A deeply political question and with next months general elections ahead all sides will be vying for voters rather than resulting the cattle in question sony vaio aljazeera barcelona. The u. S. Ambassador to the European Union is next in line to testify in the ongoing impeachment inquiry against donald trump and 6 pecked at the Gordon Sunderland will be questioned about Text Messages from the u. S. Ambassador to ukraine discussing trumps effort to pressure ukraine to investigate his rival joe biden on tuesday a former Senior Adviser to u. S. Secretary of state mike pompei or was the latest person to testify Michael Mckinley was quizzed for 5 hours by house committees after abruptly resigning last week meanwhile donald trump has been asked about whether hes concerned that his former National Security adviser could testify at that impeachment inquiry its been revealed that john bolton described trumps personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani as quote a hand grenade whos going to blow everybody up i
Including ph fbiincludefiona hir senior advisor, Michael Mckinsey and the president s ambassador to the european union, gordon sondland. More interviews are scheduled for next week. Lets bring in Dan Henninger, Kyle Peterson and kim strassel. Dan, what did we learn this week from the impeachment proceedings and a lets start with the witnesses on capitol hill. Well, we pretty much learned what the democrats want us to learn and what theyre handing out to the press. Again, the hearings are being held in secret. I mean, you had to love nancy pelosi, just the most hutspah saying she appreciates the support of her caucus, pursuing this the way they have in fairness. Do you think the white house considers it fair, holding the hearings in secret . All were learning is that indeed state Department Officials were upset at the idea that they were being pressed in ukraine to include an investigation of joe biden and possibility the idea that ukraine was involved somehow in the 2016 election becau
Participants raised their hands and said yes. Thats an arguable position. There are arguments for and against that. But the first question you need to answer in this as in any other policy proposal is what is this going to cost. And there simply hasnt been very much interest or exploration in this question x. So thats why were releasing the two papers were releasing today and having this panel discussion, is precisely to get a sense of what it could cost us. Not definitive, these are estimates. Maybe theyll be different. Other people have other estimates. Wed love to see them, but nobody really has offered some concrete examination of what the consequences for taxpayers would be of these proposals. And so today were going to be, were releasing two papers to look at that. The first is a look at what the current cost to taxpayers are of, under current policy. The second is what the likely under a couple different scenarios costs would be. And this is a topic that needs to be injected int
The subcommittees will presume from our recess and i want to thank the witnesses for coming today. I want to introduce the second panel. And apologize. [background sounds] i am looking for the biographies of the panels. Here we have doctor, by mispronouncing a word. The donkey. Hes an assistant from of Computer Science and director of the master science in file monies program. He was born in iran. Is now a legal permanent resident living in baltimore, maryland. He holds a phd in Computer Science. In australia and clause of the band, his wife, who he married in australia 2015, and is filed for an immigrant visa, to come to the United States is unable to come to u. S. To live with him her husband. He also has a phd she also has a phd and received a post job offer at the university of Maryland College park with funded by the National Institutes of health. However, clause of man, she is yet to obtain a visa to come and join her husband his welltodo his distinguished work in the United Stat
Before the first debate. 1 is what you needed to make in the polls. Or having a certain amount of individual donors who gave you a dollar. The purpose of that was, we wanted to make sure that there were multiple pathways to the debate stage because some people are wellknown nationally and some arent. And they deserve, but they are very talented so they deserve an opportunity. I think we have been incredibly inclusive. 20 people made the debate stage with us two debates. And the closer you get to the primaries, and caucuses, historically, we have shown that you have to make progress. So actually the voters are having input, because they are, ive spoken to so many voters who said boy, i saw soandso on the debate stage and i had given her money. It made me proud tos feel part of it. So we have given the grassroots a role. Again, a one percent polling threshold for the first two debates. A 2 polling threshold for the next debates, i would cement that is not a high bar. Again, i would submi