House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday said that a “meltdown” on the part of President Donald Trump came after she questioned the logic of his military leadership.
At her weekly press conference, Pelosi explained the details of a meeting on Syria that took place at the White House on Wednesday.
“I also pointed out to the president I had concerns that all roads seemed to lead to Putin,” the Speaker recalled. “The Russians have been trying to get a hold in the Middle East unsuccessfully and now the president has given them an opportunity with the Kurds reaching out to them for support in Syria.”
“Then the president said, well, the reason I’m taking the troops out of Syria is because I promised in the campaign to bring the troops home,” she continued. “My question to him was, is Saudi Arabia home? Is Saudi Arabia home? Why are our troops going to Saudi Arabia if you promised to bring them home? He said, well, the Saudi Arabians are paying for it.”
Pelosi said she was taken aback.
“Really, we’re putting our troops in harm’s way for Saudi Arabia because they’re paying? It just didn’t add up,” she observed. “But what it did do is cause a melt down on the part of the president because he was unhappy with those questions.”
Watch the video below from CNN.
CNN historian lays waste to GOP defense of Trump stonewalling: ‘Largest cover-up of impeachment in history’
A presidential historian identified two key differences between President Donald Trump's impeachment trials and the two others in history -- and dismissed Republican arguments against hearing evidence as "nonsense."
Canadian-American historian Tim Naftali told CNN that Trump's impeachment trial differed greatly from its two predecessors, and knocked down GOP defenses of the president.
"There are two big, big considerations out there that the public should have in mind when they list to the debate, if they do later today," Naftali said. "One, this is the first time the president's party has ever controlled a Senate trial in the history of the United States -- it's never happened before. Either it was the other party, or it was a faction, in the case of Andrew Johnson."
WATCH: Adam Schiff blasts McConnell’s Senate impeachment rules in fiery press conference
On Tuesday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), the lead impeachment manager, condemned the impeachment trial rules laid out by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in a furious speech.
"We could see why this resolution was kept from us and from the American people. This is nothing like the process that was used in the Clinton trial," said Schiff. "It does not prescribe a process for a fair trial. And the American people desperately want to believe that the Senate will give both the president and the House of Representatives a fair trial."
"It leaves that question of whether the House will ever see these documents, whether the American people will ever see these documents to the end and only the end, with no guarantee that this material will ever be shown to the House or to the American people," said Schiff. "On the subject of witnesses, it is also a deep depar occur from Clinton, where all of the witnesses testified before the Senate trial. The issue in the Clinton trial was not whether they would testify, they had testified already. They had been interviewed already, some dozens of times. The question in the Clinton trial was, will they be recalled? Will they be required to testify again? And that question was answered in the affirmative."
CNN’s John Avlon destroys the GOP’s 5 big arguments against Trump impeachment
On CNN Tuesday, fact-checker John Avlon broke down the main arguments the GOP is making against convicting President Donald Trump.
"Presidential impeachment is a serious business, so you might expect the defense to be serious as well," said Avlon. "But unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case, judging by two documents put forward by President Trump's lawyers. They essentially represent an attempt to put Trump's twitter feed and rally speeches into legalese. Here is a look at five fact-free arguments you are likely to hear."
"One, the articles of impeachment violate the Constitution," said Avlon. "These are nonsense words and a contradiction in terms. Impeachment is written into the Constitution. Good people can disagree with the charges, process, or whether it rises to the level of removal from office, but it takes brass to argue that impeachment is unconstitutional."