That a businessman would have knowledge is limited in any when he is about to sign a transaction. But if you go after his integrity, right, if you go check. And by that he clearly meant after his public service, if you go after his military record, that President Trump was youre done. Thinking about or had in front but chuck, isnt there a high stakes problem with that, for of him the possibility of providing Security Assistance to trump and the republicans to say, because then the next question is, okay, who does know ukraine. It was similar to writing a check to someone who youre what trump said . Bolton and trump. About to send. He used that analogy very and they dont want those folks to come before congress. I absolutely agree. Im saying if there is a path to clearly to indicate that this try and point out that he has limited knowledge, thats the would be this would require path and its a narrow one. Something. If that person owed him does it ultimately work . No, it doesnt. Right.
entire premise of this about being an instrument in democracy, that there are washington domestic reelection certain jobs that you are in fact all about protecting the politics? mr. danyliuk understood that country and not the individual who is just passing through in the oval office. these investigations were and that s what this guy has pursuant to mr. giuliani s done that is permanently damaging to the fabric of this request to develop information, country. you think about, this is the to find information about burisma and the bidens. this was very well-known in part of it that makes me so distraught about the republican public. mr. giuliani had made this point party. jim mattis resignation letter, clear in several instances in george kent s closed door the beginning, in the deposition about putin and the springtime. and mr. danyliuk was aware that leader of hinge ungary that got between transactions with the ukraine. that was a problem. why can t we look voters in the and wo