don t know ohow his staff could have been caught that asleep? you know he s talking about this and you hide whatever. you neglect there s no evidence he was hiding anything. do not mean to suggest that. his staff needs to step up because they needed to step up sooner. but it s out there now. it s hard for the president to say he didn t know sondland. now actual defense. i think you re going to hear more that nothing hand, they got the aid, didn t give us the dirt. so eyear okay. the counteris when you aattempt crime, which you fail, you don t get to walk away but you don t get the death penalty eeth. does it make you concerned about a case for removal if it winds up what hear done was so bad? let s take both the abuse of
something impeach and some thought they thought it was a favor in the president s favor. it was a favor in the part of the two witnesses. bill taylor said ovand over i m simply there tell you what i saw and heard and judgments for you to make. wouldn t you say or have thought? they backed off both times. in fact i thought it looked cheap when jordan said i can t believe they thought you were the best they have out of the box. neither of you know anything first-hand. how bag deal? that s a substantive point and a valid one for the republicans to make. they have very little ground to stand on to attack these gentleman. also because, particularly in the case of taylor, he is backed up by a contemporaneous record. hand written notes and the text messages he sent at the time.
i know there are a lot of speeches about how the process is not good. we re on the road to impeachment or not but we re not going to get off the road and for all the talk about witness withes and t rights, there was a big question that came up and i think it ser the key to what happens going forward. let s bring in our republican from oklahoma. good to be back on with you. glrs i was listening very closely to mr. jordan. when talk to him, tell him please come home, come home, brother jordan. and he s saying these guys don t have direct knowledge. you re good guys but you don t have direct knowledge. you can know what we need? you ve got to get mulvaney, pompeo and bolton. the guys who dealt with the president directly who know the whole situation, who were at the top of the food chain, have them come in, tell the democrats what
power with respect to the ukrain and ambassador. you were committing a crime but you didn t complete the crime. as you know the withholding of aid when congressionally mandated remember it was withheld from early july until september 11th, several days after the white house learned that congress was going to look into this. let me give you an analogy. if somebody is abusing their spouse for months and then when they hear the police cars coming they stop and say but i ve stopped. that is no defense. a crime is not defined by successful completion. and this crime, was without question in an undisputed way ongoing. the republicans are saying the ambassador as the absolult power to dismiss an ambassador. yes, the president has the power to dismiss an ambassador. but as you know and american kz figure out power is power and
how they sustain a meaningful defense of this president without the people who are being kept from the committee. they need mulvaney. they need to have pompeo and they need to have have bolton for people to sit down and say they re wrong about what this president wanted and what he was willing to do. don t you think at some point they re go having to to rely on the people they re holding backing? i don t think there s a lot of doubt that the president gave the order to suspend military aid. the alternative is mulvaney over a slice of pizza decidedium are going to stop aid to ukrain. it s absurd on the face of it and all kinds of circumstantial evidence the president ordered this. john bolton would be an interesting witness. the person i would like to hear from and had whole half of the story that has not been told to the american people is what the heck rudy giuliani was doing in