activity against Richard Nixon he used the presidency to cover up something the break in which it had been exposed could have affected the election in 2972 well trump is trying to affect the election in 2020 in his using his powers we have a direct correlation we cant brush that off and say its just nothing the whistleblower i mean there was you know a law to tax the anonymity of the whistleblower but after all is time do you think personally that the whistleblower be the he or she should come forward. Well i you know i dont think so because i think the laws are in place to encourage people to come forward without fearing retaliation and now the whistleblower is irrelevant we have the facts of the transcript of the call we have the testimony of u. S. Diplomats who are involved and transmitting the quid pro quo the whistleblower or brings nothing to a bill anymore he just started this matter but the question is now what are the facts and had and how do we present them i mean the president wants a whistleblower to come forward why is the president stopping everybody who has information about this or trying to stop them from coming forward hes involved in a cover up big time. The federal trial of long term trump advised g. O. P. Up with the rug just dont isnt the way you think youre going to learn a lot in the. We might though its pretty narrowly focused about whether roger stone lied to congress i guess its possible that really what roger stone was lying about had to do with his own conversations with trump which so far have been concealed we dont exactly know what he was saying to trump we do know that he that he roger stone was in touch either directly or indirectly with songe and was in touch directly or indirectly with the russians. And he was communicating with trump about information he got from both sources so we dont know all the details roger stone is basically stonewall but i dont know that well get a lot more information about trump maybe a bit but not a lot of former speaker of the house and trying to send to Newt Gingrich said that nancy pelosi as we said decision to move forward with a vote of proving procedures will lead to an impeachment inquiry was an enormous strategic defeat in a terrible thing because of its partisan manner so i would use spawn to speak again. Well i definitely wasnt a defeat in the house approved the procedure to go forward i think its a very sad commentary that no republican joined in that i go back again to watergate what happened there was. More than 400 members of the house supported the inquiry most of the members of the House Judiciary Committee did not vote for him to articles of impeachment although they voted to allow the proceeding to go forward i think the idea that the republicans are going to stand as a as a vehicle of obstructionism. Its just wrong and its very sad if theres nothing to hide here let the facts come out to the American People let mulvaney testify let pompei o testify the republicans are so into. Didnt transparency and in the facts and in the truth why dont they call in the president to let all these people come forward and tell the facts then the American People can make up their minds about what happened numbers the congress can make up their minds about what happened a base of all the information theyre not interested in all the information this is an effort to obstruct and prevent the truth from coming out and to keep the American People in the dark thats very sad but the congress and the democrats are going to go forward as fairly and as professionally as they can and thats whats happening now using next week well i think the American People are going to learn a lot theres a lot of this stuff its been behind closed doors and a lot of people have been saying oh its a big nothing or oh these people are never trumped birds or all of these people are bad American People get to see it for themselves and they can make up their own minds thats why the public hearings are being held so why are the republicans getting so upset theyre so agitated about whats past nudes and not even relevant public is going to get to see the witnesses thats the critical thing is grow hole in your opinion. It could be good be a bribe it could be you know im going to bribe an elected official in the elected officials are going to promise me to do something for me in return corus a crime it could it depends on the circumstances what happened here was you know it was that the United States government the president himself using the powers of his office tried to force ukraine a fragile democracy to do something by using the powers of the presidency withholding military aid withholding the opportunity of a meeting to force ukraine to do something that would help trump and his election not for the benefit of the American People but to help trump in the 2020 election thats completely impermissible whether you call it quid pro quo or quote quid doesnt matter what you call it as shakespeare said a rose by any name smells just as sweet well stink by any name also stinks. Did they write it poorly when they wrote high crimes and misdemeanors and said to me you know i was a traffic ticket why are you not letting anyone off the hook here you get into the framers of the constitution i think well no i dont take a hike. I dont think a high crime in this demeanor involves a traffic ticket and gerald ford once said that you know high crimes and misdemeanors anything the house of representatives wants to say have a say and spike think there are no its not right because its never actually voted for impeachment well i shouldnt say that that if you go back to the framers of the constitution i think they had something relatively clear in mind when they high crimes and misdemeanors and a term stands out by itself theres 3 grounds for impeachment treason which is defined in the constitution bribery we all know what thats about and other high crimes and misdemeanors so other means that high crimes and misdemeanors is of the same seriousness as treason and bribery but actually if you really this goes back to ancient british parliamentary practice if you go back to that practice and you read the history of legal history which is boring as you know what what it tells you is that high crimes and misdemeanors really and they reach is abuse of power and how its been defined over our our course of American History is that agree just abuse of power that threatens our democracy or that threatens the liberties of america i think you should thank you congresswoman see pointing out to me that taking on the founding songs. And they came into congress and thanks for your time today thank you always love having you on a level playing here right after the break. Aeroflot russian and lights. In a world of big partisan lot and conspiracy its time to wake up to dig deeper to hit the stories that Mainstream Media refuses to tell more than ever we need to be smarter we need to stop slamming the door on the bathroom and shouting past each other its time for Critical Thinking its time to fight for the middle for the truth the time is now for watching closely watching the hawks. Aeroflot russian and lights. Today there are good dentists and bad debt is the bad debt it is send those in me and then the United States deems to be a threat the looked at those who work in syria the cia and the us military were engaged in covert actions really throughout the world. Where they were assassinating populist leaders they were backing up right away military plutos funding an army of death squads theres no. Because theres always a small. Good. 30 years ago the berlin wall fell the cold war had essentially come to an end the fall of this cold war symbol was heralded as a new spring of nations and the end of communism decades on what is the legacy of this historic event the promise of 1909 been fulfilled. Welcome back to politicking the house moves closer to a possible impeachment of the president whos in the stronger position at this stage of the inquiry House Democrats or President Trump lets begin there with the Political Panel they are joe politics Senior Editor at large it is time to Breitbart News he joins us here in studio and in Mountain View california zach friend who worked for barack obama and john kerrys president ial campaigns as a spokesman and strategist we are is all is going do you think jack lew going to have an impeach president. Yeah i think we will have an m. P. H. President but i dont think youre going to convicted president seems like much like the country i think congress has already kind of made up their mind in these regards it may be really how to sort of make a political and practical decision i think the democrats have made the political calculation that even some of these risky districts that actually works out ok for him but from a practical side i think ultimately at the end of the day i dont see the Senate Moving Forward with any sort of conviction joe what do you think. I agree i think that the house will likely impeach the president on strict party lines we had 2 democrats vote against the impeachment inquiry and the rest of the democrats vote for the inquiry and i think theyll stick that i think theyll impeach the president its not going to be what theyll impeach him for because i dont think anything hes being accused of doing violates the constitutional requirement treason bribery high crimes and misdemeanors but he spoke to a foreign country to help in the president ial campaign to get information on the opponent well thats how this journey is does he hear a lot of the way can you take it if you what did you say you know what i find interesting is that for years when we were looking at the russia investigation democrats including adam schiff whos now chairing the Intelligence Committee where the is taking place they said that it had been not only possible but commendable for the Obama Administration and the f. B. I. And the Intelligence Services to look into then candidate trump because they had to know if someone who could be president of the United States was corrupt or compromised in some way by a Foreign Government suddenly thats now gone from being a National Interest to an Impeachable Offense and i dont think that theres any question that democrats have been trying to find something with which to impeach this president do you think there was a. Quid pro quo. Oh yeah i mean i think its its one question i mean i got to say gentlemen i respectfully disagree i mean if i mean the republicans would have jumped all over this when they were in the my door majority of this would have been the Obama Administration to him the exact same thing i mean i think realistically though the house has an oversight function i mean they have a constitutional responsibility to do exactly what theyre doing i mean in some respects we maybe become a nerd to the idea that since so many these crimes are basically committed in plain view every single day is sort of a governance fight tweet that i think a large portion of the country almost doesnt even care about what the standard might be but if we think about it from a Historical Perspective this is a pretty significant thing that the president did to make these requests to investigate you know his political woman the one candidate it seems like he really doesnt want to run against but i really do think it was a quid pro quo and by the way i mean with the president out there selling t. Shirts saying read the transcript which isnt even the transcript just sort of an overview of what went down and thats exactly what were reading and it doesnt look particularly good but with that said therell be public hearings i think thats good because people can now see and judge themselves the credibility the witnesses none of this will be done behind closed doors moving forward and well see if nothing else is going to take up all the oxygen even in the 2020 race in the coming weeks and months to the impeachment inquiry and i think that will at least get a better sense of the information thats out there and i want to ask what lot of the president break. Well i mean i think that the president was seeking foreign interference remember the constitution to me under article one section 5 its not like its a very complex thing its really in the houses purview to make a determination of what a high crime and misdemeanor is and i think that its safe to say thats ultimately a political decision there is no legal metric as you know just like when republicans were clamoring for there to be some sort of impeachment inquiry vote theres nothing in the constitution that requires that i mean end up being held and now theyre complaining about what grounds its being based on so the constitution is pretty vague it just provides the oversight function on the house that provides the jury side on the senate and well see where it actually goes back and said something i think its very interesting which i would actually agree with. He used the word oversight and no matter what you think of what the president did when he spoke to Ukrainian Government i think that looking at those discussions is the proper function of congressional oversight its not impeachment you have a long way to go before you get to a question of whether the president should be impeached or not and its interesting to me that prior to this we were told that the congress would follow the conclusions of the mother investigation and so forth more democrats wanted to impeach after their phone no rush of collusion than did before and its been clear that democrats have tried to use these investigations in these processes to try to build up some sort of Political Support for impeachment i dont think its there but i think also that what theyre discussing is simply a political vendetta they want to feel better about the fact they lost in 2016 and they want to set the stage for winning in 2020 and you know the the appropriate response to this is if you dont like what the president did in ukraine and some people think it was commendable i do i think you have to look into the corruption that has existed in the past to joe biden is not granted immunity from investigation and prosecution simply by the fact that hes running for president i think you have to look into it especially when you doing with ukraine so what are your views on that thats a thats a function for oversight thats not an Impeachable Offense and we have yet to hear about anything the president actually did to break the law. Zach. Do whatever congress thinks is him teach you lose impeach you. Well if you look at the constitution i think that actually theres a lot of latitude given to the house and if you think about the framers which still brings up one of their main concerns dealt with foreign intervention remember why we fought the revolution why didnt we try if the constitution anyway was to establish a new government that was broken from these foreign interests and foreign interference and we had an entire revolution for that reason so i think that there actually is something to be considered when a Foreign Government is asked functionally to interfere in our election in regards to the mower report remember obstruction of justice is also i think under most peoples belief an Impeachable Offense at least just as bill clinton how that panned out for him and ill say republicans seem to have an interest on that and miller his conclusion on that as everybody well knows was it was ultimately that under justice rules they didnt feel they could pursue it so i think that there is something here and i think theres a lot a lot of through the house thats not correct the special counsel forwarded his discussion of possible obstruction of justice to the chair in general who decided none of this was prosecutable but not because of the memorandum saying a president can be prosecuted while in office and miller actually clarified that wasnt th