obviously getting him to be under oath has been a challenge for robert mueller, for the impeachment managers, yourself. is that just something that democrats assume he will decline the opportunity to do that? >> hi chuck. you know, that question actually works in really well with your past guest and some of the comments he made.

robert mueller being a republican, he said he couldn't do it. we can't go back and forth. trying to equate the insurrection, trying to take the government over with people who are marching for their civil-rights is plain old idiotic. just tell the truth about what is happening. host: we will let him respond to the questions. go ahead. sean: i think that marching for your civil-rights is something that is a time-honored tradition in this country and that is very welcome. there's a big difference between marching for civil rights and marching to stand up for other things that take place in our capital and around the country all the time are the beauty of america, they are protected under the first amendment and should be celebrated. there's a difference between that and anything that crosses the line in terms of violence, looting, destruction of property. i don't condone any of that. i've said from day one that violence is never acceptable. i don't think anybody should ever cross the line when you are trying to express your concerns, your grievances and set i would never und

the white house, back at the white house after trump pardoned him for his crimes related to the robert mueller investigation. he was back in the white house egging trump on, talking about calling for martial law to overturn the results for a redo of the elections, so there were clear indications that this very bizarre qanon conspiracy cult reached right into the oval office during the trump presidency. darren: how much does this case expose the deep faultlines within the republican? many see it as a battle for the very soul of the gop. guest: it is. that is clearly a factor what is going on and kevin mccarthy is trying to balance various members of his caucus -- he has a hard-core, pro-trump membership in the caucus and they wanted to strip liz cheney of her position as chair of the house republicans conference, the number three position for republicans in the house because she voted to impeach donald trump. mccarthy was able to dodge that bullet. he had a secret ballot and the majority voted to retain liz cheney but they also gave a standing ovation yesterday to marjorie taylor greene and vot

during the investigation of the special counsel, robert mueller, into possible russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, president trump dangled the possibility of pardons for witnesses who refused to cooperate, specifically paul manafort, michael flynn and roger stone, senior campaign advisor. he would pardon all three these individuals after their convictions for criminal offenses stemming from the mute or investigation, during his final weeks in office. in addition to the mute or investigation, president trump used the clemency power in other potentially self-serving ways, as most who received limits he had a personal or political connection to him mostly. that seemed to be the thread, rather than the crime or sentence. this included clemency for four former republican members of congress, one of whom i was personally close to. nevertheless, they had been convicted of criminal offenses ranging from bribery, insider-trading, misuse of campaign donations. charles kushner, his son-in-law's father and former white house chief strategist steve bannon, who was awaiting trial

for example, during the investigation of the special counsel, robert mueller and the possibility of russian interference, president trump dangled the possibility of pardons for witnesses who refused -- who refused to cooperate, specifically paul manafort, michael flynn, is national security advisor, and roger stone, senior campaign advisor. ultimately, he would pardon all three of these individuals, stemming from the mueller investigation during his final weeks in office. in addition, president trump use the clemency power and other potentially self-serving ways as most of those who receive clemency have some kind of special access or political or personal connection to him. that seemed to be the thread rather than the crime and sentence. this included cap -- come and see for for republican members of congress, one of whom i was close to, nevertheless, they had been convicted of various criminal offenses ranging from bribery and insider trading to the misuse of campaign donations. charles kushner, whose son-in-law father and steve bannon, who was awaiting trial on fraud charges to fund the

there is actually a witch hunt wing which features the highly conflicted robert mueller and his 13 bande news weighing which features a cut out of jim acosta and a laundry list of all the fake news with the real-time hannity fact-check beside it. there's also a trump rally wing where you along with other visitors can go and experience what it's like to be inside a trump rally chanting "lock her up" along with the visitors and watching a hologram of trump dance the ymca. there is a stable genius wing where you can look at his accomplishments, domestic and foreign. you have the social media wing where you can see everything will tweet the president has ever tweeted and there is no censorship. the dunk tank is in the basement. that's going to have jeff sessions, not jim acosta. it will be modern-day presidential library and people will line up just like a rally around the block. >> greg: that's actually a better library than i had imagined. that has to happen. dana, you are a museum freak. i'm sure you've been to just about every presidential museum. how do you see this museum in your head

the bush administration working for tremendous men, larry thompson, james comey, chris wray and robert muellerice department needs to be able to do its work. they are the people's justice department and they need to be the attorneys general, the attorney general for the people of the united states, not the private attorney for the president of the united states. so, i'm happy to hear him say that. and you know, as a child of a law enforcement officer, my dad was a new york city police officer for 30 years, my grandfather as well. it's also refreshing to hear him talk about community policing and police officers wanting to be a support to communities. we need to give them the tools to be able to do that, not to continue to make them military operations but to make them support and protect the communities in which they work, whether that's through education, whether that's through programming. you know, i am in favor of ion na presley's bill to get rid of qualified immunity, which has really been a blanket under which police officers can operate to not be punished against communities, particular

it was set up, if you remember back to special counsel robert mueller's investigation, he had a grandury in washington, and this is somewhat comparable to that. it is meeting twice a week to consider indictments and subpoenas and to work on this investigation. it is all being channeled through this one grand jury that it is very active as far as we can tell. susan: who serves on grand juries? aruna: they are picks from the pool of eligible jurors in washington, d.c. susan: so members of the public are part of the panel and i would imagine they are very busy with the number of cases involved. what powers do they have? aruna: they can issue subpoenas, they have to approve indictments. prosecutors can file what are called criminal complaints where they sort of get the allegations on paper, file it with the court, ask a judge to sign off saying they believe they have probable cause to arrest this person but the prosecutor then needs to present the evidence to the grand jury. unless the grand jury provides an indictment, they cannot move forward. they are sort of the initial jury, is there

>> if the president fired robert mueller, we'd have people take to the streets. i believe there'd be widespread civil unrest. >> we ain't playing with you. >> even in states where donald trump won big, that it does you any good running away from donald trump. i think you need to go back and punch him in the face. >> make them pay. >> what we've got to do is fight in congress, fight in the courts, fight in the streets. fight online. fight at the ballot box. >> for those of you who are soldiers, you know how to do it. do it right. >> hannity: you know how to do it, do it right. wow. i'm going to take trump out tonight. remember that doozy? maxine waters. now, i would say everything you just saw probably we're going to apply the same exact standard or we'd be impeaching all of them? why? for inciting insurrection. their favorite new word. the left has been viciously attacking president trump. the republican party as well. they spread nothing for three years but lies and conspiracy theories that trump was a russian agent. asset. not true. only russian interference wa

robert mueller being a republican, he said he couldn't do it. we can't go back and forth.g to equate the insurrection, trying to take the government over with people who are marching for their civil-rights is plain old idiotic. just tell the truth about what is happening. host: we will let him respond to the questions. go ahead. sean: i think that marching for your civil-rights is something that is a time-honored tradition in this country and that is very welcome. there's a big difference between marching for civil rights and marching to stand up for other things that take place in our capital and around the country all the time are the beauty of america, they are protected under the first amendment and should be celebrated. there's a difference between that and anything that crosses the line in terms of violence, looting, destruction of property. i don't condone any of that. i've said from day one that violence is never acceptable. i don't think anybody should ever cross the line when you are trying to express your concerns, your grievances and set i would never under any

michael delton is with us now, a former federal prosecutor and was ones robert mueller special assistant at the department of justice. he hosts a new podcast here, that said. congratulations on the podcast. thank you for being here. we are two days away from this trial starting. and daniella just mentioned the pretrial brief, the house's replication to answer documents due tomorrow. what do you think we will learn from that? will we get clarity tomorrow on what to except on tuesday? >> so, on the house managers' side we had a pretty extensive brief, 80 pages long, with a layout that the president can be impeached even though he is no longer in office, that the senate has jurisdiction, that the first amendment doesn't apply, that he engaged in a months-long insurrection. the house case is pretty clear. the trump defense was really pretty, you know, haphazard. they only had two days in which to create their brief. i think we will get more elaboration. principally, i think they are saying, one, the senate lacks jurisdiction to try this case because the president is no longer in office and,

he talked to robert mueller about list tenure at the fbi, also leading the bureau after 9/11. you can subscribe to the oath wherever you get your podcast. thank you. garrett, let me come back to you, if i can. we are hearing negotiators are closing in on an agreement for this trial. what have you learned on that front? >> i hope everyone was taking notes during chuck's discussion of the constitutionality part of the argument. we will start with a constitutionality debate tomorrow. the thinking had been the real substance of the trial would begin as early as tomorrow afternoon. under this agreement, it looks like we will see a presentation, the first portion of this dedicated entirely to a debate around that constitutionality matter and another vote on going forward to clear the decks for the remainder of the substantive arguments over the next couple of days, the way that this agreement is shaping up, both sides would have 16 hours of presentation time to make arguments, if you divide that into eight-hour days which is what we looked at in first impeachment trial and take a pa

everything from potential obstruction of the robert mueller report, hush money payments, ukraine all to the january 6 capitol riots. merrick garland will need to decide will d.o.j. open investigations, who will handle them and will d.o.j. charge the former president. i believe the d.o.j. has an obligation to fully investigate, get the facts, make a decision right down the middle, no politics without fear or favor. second, d.o.j. has pending investigations into hunter biden relating to his taxes, his financial dealings overseas. my advice about what merrick garland has to do here is nothing. let the prosecutors already working on these cases, do their jobs, finish the investigation. don't interfere, don't influence. let it play out and treat it the same as if it was any other person being investigated. and then third, the durham investigation into the origins of the russia investigation. same approach here. don't shut it down, don't try to squash it or limit it. let durham finish his work. let him issue his report. see where the facts fall, let them fall where they may. bottom line, e

sexual assaults allegations in 2005 and david shown representing roger stone when prosecuted by robert muellerlks to defend jeffrey epstein and promoted a conspiracy theory that his death wasn't a suicide. this after he and the five previous attorneys set to represent him, they split over disagreements over the legal strategy for this impeachment trial. the president wanted them to promote these baseless conspiracy theories about widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election while the attorneys wanted to do it, republicans are arguing it is unconstitutional to try a former president and convict him in the senate. brianna? >> jeremy, thank you. >>> i want to talk now with john dean, a cnn contributor and former white house counsel to president nixon. you know, if the president's defense does bring up this false election fraud claim on the senate floor, do court rules apply in a senate impeachment trial? could trump's honors open themselves to legal sanctions for making false claims? >> it's a difficult question, because first, the rooms have nhave -- rules have not been issued for this trial. can

some federal prosecutor, the next robert mueller indict me? that's a chilling effect that is problematic editing this body, congress has oversight rather than chilling before hand. >> 30 seconds left. lesbian -- with several of the department of justice pardon attorney in all this, the recommendation cynic? >> the doj is clearly advisory. the attorney general general pettus aborts make recommendations but it's the president alone who decides to check yes. >> i yield back, tread th. thank you to all witnesses. >> thank you, mr. johnson. next are questioning is ms. ross, new member from north carolina and you are welcome and you are recognized. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. and thank you to all the witnesses this is been a fascinating morning and thank you for your perspective and for your scholarship. i have a couple questions for ms. fredrickson. just to narrow down when there could ever be and that use of the pardon power. and the first question is, can the president's exercise of the pardon power of clemency ever violate our current cr

i think this is one of the tragic misses of robert mueller's investigation.to trump's finances, but nonetheless, it's a substantial period of time. it's eight years. it also pulls his three eldest children into the radar on this investigation. eric trump has been deposed, ivanka trump's name has come up in disclosures already in the tax returns about receiving what appear to be very sketchy and lucrative consulting fees from her father's company, a company she already received a salary from. and then it also targets people inside the trump organization who might flip on trump if they're exposed to criminal liabilities. all of that's important, and then i think the, you know, the brass ring in all of this is that if trump has a criminal conviction, he can not run for president again, and that's looming over this entire thing as well. >> and around december, when there was some reporting that he was, you know, toying with the idea of pardoning himself, it was sort of hypothesized that the investigation that represented the most danger to him, as tim just articu

obviously getting him to be under oath has been a challenge for robert mueller, for the impeachment managers, yourself. is that just something that democrats assume he will decline the opportunity to do that? >> hi chuck. you know, that question actually works in really well with your past guest and some of the comments he made. i think if we've learned anything about, you know, leadership in america, in what's required right now, it's that words matter. what the president says matters. what marjorie taylor greene says matters because, you know, as a leader you're judged by your words and your conduct because they have an impact on people. so, you know, this request by the president to come and testify, he's going to come up and tell his story. i don't think that there's any other kind of subterfuge or intent to making that request, other than letting him come up and tell his story and have the discussion and have the debate about what that meant. >> i think there are a lot of people who have seen one copy of one deposition he's once done under oath. i would be shocked if he agrees to that b

robert mueller was the new director of the fbi and basically said no deed goes uncovered.to fast-forward that, in august 2003, i was promoted to the supervisory special agent and supervisory senior resident in charge of the office in laredo and one of the missions in the particular squad i had in addition to the task force, i had the joint terrorism task force and our main mission of the joint terrorism task force was the interview of those that either surrendered themselves or were apprehended at the border to do a vetting of them to determine if there was any connection between that individual antiterrorism. could they be a potential terrorist or could they be here doing harm. personally we know the vast majority 98%, plus, were here to experience their form of the american dream. but we had to go through this vetting process. we had a joint terrorism task force that included elements of what was now the department of homeland security, border patrol agents were assigned with us. the laredo police department and fbi agents. we would do these interviews and we had a struc

evidence and i seen the evidence still coming and even after their own investigation which came from robert mueller and came out said there was no russian collusion, him and eric swalwell kept saying we know there was collusion. there was never any evidence of it and yet, somehow, newly-released perpetuated this hoax on the american people when they knew it and so this horrible double standard exists. david: congressman there's so many double standards in washington these days more than i've ever seen. i grew up in washington i've been covering it for my entire professional life. another example of that is the spat between congresswoman mace, and ocasio-cortez over whether aoc for short, ocasio-cortez, exaggerated the threat to her life on january 6. i just want to show folks a video of what another member of congress, a member from the senate side, had to endure right out front of the white house during the summer, senator rand paul and his wife, were attacked by a mob. they knocked over a policeman who was nearby. mrs. rand suggested she felt her life was in danger. i never heard a peep coming fr

weissman, former lead particular during the russia investigation working under special counsel robert mueller. these days distinguished senior fellow at the nyu school of law. and indeed, counselor, i'd like to begin with you as today was squarely in your bailiwick. what was the most effective case you heard today against the former president? >> i think there were two points that were very, very well done. one was to use the incidents in charlottesville and michigan as a precursor to what was going on. and it showed the president's knowledge of the propensity for violence and the risk of violence that led up to january 6th. and then i thought the way they dealt with the president's reaction when he knew what was going on on january 6th because that is just so telling as to what his intent was because if you think, what would an innocent president have done who suddenly was shocked by what was going on in congress, they would have of course immediately called in the national guard. they would have gone to twitter. they would have spoken publicly to quell the violence. and the fact that he did

he also served as a senior member of robert mueller's special counsel team that investigated russian interference in the 2016 election. he's now an msnbc legal analyst. and andrew, i was thinking of you on every line of this report as i went through it. and i was just making little checkmarks, question mark, is that a crime, is that a crime, is that a crime? i won't lead you, i won't lead the witness. what do you see in here that might constitute a crime? >> well, let me start by saying one thing about defense lawyers, which is there's nothing wrong with being a defense lawyer and they're necessary to our constitutional process, and starting with, you know, president john adams, supreme court justice marshall, i mean, there's a noble tradition of defense lawyers doing, you know, god's work for their clients. but in order to do that, they have to adhere to ethical standards and they also have to adhere to the criminal laws. here, what struck me was the number of leads in this story, particularly with respect to lawyers in the process, the lawyers who are willing to finally stand up to

but bill barr, when explicitly asked about whether he would terminate robert mueller at his confirmation hearing, the same situation you find yourself, he said he would not terminate him, absent "good cause." are you willing to meet the same standard of integrity that bill barr demonstrated, and will you make that same commitment to this committee that you will not terminate mr. durham absent good cause? judge garland: no, what i've said to the committee is that i need to get information about this investigation, which i do not have here. i understand that a decision has been made to keep him in place and i have absolutely no reason to doubt that that was the right decision and that he should be kept in place. but i can't go any further without learning the facts of the investigation and what the status is. sen. cruz: judge garland, with all due respect, judicial nominees sit in that chair and declined to answer just about every question senators pose, saying well, as a judge, i can't commit how i would rule on a given case, and that is appropriate. you are not nominated to be a judge in

confirmed, would you commit to publicly releasing special counsel durham's report just like the robert mueller report was made public? judge garland: senator, i am a great believer in transparency. i would have to talk with mr. durham and understand the nature of what he has been doing and the nature of the report. but i am very much committed to transparency and to explaining justice department decision-making. sen. grassley: at this point, i will not take exception to the answers you have gave me about durham, because i think you are an honorable person. they are not quite as explicit as i hoped they would be like we got from attorney general barr from the mueller investigation. but i think you have come close to satisfying me. but maybe not entirely. we are in the midst of a drug crisis, in addition to opioids, cocaine and fentanyl, fentanyl is plaguing our country. increasingly sophisticated drug trafficking organizations, both domestically and internationally tried to strip the law by changing their molecular structure. the center for disease control has found that drug overdose deaths ro

robert mueller was the new director of the fbi.e had been on the job a week when 9/11 happened and he basically said no lead goes uncovered. fast forward, in 2003, august 2003, i was promoted to supervisory special agent and later senior supervisor senior resident in charge of our office in laredo. one of our missions in particular squad i had in addition to the public corruption task force, i had the joint terrorism task force, and our main mission of the joint terrorism task force was the interview of those who are either surrendered themselves or apprehended at the border to do a begging of them to determine -- vetting -- james and todd determine if there was any connection between that individual and terrorism, nvidia potential terrorist? could they be here to do harm? we know just as james has said, the vast majority, 98%, whatever, were here to experience their form of the american dream. but we had to go through this vetting process. we had a joint terrorism task force that included elements of what is now department of home

have been willing b to do just that for his political allies and for example the special counsel robert mueller in the presidential election on multiple occasions think of the possibility off witnesses who refused to cooperate and specifically paul manafort former campaign chairman and michael flynn, national security advisor and roger stone senior campaign advisor. ultimately he would pardon all three of these individuals for variousso criminal offenses during the final weeks in office. in addition using clemency power and self-serving ways as most of those who would receivee clemency with other personal or political connections to him. that seem to be the thread rather than the crime and the .sentence. with clemency for republican members of congress, one of whom i was personally close to end nevertheless convicted of various criminal offenses ranking from bribery and insider-trading to misuse of campaign donations. his son-in-law's father am political strategist awaiting trialal on fraud charges travel wall on the us mexican border. we presume he didn't do that but we don't know that for a f

confirmed, would you commit to publicly releasing special counsel durham's report just like the robert mueller report was made public? judge garland: senator, i am a great believer in transparency. i would have to talk with mr. durham and understand the nature of what he has been doing and the nature of the report. but i am very much committed to transparency and to explaining justice department decision-making. sen. grassley: at this point, i will not take exception to the answers you have gave me about durham, because i think you are an honorable person. they are not quite as explicit as i hoped they would be like we got from attorney general barr from the mueller investigation. but i think you have come close to satisfying me. but maybe not entirely. we are in the midst of a drug crisis, in addition to opioids, cocaine and fentanyl, fentanyl is plaguing our country. increasingly sophisticated drug trafficking organizations, both domestically and internationally tried to strip the law by changing their molecular structure. the center for disease control has found that drug overdose deaths ro

first the cia director, robert mueller and then never connected the dots, nothing has changed since thecount is just really the tip of the iceberg. nothing has changed. they've put a fence around it, but in terms of getting to the root cause of how that happened, nothing. >> this is the value of an independent commission. if we can assemble it in this polarized environment we're in. don't forget, 9/11 was an external threat to the nation. we rallied behind it. we had a common enemy we needed to address. this is different. this is an internal threat and i predict you'll see political infighting who gets on the commission and how that process works, but here's the value. in addition to the truth telling and getting to the truth of an independent commission, it's as you said, taking tangible steps so that this won't happen again or less likely to happen again. let's not forget, we created dhs as a result of 9/11. we created the dni position as the result of 9/11. here's what i hope comes out of an independent commission. i hope we finally get congress to address the need for a domestic ter

the reason he was never permitted to answer question in person from robert mueller is because a lot of people around him knew he couldn't do it without lying his rear end off. it seemed like an opportunity to defend himself, but he can't take advantage of it, because he can't not lie. >> the important thing to vote, of course, is happy birthday, nicolle. [ laughter ] >> thank you. >> but it's important to remember, even in the first impeachment trial, the president never under oath, or even in writing, said that there was no quid pro quo with respect to the ukraine call. he said that to the american public, but he would not say it under oath, would not say it in an affidavit, even no written submissions from his counsel did not say that, why? because it is a crime to lie to the united states senate so his defense counsel will do the same thing that happened during the mueller investigation and during the first impeachment trial, which is to keep him off the stand. now, the democratic managers have only gone so far, because they have sent a letter, saying we're inviting you to testify,

but bill barr, when explicitly asked about whether he would terminate robert mueller at his confirmation hearing, the same situation you find yourself, he said he would not terminate him, absent "good cause." are you willing to meet the same standard of integrity that bill barr demonstrated, and will you make that same commitment to this committee that you will not terminate mr. durham absent good cause? judge garland: no, what i've said to the committee is that i need to get information about this investigation, which i do not have here. i understand that a decision has been made to keep him in place and i have absolutely no reason to doubt that that was the right decision and that he should be kept in place. but i can't go any further without learning the facts of the investigation and what the status is. sen. cruz: judge garland, with all due respect, judicial nominees sit in that chair and declined to answer just about every question senators pose, saying well, as a judge, i can't commit how i would rule on a given case, and that is appropriate. you are not nominated to be a judge in

and then he would -- michael cohen would get indicted or robert mueller would be appointed or yady yahdyiad da. but the crisis and suffering and the state leaders' effort to blame it on renewable energy, just shows how dire these infrastructure in terms of not doing the things that the climate crisis required, how exposed and vulnerable we are. >> well, and all fairly predictable too, nicole. this isn't -- this isn't something that there weren't some descriptions of needing to plan for this type of winter storm. it happened not too recently, or fairly recently. and yet nothing was done to plan for it. i mean, i'm tempted to start all the answers with what you led in with, which is if we can put a rover on mars, can't we figure out how to operate a power grid effectively in the second largest state in the nation? and i think the political ramifications of this are going to be wide. this is going to be the number one issue in the texas legislature. and it may not have been in the top 20 of only a few days ago. and i think there is a lot of questions that people throughout the state and throug

joining us, msnbc analyst andrew weitzman who worked at the justice department, lead prosecutor in robert mueller's special counsel office. claire is still here. i mean, to see that emotion and that love of country and the next attorney general is someone who feels like he owes the country something is such a -- pivot is not a strong enough word from what we just went through, where they were there ringing out every last public servant for their trespasses against i don't know what, trumpism, i guess. what an appearance today, andrew weissmann. >> nicolle, i have the exact same impression. you compare this to the former attorney general william barr, the contrast in terms of humility, in terms of a sense of giving to the country, of really approaching this as the people's lawyer, not the president's lawyer. and i don't think there's anyone who can think that that's not going to happen under attorney general garland. so in terms of those all-important signals and that personal message, it was really quite moving. but it was just a strong a contrast going from trump to biden as for us who lived in th

criminal defense and he notably represented roger stone in appealing roger stone's conviction in the robert mueller investigation. the two of them, david schoen and the headline here and politico on the upcoming arguments which again we mentioned could be as short as three or four hours by some reports. trump team to launch defense as trial barrels towards a close. they write in this piece of trump's lawyers have foreshadowed how they accept the democrats case about the violence that they played on the loop with the senate this week but they will conclude that trump bears no culpability from unleashing it and that is a month-long campaign to delegitimize the election results and incendiary results the morning of the insurrection and are protected for his first amendment right to free speech and that is from politico for some of the senators have indicated how they feel and how they likely will vote as jurors in the senate impeachment trial of the former president with just a few mins ago this is senator ted cruz of texas who tweeted this comment per he says that the trump trial arguments don't meet

fraud section, general counsel for the fbi under corrector mueller, and a lead prosecutor in robert mueller's special counsel's office. he's now an msnbc legal analyst. and award-winning historical, professor, and writer keisha m. blain, an associate professor of history at the university of pittsburgh. it is good to have you all this morning. >> jon meacham, you obviously talking about margaret shea smith, and have for years. and mccarthy and what side do these senators want to be on, and you're right. 70 years later, still a hero. columns are still written about her. her name constantly brought up as an example for all politicians. just because she stood up to a bully and thug that more caught up with after four, five years. but we doubt, all of us doubt that donald trump will be convicted in the end. though he certainly should be. any reasonable person would come to that conclusion. we know this, people like rick scott who say this is vindictive after saying everything. this is vindictive against donald trump. lindsey graham claiming after watching cop killers terrorize members of the unit

barr, who very ably represented donald trump and distorted the findings of the one-time friend, robert muellerunted michael cohen, who ended up in prison because he represented donald trump so well in the case involving hush money and stormy daniels. so, this was team seven, and that's what team seven looked like, but when you look at that republican vote, it could have been linus and charlie brown. they don't care. this is a story art republican subservience. it's also always going to be the day that the gop broke up with the constitution. one of the most compelling parts of the case made by house impeachment lead manager jamie raskin and his colleagues was that the actual text of the constitution holds for a remedy precisely like what is on the table and that the republicans are staring at their toes and fidgeting in their seats and doing paperwork instead of looking at what they enabled, instead of looking at what they ushered in is the story. it is the twin headline with retraumatizing and reliving the attack on the capitol. i think the other headline out of that vote is that chuck cooper,