Reading you today, you were floored by today for a whole set of different reasons. WILLIAMS: Michael Beschloss, given your passion and life`s work, you were floored and staggered along with the rest of us by what happened on January 6. So, this is an argument for the ages, not just for this particular Senate. And if he`s allowed to return to office, that this may again be the situation that we find ourselves in. And they`re underscoring that this President, during his time in office was capable of incredible violence, inciting incredible violence. But they brought the whole case today because the world was watching.Īnd it`s a foregone conclusion that this will likely end in an acquittal for the former president, but again, they are making a case for the American people, to the American people. And so they press their case, they actually made their substantive case, even though the issue to be debated was a narrow issue of procedure, whether the Senate even had the authority to try a former president under an article of impeachment. It was the widest audience they possibly could have had. sets, you had the Congress all looking forward at this. What happened here today was that you had the American people assembled around their T.V. His assault on the truth is undermining of Democratic institutions.
DOES RASKIN WEAR A YARMULKE TRIAL
You saw a trial that is going to the heart of the Trump presidency, because it raises so many issues that have been a concern these last four years. The impeachment managed last year, the House Democrats decided to charge President Trump on the Ukraine pressure scheme, deliberately decided to keep their case narrow and specific to one instance that they thought was most provable rather than a panoply of issues that this presidents for years have raised. PETER BAKER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES" CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it`s a broader look at the Trump presidency as a whole than the impeachment trial we had last year. The further away we get from it and look back at what happened on six January, does this have the capacity, Peter, conviction or acquittal, to be more damaging to what`s left of the Trump name than that first impeachment? This is, as has been said all during the day to day, one of those rare events that seems to grow in importance and emotional heft.
A dry transcript of a phone call to Ukraine, this is not, this was a national emergency.
0 kommentar(er)
