All day on tuesday, that they can put together a fair and impartial jury because of that sense of duty? do you think that s possible? i m not sure about that. everybody has biases. and, you know, you know, stereotypes in their mind. so you have to be really, you know, deep and, you know, fair person. which is very hard to do, right? laura: yeah, of course, it s very hard to do. and if it were joe biden on trial, for let s say, money laundering in a case filed by some republican d.a. in, i don t know, mississippi, democrats would be making the same argument that in a red state where democrats are endangered species, when so much is on the line this election, finding an unbiased jury is next to impossible. i was shocked. i was sitting on the second row like six feet away. and when i realized that trump
He also insisted he never spoke to his son about his overseas business dealings. but after the testimony from those the two irs whistleblowers and that unsubstantiated fbi informant document alleging he and the president pocketed $5 million, some speculate it will be joe biden on trial in addition to his son after that plea deal fell aa part. here s some sound from your panel yesterday, charles, with john yoo and some others. it almost comes two years too late because as we get more information from the hill, it looks more and more like president joe biden is at least a witness if not more in an ongoing federal investigation. reporter: now, the justice department is not commenting on whether president biden would be part of this future investigation, charles. charles: lucas, thank you very much. meanwhile, top republicans slamming david weiss being named as special counsel. alexandria hoff is tracking the gop reaction down in washington. alexandria. reporter: hi, charles. some republicans don t like the idea of a special counsel at all.
Does not necessarily mean this as special counsel will actually exercise that greater authority. maybe this special counsel is change his tune and will found religious and take a different view of the case so far the evidence does not suggest the special celt s counsel thanks there s other felonies out there waiting to be charged. on john, because both sides cannot agree on a plea deal the case could be going to tropic tp president biden left the white house for the beach yesterday without taking any questions about his son. joe biden has long maintained his son hunter did nothing wrong. he has also insisted he never spoke with him about his overseas business dealings but after the testimony for those two irs whistleblowers the unfair fight informant document he had hunter both pocketed $5 million from the ukrainian energy giant some speculate will be joe biden on trial in addition to a son of the plea deal fell apart. now capitol hill everyone is excited david weiss was investigating hunter for the past five years. was of course i m special
Country star john rich closed out the patriot awards with a performance paying tribute to america. he is next. ainsley: why don t you do this, sean? read the teleprompter. first, let s check in with our own bill hemmer not at the big board today. what s coming up at the top of the hour? bill: congratulations, everybody, in florida, give everybody our best, ok? well done, guys. we salute you. so the murder of four college students was brutal and there is still no clearance. coming up on that investigation. republicans say they put joe biden on trial. how is it going to happen? jim jordon here to make the case today. he ll do it live. fresh off the midterms, big gathering of republican hopefuls. what they are saying about 2024. and t. swift has issues. come join on a friday. see you then.
They need to complete the investigation. they need to complete and get all the information they need for this trial. if they need to complete it, why weren t these men called before the house impeachment inquiry? why didn t house democrats go to court and say we need these people to complete our investigation? katy, it s good to be with you. i think the house made its own judgments as to the information it needed in order to present articles of impeachment. and to vote on articles of impeachment. in the united states senate, it s the trial. we are the jury. and i think it s reasonable to expect that we should hear directly from those witnesses that have the information about why the president did what he did. and when he did it and what his motivations were all about. these are very serious charges about the president using the power of his office to engage a foreign power to get involved in our elections on the side of the president. and then the president tried to interfere with the congressional
Drag this out much longer? why not wrap this up? and so i do think, you know, again, all of the sources we ve talked to have said the president s ready for anything. they are okay with a shorter trial, a longer trial. something in the middle. the president still wants those witnesses called as he s been calling for for a while. that s an open question, though. and that s going to be worked out in these negotiations you are a he talking about between senator schumer and mcconnell. what about rudy giuliani? today, there was an article in the new yorker. an interview with him, a reporter asked him about ukraine and he said he needed to get marie yovanovitch out of the way because she was standing in the way of the investigations, politically-motivated investigations, that he wanted. here s the quote from that article. was the president asked about this today? and isn t that just kind of an admission that, yeah, we were pursuing these investigations? and, yes, this ambassador didn t want it to happen. it seems like a foot-in-mouth scenario. or do the president s
Actually have a trial without all the evidence at hand? i think it s important to have the evidence at hand. i think that decision should be made with with the senator schumer and senator mcconnell. i, personally, believe you need to hear from these witnesses. what does a fair and impartial trial look like to you? well, what it means is each one of us 100 senators are going to take an oath of office. oath of a juror, not oath of office. that we re going to act impartially on the evidence that is submitted. that means, yes, we may have viewed about how serious this issue is. and and what the president s conduct. but we are must be judged by the evidence that s presented at a trial. and then make our separate determination as to whether this elevates to an impeachable offense. i regret, whether it be a democrat or republican, those who have prejudged and have already come to conclusions. i think what leader mcconnell has done in telling the president, basically, i ll do
Transcripts for MSNBC MTP Daily 20191216 22:20:30 archive.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from archive.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Interesting that senator schumer said this morning he didn t think conversations in and of themselves would be problematic. it is the willingness in schumer s words and mcconnell to do kind of whatever the white house wants him to do that he would find most concerning. i can tell you that based on conversations with one of the senior administration officials i had today, the white house is working, already got its eye on the ball. past this week to what might happen in a senate trial. as you and jeff are talking about here. there will be work, i m told, continuing throughout the holidays. even over these next couple of weeks while the president is expected to be down at his mar-a-lago resort. there will be work continuing on how to get ready for that. i have sensed more of an openness with the folks that i ve been talking to here. to a shorter trial. there is, the white house says, hey, the president and officials and sources i talk to say the president feels aggrieved. like he has not had a fair shake in this house process and wants that fair shake in the senate process. at the same time, you re also starting to see some language about concerns that if this isn t going to be fair anyway, and if the house is going to move forward as it is expected to on wednesday, why sort of
Probably not in the real world. but he s operating in an ideal world where both parties have serious people elected in elected office. i think we should move forward under the assumption that republicans are going to take this seriously. and then they should prove us wrong. i don t think that we should assume that they re not going to uphold their oath. they have to actually take an oath before the impeachment trial begins that says they ll be impartial. and so let s let s see if they will seriously take the oath. and then uphold their constitutional duty. i don t think that, assuming they re going to do the wrong thing is the right tact here. let s them off the hook way too easily. is it fair to assume that susan collins is somebody that might put pressure on mitch mcconnell to call witnesses? is it fair to assume mitt romney might do that? or cory gardner, tom tillis? are they can the democrats rely on them or rely on the voters in their in their states to put enough pressure on them to make it to make it a real trial? i think if history is any