r, the Democrat bigwigs, whoever the candidate is if it's brokered is gonna be somebody who could bring together the so-called Obama coalition because that's how you can win as a Democrat. And who could do that? Right, Kamala Harris.

Now Kamala Harris's policies still look a little sketchy. She'd have to work on her policies but that's not unusual. It's not unusual to have to modify your policies toward the middle or something if you become the candidate. So do not rule out that Kamala Harris is in the strongest position already. Keep in mind that she has the second most endorsements from important Democrats and apparently that's a pretty predictive thing.

Well no I don't see anybody outside of the group of Democrats getting nominated in a brokered convention. You know anything could happen but I think that there would be a revolution in the party if somebody who was not even running got nominated. That would I think that would be an internal revolution and they couldn't survive that.

I didn't mention Bloomberg because I don't think that the party leaders feel strongly that he could win in the general election. But I think they might be able to turn Kamala Harris into a good candidate.

Well let me tell you this. What is Kamala Harris's biggest problem so far? You probably have different answers to that but I'll give you my answer. The biggest problem with Kamala Harris's campaign so far is her campaign staff in my opinion because it looks like she had been getting terrible advice, just terrible advice about how to run a campaign. What happens if you become the national candidate? If you become the national candidate suddenly you've got money but you also have the best advisors that the Democrats can come up with. Does Kamala Harris have the best advisors now? She does not, probably not even close. But if she were the candidate, if she became the candidate in a brokered convention, the fixers would get busy fixing her. She would be scrubbed up and polished by the people who are really good at it.

Now we would assume that in order for her to get the nomination she probably have to agree to let the party take a role in shaping her message and her candidacy. But I think she could do that. I think that she would be flexible enough and she's smart enough that she could learn and sort of grow with the party.

So I'm gonna stick with my original bet on Kamala Harris based on the Joel Pollak theory that if it goes to a brokered convention you're gonna end up with somebody who's not in the top four necessarily. And once you're after the top four only a few choices and only one of them has a realistic chance of getting the coalition. You could say Cory Booker but there has to be some reason that he's not getting much purchase even within the Democrats. He's just not lighting anything on fire there. So I don't know that they could change that.

Oh yeah and we heard the theory yesterday that the reason that Bloomberg might be a candidate as opposed to just putting his money into hurt Trump is that as a candidate he gets lower prices for advertising. I don't know how that works so don't take it from me. It's just something I heard on Fox News yesterday that there's something about being a candidate that gets you some economic advantages and they're pretty big ones. So maybe that's why he's running.

All right so if you've been noticing the two movies on one screen situation about impeachment over on CNN, there are a whole bunch of bombshell happenings and these new bombshell happenings on impeachment are definitely going to take this president down. It's a lot of new stuff. It's very damning for the president and he's really in trouble now. That's on CNN.

If you click over to Fox News do you know how they're covering that stuff? If they're not even covering it. I don't even know if they have an article on it. It's so uninteresting. Fox News just looked at it and said yeah. But on CNN it's the beginning of the end.

And I want to give you some of the language because this always amuses me, however CNN can make something sound like more than it is. So the basic new news if I can get this right is mostly about timeline stuff. So we know now that when the president was quoted as telling whichever one of the diplomats Sondland, he told Sondland that he didn't want any quid pro quo. But we don't know that that was after he already knew that he was going to get accused of a quid pro quo. So the president's statement to Sondland that he didn't want a quid pro quo doesn't mean what we thought it meant because he said it after somebody had already complained about a quid pro quo. So of course you're gonna say it then. So that's one of the things.

And then there's some issue about when the hold was put on the funds. And apparently the hold was officially put on right after the phone call making it look more like a quid pro quo etc.

So here are the ways that these important revelations have been described by CNN on their website. The president's claims of innocence looked even more incredulous. All right so there must be some good reasons coming because his claims of innocence are looking more incredulous. So whatever follows that statement would be something about this new information.

After the New York Times reported that Trump released the hold on Ukraine aid after he was briefed on the whistleblower report, it outlined his dealings with Ukraine. So he released the aid that literally everyone wanted him to release, everyone. But because he did it after the whistleblower thing came up that must be evidence of his guilt. But it would also be evidence that he was doing the right thing isn't it? Because can yo