even though you know they have no firsthand information, but you don t call for the people at the top of the food chain. you want firsthand info, but you don t want to question bolton. you don t want pompeo. you don t want mulvaney. bolton called it a drug deal. that s not firsthand information. you say nothing. whose lawyer said he had personal knowledge about many relevant meetings and conversations? bolton s lawyer did. you don t want the secretary of state mike pompeo? you don t want the energy secretary rick perry, the chief of staff mick mulvaney, and of course the man in the middle, the man everybody talks about but you won t talk to, rudy giuliani. do you understand the hypocrisy at play here? all of them are defying subpoenas for either documents or testimony at the white house s direction. why? why would this president keep his inner circle from testifying robustly in his defense?
relevant meetings and conversations? bolton s lawyer did. you don t want the secretary of state mike pompeo? you don t want the energy secretary rick perry, the chief of staff mick mulvaney, and of course the man in the middle, the man everybody talks about but you won t talk to, rudy giuliani. do you understand the hypocrisy at play here? all of them are defying subpoenas for either documents or testimony at the white house s direction. why? why would this president keep his inner circle from testifying robustly in his defense? if this is all just a witch hunt. if it was all perfect, they should be able to come in and convincingly just dispose of all of this. let me cover something else. anyone beneath them who says otherwise could, absent hard corroboration of their contradiction, be dismissed. vindman didn t know. he was wrong. volker s wrong. sondland s wrong. they got it wrong. i m in charge. this is what i wanted them to do.