policy dispute with regard to ukraine. here is one of them now. byron york writes in the washington examiner testimony how trump helped ukraine. and he goes through all the transcripts about the javelin anti-tank missiles which is lethal aid that was delivered to the ukrainians to fight back with the russian tanks. here he argues you can t dispute the president was not tougher than the previous administration. all three witnesses have said apparently it was a substantial improvement. more than just blankets which is what they were getting before. that s exactly why they needed to have public hearings rather than these private hearings. we went through the private hearings. the democrats were leaking the parts of the testimony from those private hearings that they wanted to make the president look bad. if it was a public hearing with american people watching it they would have seen ambassador taylor say the trump policy was an improvement over the obama
with ambassador taylor s testimony from last week. vindman is complaining about what you call it? outside influencers setting american foreign policy with ukraine. and taylor said there was an informal channel, as well as a formal channel. well, guess what? the president doesn t work for the state department or the nsc they work for him.pa and he sets foreign policy. these guys are upset because the president had different views on foreign policy laura: bingo. the deep state who have been screwing up our foreign policy for decades. a policy dispute does not equal an impeachable offense that s the bottom line. laura: robert, how many people call themselves chinaov experts over the last 30 years? was good of our policy toward china, or didn t see it coming down the tracks? how many experts screwed up middle east policy, orp recommended that we do certain things that ended up triggering a wave of migration across europe, unlike anything we ve ever seen before? how many experts
what you call it? outside influencers setting american foreign policy with ukraine. and taylor said there was an informal channel, as well as a formal channel. well guess what? the president doesn t work for the state department or the nsc, they work for him. and he sets foreign policy. these guys are upset because the president had different views on foreign policy laura: bingo. the deep state who have been screwing up our foreign policy for decades. a policy dispute does not equal impeachable offense, that s the bottom line. laura: robert, how many people call themselves china experts over the last 30 years? was good of our policy toward china, or didn t see it coming down the tracks? how many experts screwed up middle east policy, or recommended that we do certain things that ended up triggering a wave of migration across europe, unlike anything we ve ever seen before? how many experts get it wrong? about as many former federal prosecutors who all of a sudden are exper
anyone to set the president off? chuck schumer got into the issue of syria and was somewhat accusatory for the president for abandoning the kurds and i believe i remember the speaker sort of seconded that opinion and that that upset the president he felt he was being unfairly criticized. that was a policy dispute. as far as the insult, it was definitely coming from the president. eventually the speaker right before she laughed did accuse the president of basically doing what putin wants. neil: that was after those remarks before she left she made all of these leaps to putin. then soon afterwards i understand, soon thereafter they all left. they all left at the same time. and i thought there was a delay with humor. let me ask you this. kevin mccarthy came back later after democrats to talk to reporters to say that it was
here, here. in a meeting some mongs months later he bullied me and tried to denigrate me in the middle of a policy dispute in front of about six or seven ambassadors who were my direct reports who were 20 to 30 years my senior, he said very sarcastically dripping with contempt, ah, i remember when i, too, was a young assistant secretary. and rather than respond in words, i responded with a gesture that he pretended not to see but i m quite sure did he see. and then i absented myself, excused myself a few minutes later because i figured i better tell the secretary of state and national security adviser that their assistant secretary had just flipped off a member of the cabinet. and when i reported that, i must say that the response was more than encouraging.