cut out of a lot of decisions and process as well. it all factors into all of this, let's be honest, at this moment. but with sondland saying he delivered the message about a quid pro quo in september, do you think this makes it more or less necessary to hear from the whistleblower directly as republicans continue to call for? >> yeah, as we get each piece of if you evidence and each piece of testimony from individuals who had direct first-hand information, first-hand knowledge of the various components of how this transpired, the relevant of what the whistleblower could actually provide in any testimony becomes less and less material and less and less relevant. the only reason that certain lawmakers. certain individuals in congress and in the white house are demanding this person not only testify but do so publicly is they want to make the story about the whistleblower. they want to throw dirt on this, throw mud on it and make this about the bias perceived real or not of the individual who raised the alarm.