remarkable. what he's really challenging congress to do is take him to court and litigate whether he has to show up. congress has decided -- i should say the house has decided, it seems logical, that they don't have the time and they're not inclined to do it. and so they're simply going to keep rolling with those who will show up. and they will perhaps use the -- this obstructist behavior, this intransigen intransigence, as an element of their impeachment proceedings. should he go? absolutely, we ought to hear from him. there's an irony here, you can't complain about hearsay being adduced at the impeachment inquiry, brian, and then be the person not showing up to provide the direct evidence that they purportedly want, right? you can't have it both ways. you ought to go and tell the house what you know. i think that's a duty. >> a glaring irony indeed. i want to read you something from "the washington post." as republicans argue that most of the testimony against trump is based on faulty secondhand information, they are sewing