hello and welcome to the five hundred and thirty eight politics podcast and welcome to the start of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry. I'm gay Landruk were planning on recording podcasts, covering the impeachment hearings each day kind of as they happen, so get ready for a lot of podcasts will see if we can keep up with the pace, but today we heard from acting UN ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor and the senior diplomat who overseas Ukraine policy, George Kent? They testified to in hearing that lasted about five and a half hours? They describe us foreign policy toward Ukraine generally and the specific events that led them to believe that President Trump was leveraging US military aid and a White House meeting to try to get you crane to investigate the we're going to dig into the details

from today's hearings in here with me. To do that are managing editor Micro, Colin how's. It going make a very good high, Galen, hey Anne also here with us from Chicago, is senior writer Amelia Thompson Devaux, who also covers the law for us at five hundred and thirty. Eight welcome to the podcast good to have you back on yeah thanks Galen great to be here. It's been a minute since smaller talk, but we've got a Other legal conundrum to dig apart at this point

Okay, we're going to have your. Let's start with you a million. What is your top line? Take away from the hearing today I mean at the risk of kind of immediately diving on the one new piece of information that came out of today's hearings. I do think one really significant development is that there is another witness who is going into a closed door deposition on Friday. He's an AIDS to Taylor and Taylor had testified that a new piece of information came out in conversation with the staffers, about a conversation that the Stafford over heard with Trump about some of these investigations. So I think that's a really significant piece of information. It also has things to be currently leading the New York Times home page right now. So I think that's the thing that's kind of the media is going to latch onto is one of the significant things that came out, but in general you know, I think Democrats kind of did what they promised they were going to do, which is that there's sort of sober

laying out this evidence. They had two witnesses who I think were both pretty successful at the story of the Ukraine saga as they side I would say I think Taylor is probably a little bit better of a storyteller and was a little bit more compelling in the way he talked, but they were, they were both fairly effective and it seems like Democrats are, you know really just trying to lay out this massive amount of evidence that they've gathered and then, of course, what we saw from Republicans was really digging in and throwing a number of different to which is of trump at the witnesses and we're going to dig into those defenses a little bit more but Michael, was your top line. Take away yeah.

Amelia kinda hit it there at the end. To me, the big take away here was the calm, sober tone of the hearings in general, especially on the part, the chef, the chairman and Democrats, if you're in the White House or you're on the GOP side of the aisle, you want this inquiry to be viewed as part of sin and nothing more and so the more that the hearings and the investigation are calm and fact driven and sober. I think the better it is for for Democrats, and I think at least on day, one for most part they passed. That test. I mean in fact, on the republican side as well. There could have been much more of a circus right. They could have tried to shut down the hearings or something like that, and there was some back and forth and pauses in the hearings along the way. But there was nothing super drum. Make any attempts to shut things down or walk out, or anything like that. There aren't too many big

stunts. What there was a little bit of like parliamentary, maneuvering that delayed things by like two minutes but yeah nothing really beyond that. You know there was this really interesting moment during the Nixon Impeachment inquiry way there. Somebody in the White House was, I forgot, who said this, but they were kind of lamenting the erosion in Nixon support and referring to the televised, judiciary, hearings at the time he said you know the crazies didn't act crazy, essentially like ok, people are tuning in an expecting at least some people expecting to see. Oh partisan Democrats are witch hunt, then you know they don't have torches they're, not burning anywhere at the stake. I think that largely Democrats case and and because, as Amelia was saying, we already knew a lot of the facts that Taylor and Kent were going to lay out to me. That was the big takeaway just to soberness of it. Yet it

and I mean Republicans also, you know the they didn't really, I think, undermined the credibility of Taylor or can't you know there were certainly moments when Taylor and can't seem to little confused by questions that Republicans were asking or the even seemed a little bit. Skeptical of the questions. I may be a little even dismissive of the questions, but I think tailoring can came out of this. Looking good and sort of like the kind of credible, legitimate, non partisan diplomats that they went into the hearing looking like, and I think that's a big victory for Democrats because I was frankly expecting Republicans to maybe try to humor them a little bit more, and certainly there were some attempts to sort of say you know you guys, don't really know you're talking about you heard your information secondhand or thirdhand, but for the most part I don't think that really penetrated, and it's worth saying here that William Taylor is the current acting US ambassador to Ukraine, so he serves at the pleasure of the president.

Currently and went out of his way, along with Kent on multiple occasions to say, I'm a non partisan actor here, I'm just executing US foreign policy, etc. No and you know there were moments where in a narrow way that played to Democrats disadvantage. You know there were a few men it's where there was among swalwell with a couple other democratic representatives and Gastro Castro, where they like we're clearly trying to teach or Taylor up for like a pithy damning quiz illegal exactly right and both Taylor and Kent would not play ball. Either by answering and like Kent in particular, was like a master of it like bureaucratic language that you're like wait. What and Taylor would just say: listen, I'm here to tell you the facts as I know them nothing beyond that, and so, while Democrats didn't get like that sound bite, bumper sticker, it did, it does serve their purposes in a in a lot,

sense, although the one moment that got the closest to that is once while, while said you described this quid pro quo situation as crazy, would you also describe it as wrong and he kind of hesitated for a second like? Do I take the bay there just Taylor and then he's like? Yes, I would describe it as wrong and then went into further detail. You brought the fact that we did learn some new information today. So can we get into a little bit more of the details of what that new witness heard and what it kind of gets out in the case? Yes,

It's really interesting when Taylor is opening statement came out. You know a lot of. It was actually literally things we had seen before in his opening statement in the closed door deposition. But there was this little new piece of information, which is that Taylor had learned from this staffer that, while he was actually out at the battle friend in Ukraine, the staff for had been with samba and Gordon Silent who's. The ambassador to the e? U and is noteworthy in all of this, because he is the only witness currently who has talked about a direct link between these investigations and Trump and he's going to be testifying next week, and presumably that's going to be a pretty big day of testimony. But this staffer over heard a phone call between song, Lynton, Trump or Trump, was asking about the investigations and Simon said basically, the you know the Ukrainians are ready to go and then, after the phone call on this is all according to Taylor's opening statement. The staffer had at

someone hey! What does that term? Think about Ukraine and silence said you know what trump really cares about. Are these investigations into the bidens, and so I have to say when I first saw that in Taylor's opening statement I thought you know well that could be really significant, but like really, this would be significant if we heard it from this staffer, because one of the criticisms that we heard over and over and over again today, in the hearing is well it Taylor in can didn't talk to the president. They don't know. What's in the president's mind, you know they can't draw this direct connection between the investigations and

trump, and so you know to hear this filter through Taylor. It seems like ok, this is this is potentially big, but also it's going to get subjected to that kind of criticism. But then it came out that this staffer David Holmes is apparently going to give a closed door deposition on Friday, and so it seems conceivable that you know we could see the transcript of his deposition. Eventually he might even testify publicly and that's a big deal just because of how few of the witnesses sort of have testimony that directly bears on Trump's role here you know, there's a ton of circumstantial evidence and we heard a lot of that today, but the more people who can speak to Trump actually being connected to the call for the investigations on wanting the investigations. That's very good for the Democrats, so I think that was a fairly significant thing to come out of today's hearings,

Yes, can we talk about this? For a second, I was a little flummoxed by this particular GOP line of defense. I actually thought Republicans, you know the facts really aren't on their side here, as we know them, and I thought they had. I thought they had all pretty successful lines of defense one was Trump was, great about you. In election interference. Argument. Amelia said this before, just because it's so hard to prove motive, I think that's at least sort of, like rhetorically, useful, right and then another line of defense that they use that Amelia was just getting out was all this hearsay have you saw what Trump did or knew what Trump did first hand that kind of works, hey, but as Amelia just said, you know when the staffer testified when someone eventually testifies. Isn't that defense going to fall apart I guess we don't know. What's on Lynn will say: well, we kind of

well, we already sort of said he thinks there was a quid pro quote. So I don't I don't know what did you make of that? Well, so I think there is, you know if you're a Republican, I think you do have potentially reason to at sign land. You know what he's saying is: definitely not good for Trump he's, not the kind star witness that Taylor and Ankent are in that he has not seemed incredibly eager to throw Trump Administration under the bus, I mean he had to come back and amend his testimony to say that he sort of did communicate to the Ukrainians that the aid was probably not going to be released unless they publicly committed to the investigations after having initially not said that in his first round of testimony. So you know this is a guy who hasn't seemed super willing to

you know really like cooperate with the Democrats, give the Democrats what they want, but in a bigger sense I do think it is a short sighted strategy in so far as it relies on not having more witnesses come out like potentially this staffer, who can talk to you know Trump actually calling for these invest. Cations when it comes to the noon news that we learned about today's visit via the staffer over here and Trump's conversation with someone on the telephone. How much does it? May or whether or not these hearings make news in the sense that this is uh piece of evidence that we didn't hear before versus how much of it as you litigating things that have either already been leaked to the press or came out because they already released the transcripts of the depositions. Well that's kind of a tough question to answer. On the one hand, you might say just given the kind of inherent incentive of the media that the

for these hearings can make news new news that that needs to have and for them to really break through, be successful and potentially change public opinion. You know we're getting at this before big headline on the washing post right now. New testimony ties trump more directly to you cram pressure right. That's like a that's a reference to that new news that came out of today, New York Times Impeachment witness sites new evidence of trump our campaign on Ukraine, so I do think them the more no Two things we learn. Is hearings. The more impact folder, the hearings are likely to be all else being equal, but even if this new bit of evidence hadn't come out, I still think most media outlets would be leading with some headline really big about the hearings. What would that headline say

absence of this new evidence that I'm not sure, but it probably would be great for Trump still. So I don't know it's a it's a tricky line as someone who has been kind of immersed in all of these depositions in a closed door testimony. I didn't hear a lot today that was new to me, but I would imagine that most people have not kind of waited into the thousands of pages that the Democrats have released over the past week, and I would imagine you know if you're just tuning in and watching this and you're, not that familiar with the background that a lot of what you would hear you know absent. The new staff would still you know. Potentially people be pretty shocking and that's actually a great point and and that something we don't know yet, but like how many people tuned in to impeach met today for the first time or how many people will tune in to impeach Matt over the next couple weeks. For the first time I we don't really know that. Yet I think that's something that that'll be interesting to watch all right. So it's

a little bit more about the content of the hearing today, but before we do that, today's podcast is brought to you by Netsuite are your numbers, you don't know your business, but the problem. Growing businesses have keeps them from knowing their numbers. Is there hodgepodge of business systems? They have one system for accounting, another for sales for inventory and so on. It's just a big, inefficient mess, taking up too much time in too many resources and that hurts the bottom line. Introducing Netsuite by Oracle the Business management software that handles every aspect of your business in an easy to use cloud platform, giving the visibility and control you need to grow with Netsuite. Big time money and unneeded headaches by managing sales. Finance and accounting orders and hr instantly right from your desktop or phone My netsuite is the world's number one cloud business system and right now,

as we is offering you valuable insights with a free guide, seven key strategies to grow your profits at next week, dot com, slash five, three, eight! That's next week, dot com, slash five three eight! The number is not the letters to download your free guide, seven key strategies to grow your profits next week, dot five hundred and thirty eight alright we're back, and I want to dig into the arguments that we heard from Democrats and Republicans today is to you Amelia according the constitution right. This is what we're going off of in all of these hearings, the President vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment. For and conviction of he's in bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors we've probably heard that or we talked about it before on this podcast did Democrats do anything today to prove that treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Well, I mean the first thing I think, is it's not clear what a high crime

demeanor necessarily is so you know do. I think Democrats have started laying out a case for specific impeachable offenses. No, not really, and that's probably not something- that's going to happen in a kind of concerted way into we get to the Judiciary Committee, which will actually be drafting the articles of impeachment. But do I think, Democrats started sort of laying out a case that Trump was behind this foreign policy? Pushes you know that was going to benefit him politically and was counter to the interests of the United States? Yes, the Democrats definitely started to make that case through canned and. Taylor's testimony? You know that's obviously going to be really key, whether this turns into an impeachment article that is abusive power or bribery or extortion. You know the Democrats seem to be kind of moving away from using the specific words quid pro quo and they're kind of you trying to use more colloquial language

but it's all sort of it's all sort of the same nexus of stuff like this idea. That Trump is the President he's supposed to be doing things that advance the national interest. The Democrats cases he was. He was bending through Giuliani and other people, the mechanism of the US government to help him politically in a way that hurt the country an hurt, the US interest hurting Ukraine, which was this vulnerable country. That was in need of US security, aide and sort of. Is this important bulwark against Russia in Europe? You know that's the case. The Democrats have to be making, and they definitely started to do that today make a we know from looking at polling that Americans in general, Republicans and Democrats alike. Don't care that much about foreign policy so did Democrats frame their arguments today in foreign deterrence primarily or was it more about like corruption or national security, and do you think that will make a difference in the end? Yeah, that's a tough one.

I think it was mostly farm policy. There was a lot of talk about the the kind of power Well, let's position these actions put Ukraine in and just everything from a foreign policy standpoint that was riding I'm that I'm and therefore these actions were wrong, like that. That was a kind of implicit push behind behind what Democrats and largely what tailoring can't we're saying. I tend not to think most Americans make their minds up about political issues that in that way where it's like. Oh, I know, care about farm policy and therefore this alleged crime. Am or alleged improper behavior, because it involves foreign policy. I don't care about. I think Americans care about abusive.

Or whether that abuse of power has to do with domestic issues, are foreign policy issues, I think, a secondary, and it's more like what was the it's a power: what is the evidence for it? And you know what like it's not like a one plus one equals two, it's more just like a a kind of holistic impression Although on the live blog, I think at the beginning we were saying this is very foreign policy heavy. You he's rooting reading this in the cold war and talking about US policy towards Russia Long term US policy toward Ukraine long term. Are they framing it? As this president, like uniquely, did something corrupt and that's its case hinges on verses. Like did we put Ukraine and of all our position, because maybe Americans don't care whether or not you crane is in a vulnerable position, see, I think I mean here's what I really think, but that, but I think the Where are all the really bad foreign policy implications of the these maneuvers, necessary because, in order to care about the

you said power you have to feel get serious and that it had bad repercussions right, but about it, you know it's not like it's not like a Things really have to care about the future of Ukraine to care about abuse of power. Do I think that, like all the Democrats who support impeachment now are like really really concerned about the future, crane? No, not really right, Amelia like it, it's more like a threshold issue than like a right yeah. I think that's and that's why? I think Taylor was a more effective witness than can't wasn't a lot of ways, because can't was the one where during the live like you know, can't he starts with this opening statement that you know all about your political history, and I was just like oh man if this is what this is going to be. That Democrats have real stepped in it, and then Taylor started talking, and he was of laying things out much more clearly, and I do think you're right MIKE that just sort of uh stand. Why Democrats think what Trump did is an abuse of power,

You have to understand. Trump's relationship with the president of Ukraine is not a relationship between equals. Ukraine is a much weaker country than we are and they're a country at war with a you know, a very powerful adversary, and they really wanted. The security assistance and Zalenski also is this new leader who really could have used the boost and the legitimacy and the credibility that would have come from a White House meeting with Trump and sort of when you start to understand that back story. I think for someone who doesn't think about diplomacy doesn't really understand sort of US relationships, it might kind of seem like well, you know. Maybe this is just how these things work. Maybe this is just leverage and you know that's how diplomacy is, and so I think, to sort of have people understand, like first of all, from career dip,

that's like no, this isn't normal, but is not normal for the President of the United States to condition security aid on an investigation of a political rival. You know that's something a lot of career diplomats have said so far, but I think it's like an important sort of again threshold and then to really emphasize why this was such a tough situation for Ukraine and why you know if all of this stuff happened, it really was Trump and his allies. Taking advantage of this, this vulnerable ally of the? U S, and so I think all that is necessary. I don't see how the Democrats get around talking about that and making a, at clear, but you do have to talk about it in very kind of simple and vivid language, and I think Taylor in General was better at doing that. Then yeah, you need voters to think oh Trump abused his power

over here and had bad foreign policy repercussions. You don't need voters to think. Oh, my god, this affected the future of Ukraine in Xy and z, ace right. You just need them to have that sort of impressionistic this just had serious consequences and that's it, but also reason that you laid out there Amelia sounds like Democrats have to do a decent amount of work to bring the public along with them, as they tell the story about why Ukraine is significant I Russia is significant, etc. So what did Republicans do to try to never mind that what was that we talked about one response from Republicans today. What were some of the

yeah so another one that we heard a fair amount about. Was this idea of well, you know Trump actually may have had legitimate reasons for wanting the Ukraine to investigate two thousand and sixteen election interference, or to investigate Hunter Biden's presence on this ukrainian Energy Companies Board and sort of drilling in to some of Trump's potential justifications there and they did that for a while. I think the challenge with that is that, on the one hand, as I think I I've said and written you know, I think frankly, freaked Republicans the closer they can get to something like Trump had good intentions and he was trying to go after Kerr Shin you know, I think like when you see the evidence for that, it's not good, but it is harder to prove what was happening. Sort of like like what trumps intentions were. So that seems like it's just potentially harder for

Kratz, to argue against, on the other hand, to make these arguments about Ukraine having you know, potentially interfered in the twenty sixteen election. You know that's a conspiracy theory that is pretty much on proven and you have to go pretty far down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole in order to make that case, and that was one thing that I think you know was especially difficult for it, the Republicans staffer, who led off their questioning. He was just really hard to follow at many points, but I think also you know even for someone like Devin Newness, you know if you, if you were really up with these conspiracy theories than like what they're saying, makes a lot of

and, if you don't have that background, I think it it can be just totally illegible yeah that that there was a ton of that a ton of like just invoking these bars words from Fox NEWS are bright part, conspiracy theories and as a meal. I says, if you're not eyeball, deep in that stuff, you're sort of like we what the more like generic and maybe workable defense, which actually make sense, but at least kind of rhetorically works is Ukraine never announced an investigation of the it and the military aid was given to them. I thought Republicans were pretty successful in, for example, comparing the Trump administration's record of hell. In Ukraine First Obama's right because there were real real differences in how far the trump. Message, as guidelines of that was, Obama gave you clean blankets and Trump gave you crane, javelin, defense and

right, right guns that can blow up tanks etc. Exactly that at least rhetorically is. It sounds good right, I can imagine someone's conservative uncle saying to them at the dinner table. Listen There was no investigation. The aid got there. What's the big deal, an attempted quid pro quo is not a quid pro quo right right and, like maybe let's say it that way, but yeah yeah yeah. I think it would just be like you don't have like. I think that sort of fits more into this, like you, don't have proof that this was a serious quid pro quo, which you know Sorry to interrupt my gut- and I think this fits into another like mine of defense- that we heard today, which was a little harder for Democrats to argue against, is sort of, like the Lynskey himself said that this wasn't a quid pro quo and the Ukrainians. You know they're not out there complaining about this and saying that Trump did a bad thing

so you know Trump didn't do a bad thing and obviously there are many many reasons why excellent ski would not want to crater his relationship with the president of the United States by saying publicly that he was pressured. You know he thought there was a quid pro quo and that really wouldn't make him look great at home either. But you know, I think, that sort of fits into that broader argument of the aid got really stand. You know everyone's happy now in the Ukrainians were never. You know I'm happy about this. They never complained about this to the begin. To begin with, the other comparison that they drew with the Obama administration was with buying himself saying well, Biden wanted to kill addition aid on their prosecutor investigating corruption. That's the exact same thing that Trump wanted to do. Yeah there. There are a ton of GOP lines like that which sound reasonable for about a supposed like half a second, and then you think,

Biden was doing that in exchange for legitimate US policy reasons. Trump was doing that in exchange for personal political reasons, and then right. But there are like a lot of GOP lines like that that sound good for a moment hey there was no instigation and the eight was released. Okay, great well, they'd was two days after the house got wind of the whistleblower complaint- are they connected well, we don't really know but like there are, find like that that sound good for a moment, and then you think about it or if you know the full fact pattern they fall apart. Do Americans know the fact. Pattern will have to what I mean, I'm sure a lot of Americans don't know right exactly exactly so. It's more like the media knows the full fact pattern. So, like I tend to think more than like the kind of like how good rhetorically, is this argument made in the moment in the hearing is less important than

what is the general thrust of the coverage of these hearings? What is the general tenor of each side in these hearings that I think determine, which way this goes, and I I know that you have written about this, sir, could It's just a little bit about what it would actually take to change public opinion through holding these kinds of investigatory hearings. Yes political science, research on this, I'm just the extent to which congressional hearings can road public support for the President and the IRA, political scientist, Eric Sheckler and are crying or who have done. This research have shown that in the asked lots of congressional hearings, you know really did seem to have the power to a road, a president's approval rating, sometimes quite significantly the big cabbie. Out being that you know trying,

Approval rating is just much steadier than previous presidents and Democrats. Attempts to investigate him so far haven't really had that impact. So I think you know all this with the cabbie out that Trump may be different, but I do think that there is an important lesson from this research just in that it's kind of less important, as Michael was saying to fixate on. You know what are the bomb shells that came out of this individual hearing, sort of who had the best sound bites and more to sort of take a step back and say? Okay, you know: are these hearings continuing to get media coverage? Are people still paying attention to them? What are the general lines and narratives that are coming out of them? That

sort of sticking and staying in the coverage, and you know potentially staying in people's minds because at least in the past it hasn't been. You know a single day of blockbuster testimony that has suddenly changed the way the american public thinks about a president. It's been sort of this sustained drumbeat of negative attention, that has hurt presidents, and so you know, I think it's going to be more important rather than saying. Oh did. This particular hearing seem to shift public opinion. I think it's going to be a cumulative impact if there is one and it's worth saying that five hundred and thirty eight with IP services actually to be tracking public opinion, as these hearings go forward to see if an accumulation of public hearings does change public sentiment about the president about impeachment removal, the inquiry overall. So we'll come back to that throughout our coverage as we wrap up

I have two final questions. One is first of all what comes next? What can we expect? Over the next two weeks, Amelia zero, The Democrats last night announced a bunch more hearing, so there will be one hearing on Friday with former ambassador to the Ukraine, Maria Ivanovich and then next week there are going to be believe six hearing sessions, but with eight witnesses, and then there may be more hearings after that. So it's going to be a lot more of today coming up at least in the next week, and possibly in the next couple of weeks before even this phase of impeachment inquiry is over- oh boy, and we also have a debate next week, but the other thing that I wanted to ask about is actually not related to impeachment, but something that we want to cover before we go so Mika. It looks like Deval, Patrick former governor of Massachusetts is joining. The democratic prime

race you lose? You know you lose a couple it's in the rain, one battle yeah. So what is the abridged version of Deval Patrick's theory of the case for how he would become the democratic nominee? Oh god, I'm ok, so I think his theory is something like I can give you Biden but younger budaj but older Warren, but safer in the general election. You know we are seeing, I think, among democratic elites and democratic donors. This agita around the current crop of top tier democrats. Okay, great use of accident it is, though, that is what it is like. You know, okay, so like

in Warren booted Judge Sanders reportedly down. Product owners, at least some democratic donors. Is that Biden is too weak. Essentially electorally, maybe his maybe is it an issue. His fund raising hasn't been that impressive Warren is too far left to win a general election and Buddha judge as you know, young and inexperienced right so like Sanders, obviously is too far left two from these donuts point. And so what you're seeing is, I think enough of these done feel this way that there talking amongst themselves and pushing the ball Patrick we've seen reports of Michael Bloomberg, we've seen reports of Eric holder, recent reports of Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton yeah Hillary Clinton, you know to get in the race and there are two ways to look at this. On the one hand, you dismiss? These donors are sort of out of touch too in love

if their own sort of pondati sense of the World Demi Voters really like their choices, polls show the vast majority of Matic voters are either satisfy. Or enthusia the about their choices. You know out of word level relative to past primary campaigns right or at least tide, with, like two thousand and eight, which was which was the high point or or maybe you say you know what these these are party insiders who have a really good sense of of how primaries work, and how can it work and yeah by Dennis in an overwhelming frontrunner, I think a lot of this frankly comes down to fear about Warren Warren is, you know a kind of per second in the polls to buy in Overall, leads in many polls of Iowa, so so these donors are looking. Calendar and seeing, if

wins, Iowa and New Hampshire. This thing could be over or it really get started and then I'm worried me democratic donor on board that she's going to the general election? Maybe I'm worried that she's going to some of my money in in attacks 'cause, I'm a rich, you know whatever. Well, the other thing too, that you see reported is that well, why would is donors, then just rally around Biden and you've seen reporting. They've been in the room with him, and they don't necessarily see him as having the staying power required and so the basically, what you're saying is that Duval Patrick Theory of the case is that the democratic insiders are yeah, I think that's right, and he thinks basically that, like there's a Goldilocks opportunity here, where you can kind of square the difference between between these different weaknesses as seen from democratic donors and that in the current top tier and then look it's like to get to get more transaction in. He thinks

ok, I can do well in neighboring New Hampshire, New Hampshire. We know from him read that that sort of people from that region tend to outperform in the New Hampshire primary then, maybe I can rally some of the black vote behind me in South Carolina and then I'm off to the races, there's just no, no real evidence of that, and- and I think donors are under rating strength. I think by we some real flaws as a candidate. I think the chances Are are no better than fifty fifty that he wins the nomination but biting leads in national polls. He So when I lay could still win New Hampshire, he leads in the leads in South Carolina anyway? I'm ranting. Sorry all right well, I'll see what happens anyway. Listeners you weren't likely to see former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick announced his candidacy. This week is the word on the street or the reports that we've seen is that he's been telling friends he plans,

on and may release sent a video distributors bear thing like that, all right, that's it for the ball, Patrick, a million! Thank you so much for joining us today to cover the opening acts of these public impeachment hearings now? It was a pleasure, I'm sure there are many more in store. Let's do it again. I came from a day and then Tuesday and Wednesday, and then Thursday it'll be fun MIKE. I thank you for joining us. My pleasure my name is Galen droop Toni Chau is in the control. Room are in turn, is Jay, Carlo. You can get in touch by emailing us at podcasts at five hundred and thirty eight com. You can also, of course, treated us with question. Comments, if you're a fan of the show, leave us a rating or review in Apple podcast store, tell someone about us thanks for listening and we'll