Articles

White House Sends Letter To Democrats Demanding They ‘Abandon’ Impeachment | MTP Daily | MSNBC


MAKE IT APART OF THE TOP OF THE SHOW, IT IS NEWS TODAY THAT SHOW, IT IS NEWS TODAY THAT PEOPLE ARE CHOOSING NOT TO FOCUS PEOPLE ARE CHOOSING NOT TO FOCUS ON. ON. KRISTIN WELL KERKER, LET’S FOCUS KRISTIN WELL KERKER, LET’S FOCUS THIS LETTER THE WHITE HOUSE THIS LETTER THE WHITE HOUSE SENT. SENT. WE’VE BEEN WAITING ON IT FOR A WE’VE BEEN WAITING ON IT FOR A WEEK NOW. WEEK NOW. THEY’VE BEEN PREPAREING — I THEY’VE BEEN PREPAREING — I THINK YOU’VE BEEN ON THIS THINK YOU’VE BEEN ON THIS PROGRAM AT THE VERY HOUR SAYING, PROGRAM AT THE VERY HOUR SAYING, ANY MINUTE NOW. ANY MINUTE NOW. NOW THEY’RE HERE. NOW THEY’RE HERE. WHAT TOOK THEM SO LONG? WHAT TOOK THEM SO LONG?>>THAT’S A REALLY GOOD>>THAT’S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION. QUESTION. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT INSIDE AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT INSIDE THE ADMINISTRATION, THERE WAS A THE ADMINISTRATION, THERE WAS A SENSE OF, WHAT IS TAKING SO SENSE OF, WHAT IS TAKING SO LONG? LONG? LET’S GET THIS LETTER OUT. LET’S GET THIS LETTER OUT. BROADLY SPEAKING, CHUCK, THIS IS BROADLY SPEAKING, CHUCK, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE WHITE HOUSE’S ESSENTIALLY THE WHITE HOUSE’S ARGUMENT FOR WHY THEY ARE NOT ARGUMENT FOR WHY THEY ARE NOT GOING TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS GOING TO COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS CONGRESS. CONGRESS. SO, YOU COULD MAKE THE CASE THAT SO, YOU COULD MAKE THE CASE THAT THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY I WAS DOTTED AND EVERY T EVERY I WAS DOTTED AND EVERY T WAS CROSSED. WAS CROSSED. LET ME JUST GIVE YOU SOME OF THE LET ME JUST GIVE YOU SOME OF THE TOP LINES HERE. TOP LINES HERE. ONE OF THE HEADLINES IS THAT ONE OF THE HEADLINES IS THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO ARGUE THAT, THEY ARE TRYING TO ARGUE THAT, QUOTE, YOUR INQUIRY IS QUOTE, YOUR INQUIRY IS CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID AND CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID AND VIOLATES BASIC DUE PROCESS VIOLATES BASIC DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. RIGHTS. AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. THAT SPEAKS TO THEIR ARGUMENT THAT SPEAKS TO THEIR ARGUMENT THAT THE HOUSE NEEDS TO HOLD A THAT THE HOUSE NEEDS TO HOLD A FULL VOTE BEFORE OPENING AN FULL VOTE BEFORE OPENING AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, CHUCK, OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, CHUCK, THERE’S NOTHING IN THE THERE’S NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT REQUIRES THE CONSTITUTION THAT REQUIRES THE HOUSE HOLDS A VOTE IN ORDER TO HOUSE HOLDS A VOTE IN ORDER TO OPEN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. OPEN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. HOWEVER, OF COURSE, IN THE PAST, HOWEVER, OF COURSE, IN THE PAST, WE HAVE SEEN THAT HAPPEN. WE HAVE SEEN THAT HAPPEN. THE WHITE HOUSE ALSO ARGUING, THE WHITE HOUSE ALSO ARGUING, THE INVALID IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY THE INVALID IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY SEEKS TO REVERSE THE ELECTION OF SEEKS TO REVERSE THE ELECTION OF 2016 AND INFLUENCE THE ELECTION 2016 AND INFLUENCE THE ELECTION OF 2020. OF 2020. THIS IS AN ARGUE THAMENT IMENT T THIS IS AN ARGUE THAMENT IMENT T HEARD QUITE A BIT HERE. HEARD QUITE A BIT HERE. THE ADMINISTRATION TRYING TO THE ADMINISTRATION TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE THAT, LOOK, THE MAKE THE CASE THAT, LOOK, THE PEOPLE VOTED, LET’S HAVE THEM PEOPLE VOTED, LET’S HAVE THEM HAVE THEIR SAY IN 2020, LET’S HAVE THEIR SAY IN 2020, LET’S LET THEM DECIDE. LET THEM DECIDE. HERE’S THE TOP LINE OF THIS HERE’S THE TOP LINE OF THIS LETTER, CHUCK. LETTER, CHUCK. I WRITE ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT I WRITE ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT TRUMP IN RESPONSE TO YOUR TRUMP IN RESPONSE TO YOUR NUMEROUS LEGAL, UNSUPPORTED AND NUMEROUS LEGAL, UNSUPPORTED AND IN DEMANDS THAT YOU HAVE MADE IN DEMANDS THAT YOU HAVE MADE CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. THE UNITED STATES. AS YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE DESIGN AND AS YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTED YOUR INQUIRY IN A IMPLEMENTED YOUR INQUIRY IN A MANNER THAT VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL MANNER THAT VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND CONSTITUTIONALLY FAIRNESS AND CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED DUE PROCESS. MANDATED DUE PROCESS. NOW, I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET NOW, I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET THEM TO LAY OUT THE LEGAL THEM TO LAY OUT THE LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR DAYS, CHUCK — ARGUMENT FOR DAYS, CHUCK –>>BY THE WAY, KRISTEN, I’M>>BY THE WAY, KRISTEN, I’M LOOKING THROUGH THIS, TOO, THIS LOOKING THROUGH THIS, TOO, THIS IS AN ELABORATE PRESS RELEASE. IS AN ELABORATE PRESS RELEASE. THEY DON’T HAVE — THEY DON’T THEY DON’T HAVE — THEY DON’T REALLY HAVE A LEGAL ARGUMENT. REALLY HAVE A LEGAL ARGUMENT. AND I THINK THEY KIND OF KNOW AND I THINK THEY KIND OF KNOW IT. IT. IT APPEARS TO BE DRESSED UP IN A IT APPEARS TO BE DRESSED UP IN A POLITICAL ARGUMENT. POLITICAL ARGUMENT. THEY DON’T HAVE ANY LEGAL THEY DON’T HAVE ANY LEGAL PRECEDENT TO POINT TO HERE THAT PRECEDENT TO POINT TO HERE THAT INDICATES ANYTHING THAT SUPPORTS INDICATES ANYTHING THAT SUPPORTS A SINGLE THING THEY’VE UTTERED. A SINGLE THING THEY’VE UTTERED.>>I THINK YOU’VE HIT THE NAIL>>I THINK YOU’VE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. ON THE HEAD. AS ONE ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL AS ONE ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL SAID EARLIER, JUST BECAUSE YOU SAID EARLIER, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DO SOMETHING DOESN’T MEAN CAN DO SOMETHING DOESN’T MEAN YOU SHOULD DO IT. YOU SHOULD DO IT. AND THAT’S EFFECTIVELY WHAT AND THAT’S EFFECTIVELY WHAT THEY’RE TRYING TO ARGUE HERE, THEY’RE TRYING TO ARGUE HERE, CHUCK, IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THEY CHUCK, IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THEY HAVE A LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT HAVE A LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT THEY’RE MAKING. THEY’RE MAKING. AND SO, THAT MAY BE PART OF THE AND SO, THAT MAY BE PART OF THE DELAY, AS WELL. DELAY, AS WELL. WE KNOW THAT THIS WAS SENT OUT WE KNOW THAT THIS WAS SENT OUT BY THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, BUT BY THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, BUT CLEARLY, THE CHALLENGE HERE IS CLEARLY, THE CHALLENGE HERE IS EXPLAINING LEGALLY WHY THEY ARE EXPLAINING LEGALLY WHY THEY ARE NOT COOPERATING. NOT COOPERATING. THEY ARE DARING HOUSE SPEAKER THEY ARE DARING HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI TO HOLD A VOTE, BUT NANCY PELOSI TO HOLD A VOTE, BUT IT’S A POLITICAL ARGUMENT THAT IT’S A POLITICAL ARGUMENT THAT THEY’RE MAKING, TO BE SURE, THEY’RE MAKING, TO BE SURE, CHUCK. CHUCK.>>.>>.>>AND THE THING IS, THEY’RE>>AND THE THING IS, THEY’RE SAYING CONGRESS HAS NO RIGHT TO SAYING CONGRESS HAS NO RIGHT TO EVER INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT. EVER INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT. THAT’S — IT JUST — THIS IS NOT THAT’S — IT JUST — THIS IS NOT A WINNING LEGAL ARGUMENT, BUT I A WINNING LEGAL ARGUMENT, BUT I GUESS THEY’RE TRYING TO MAKE A GUESS THEY’RE TRYING TO MAKE A POLITICAL ARGUMENT AND THAT’S A POLITICAL ARGUMENT AND THAT’S A WHOLE OTHER STORY. WHOLE OTHER STORY.>>THEY ARE.>>THEY ARE. AND THEY SEE THIS AS AN AND THEY SEE THIS AS AN EFFECTIVE POLITICAL STRATEGY, EFFECTIVE POLITICAL STRATEGY, CHUCK. CHUCK. REMEMBER, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE REMEMBER, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE PAST SEVERAL SEEN OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS OF INVESTIGATIONS. MONTHS OF INVESTIGATIONS. THE WHITE HOUSE EFFECTIVELY THE WHITE HOUSE EFFECTIVELY BLOCKING REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS BLOCKING REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY. AND WITNESS TESTIMONY. PRESIDENT TRUMP LASHING OUT ON PRESIDENT TRUMP LASHING OUT ON TWITTER AND EFFECTIVELY TRYING TWITTER AND EFFECTIVELY TRYING TO CAST THIS AS AN EXTENSION OF TO CAST THIS AS AN EXTENSION OF THE WITCH HUNT. THE WITCH HUNT. HE THOUGHT THAT WAS EFFECTIVE. HE THOUGHT THAT WAS EFFECTIVE. HE OBVIOUSLY THOUGHT IT WAS HE OBVIOUSLY THOUGHT IT WAS EFFECTIVE DURING THE MUELLER EFFECTIVE DURING THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, BUT A LOT OF HIS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *