> i agree that it's more details on the time"> > i agree that it's more details on the time" property="og:description"> > i agree that it's more details on the time">
its backup saying we passed a law. you can't just do this on the fly and say "no." what else are we learning. >> i agree that it's more details on the time line. when it comes to raising more questions, i mean, it's just another reminder of the fact that democrats still don't have first-hand knowledge from mulvaney or from the omb director who actually made that direction to hold the aid and why he did so. we know that it was unusual and unorthodox and testimony has shown that omb took this decision out of the hands of a career employee, put it in the hands of a political person. but we heard testimony, people say they believe it was sort of leverage on this investigation in ukraine. but we haven't heard from people like mick mulvaney who actually were -- he was the one who directed the aid be held or the omb director. >> the president said in a tweet this morning he would love for these people to testify. >> so would democrats. >> it's right there on the internet. >> of course he doesn't want