Maybe she could understand it this way: "Would it be a removable offense for a Senator currently running for president to vote to remove the current president in this trial, when that Senator's personal political position might be thereby enhanced, but they ALSO thought it was in the best interest of the country to vote for removal?" If Haberman's answer is Yes, then Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, and the other one should be removed themselves if they vote to remove POTUS.
If her answer is "No", then POTUS should be immediately acquitted.
Dems and their mouthpieces have to pretend not to know many many things, even an argument she heard an hour before.
She's intentionally dense.
Maybe she could understand it this way: "Would it be a removable offense for a Senator currently running for president to vote to remove the current president in this trial, when that Senator's personal political position might be thereby enhanced, but they ALSO thought it was in the best interest of the country to vote for removal?" If Haberman's answer is Yes, then Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, and the other one should be removed themselves if they vote to remove POTUS. If her answer is "No", then POTUS should be immediately acquitted.
Dems and their mouthpieces have to pretend not to know many many things, even an argument she heard an hour before.
She probably wrote Schitt's "transcript" reading.