>> 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 doubts about whether sondland, giuliani, and mulvaney were actually representing the president or freelance to go pursue their own agendas. the gop is effectively offering up these three to be fall guys. now, chuck, this would hardly be the first white house to kind of construct, you'll forgive the phrase, a wall around the president and try to make distance between the chief executive and those who worked for him. is it a good legal strategy to indicate, identify, publicly name those who are about to spend more time with their families? >> i'm not sure it is. when you see shifting defenses, brian, it's perhaps another way of admitting there is no defense. first we heard there was no quid pro quo. then we heard the quid pro quo