serious as the possibility of removing and undoing a legal election. my argument is if you're going to do this, do it right. make sure that all of the information of that whistle-blower is confirmed before you even do something like this. >> i've got some ideas on this. let's get the other guys in. susan, let's bring you in. if the whistle-blower ultimately testifies, it seems like one of the first questions will be who are these white house officials who told him about the call and who say they were directed by the white house lawyers to remove the transcript from its proper server, correct? >> yes. this is actually one of the things i think is so damning about this document, that the whistle-blower is up front about the fact he does not have firsthand information, but he points to people who do have firsthand information. he is quite explicitly and directly and in some cases by name addressing investigators to individuals he believes has firsthand knowledge to related,