There is plenty we know about America's past presidents. These men all served their country for four (or more) years in the highest office in the land and
working, very good at her job, but it would be hard to convince me that she hasn t benefitted somewhat from those associations. for her to make that claim that taylor didn t earn her position is ironic. i think that default to in her comment is something that is lost. i ve talked with so many people about this, a lot of people, white people, don t key in on that assumption that is made, oh, that it s because maria taylor is a person of color that she s being given this assignment. but you know, you and i we were babies together in news. yeah. and you and i have talked for years about this. you personally have experienced this as a black woman, as someone just speak to this. you got a full ride to journalism school and people would make assumptions about you because of this trope. yeah. you and i go back like babies and pacifiers. and i have faced this in my life many, many times. i felt like i was there as a diversity token. i was there on a full academic ride and finished
an open hearing. now, as you noted, sondland already amended his closed-door testimony once. he didn t mention anything about the july 26th phone call between trump and sondland that david holmes testified about on friday. david holmes said he heard president trump pushing for the investigations. is sondland a credible witness? if not, how can democrats rely on his testimony? well, sondland clearly didn t tell the truth in his initial testimony. i don t know why he decided to ultimately come clean about the fact they were engaged in an extortion campaign but he did so. and i think over the weekend, mr. sondland has to decide whether his primary loyalty is to america or whether his primary loyalty is to the president of the united states. it seems clear he was, in fact, talking pretty regularly, potentially with the president directly. if that was the case, he needs to explain that. ultimately this is about his
them to testify before the committee. the white house is violating the law in keeping them from the impeachment inquiry. why? they know those are the individuals who were actually getting most of the direct orders from the president and they don t want that to be on the record. so the white house can t have it both ways. the white house can t say well, you know, mick mulvaney and giuliani aren t testifying. there s a reason. the white house is prohibiting them. kent and taylor didn t say they were carrying out these, as you put it, corrupt orders. they said they heard about them and objected to them well, but, you know, that s how civil servants work. right. they get orders from the white house, often through intermediaries, in this case, it was clear that sondland was talking directly to the president and coordinating an effort among the ukraine team to tell the ukrainian president he wasn t going to get his security aid unless he started investigating the president s political opp
question. if ambassador taylor didn t actually hear the president say these things then does factor into how much weight to give his testimony? it would obviously be more useful to the democrats to hear it from somebody like john bolton or mick mulvaney who actually are in the oval office or was in the case of john bolton before he was pushed out. or left of his own accord depending on who you believe but think haven t been able to get them there refusing to testify. doesn t look like the democrats are waiting for any court action to compel them and think they have enough to go with what they ve got and may be right for a party line vote but probably won t change any republicans minds. the corollary, peter, the argument for hearsay probably has a time limit, a timer on it before that runs out. our thanks to our big three returning veterans for starting us off, phippen rucker, tamara keith, peter baker, greatly appreciated. gang, coming up for us, speaker pelosi uses that word briber