i've done cases where you're asking witnesses about things that happened three, four monye ago. this is three, four months ago. and now look at pattern with sondland, who has been caught in a pattern of inconsistencies. they all break the same way. he forgets about things that would hurt the president. he omits th s this this restaur call that is really damaging to the president. he forgets initially that there was a quid pro quo, then he has to go back and supplement his testimony and say, actually, there was a quid pro quo. itty bitty detail there, i proposed it directly. even a little thing like, i didn't realize that burisma was connected to the bidens. he's been contradicted on that by various other witnesses. he's only fudgie ining the trut away. >> as you're laying it out, that adds to that there is talk that he could come before the committee and plead the fifth. what are the chances of that happening? >> i don't think it's likely, but i think he needs to think hard about it. because he's got potential exposure here. "a," for perjury. if his testimony has been shown to b