knew about the president and ukraine was that the president was conditioning a white house meeting on the basis of the ukrainians investigating the bidens. so everything else he was hearing was the security assistance was also on the line. i use the example with the ambassador that if someone walked into the hearing room wearing rain boots or rain jacket and umbrella that had water on it, you don't need to have direct knowledge and look outside the window to see that it's raining. you can deduce or have a presumption that it's raining. so the circumstantial evidence is very, very strong.r >> shannon: we are talking about impeachment, something that is very divisive for the country. a that is an issue, laying a foundation of proof that convinces not only a bipartisann membership group, which i'm hoping -- i think you guys arey helping to get there in congress, but the american people as well. jim jordan said today, as he continues to say whenever he is asked about this and gets the part of the microphones, he said the facts have not changed. there was no announcement of an investigation, there was nothing that ukraine did in advance of getting the aid and the conditions for the meetings and