house correspondent is reporting there s a possibility that she may quit her job at the state department, she s still employed there, so that she can testify because the white house could block her from testifying. you know what s interesting to me, she possibly has to quit her job to bea able to offer information that she wants to tell congress, that s extraordinary, one, to your point. two, what was interesting in yesterday s indictment that according to the allegations, that both of these men, parness and fruman got direction from on you or more government officials. so the ukrainian government officials are directing this effort to toss the ambassador. i thought that was very interesting yesterday. this is going all the way back to the ukrainian government. to the point dave was making, when you look at the exposure, potential criminal exposure for rudy giuliani, is he doing the bidding here of certain ukrainian government officials that would lead to a violation of the foreign a
presidential authority? the composition of this court seems not to have that much of an appetite to slow down in social areas and overturn things. that goes back to the point dave was making. what does robert want his legacy to be? does he want the roberts court to be the court that turns back the clock on gay rights, turns back the clock in the united states of america on the right of a woman to get a safe and legal abortion? does he want that? he has the opportunity. i think he s got the votes to do a lot of those things. yeah. so the question is, will he side with the four less conservative justices to stop the review of some of these cases, or will he open the gates and decide that his court will be the court that will be talked about for decades? i frankly think it would politically probably benefit my party if he did that. it is not something i wish for. i think it d be terrible for this country. think about all the married gay