(01-21-2020, 07:02 PM)jj82284 Wrote:

(01-21-2020, 06:09 PM)Gabe Wrote: JJ, I know you're itching to use the time turner reference, so I applaud your discipline and restraint. 

WH lawyers were in court fighting against congressional subpoenas, FYI.

I'd argue that the Ukrainians not knowing aid was officially held up by OMB is a moot point - one that has zero bearing on whether or not the president used his office to solicit foreign aid in US domestic election processes. I'd also argue that a case for bribery would be much more conceivable if they did know. But, as you point out, all we have is the transcript and nothing credible saying one way or the other.  

FWIW, I've heard law professors say you can indict a sandwich if you have enough circumstantial evidence. 

FWIWWWWWW - I don't care for Biden. I do care for witness testimony (re: bolded question)

The statement of the ukrainian president....  did the law professors explain what exculpatory means?

---

(01-21-2020, 07:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: Even if they went to court to compel the testimony, and won after a reasonable amount of time, and got the testimony, there's no guarantee that the Senate would admit the testimony that they thought the testimony was politically inconvenient.

Who are the ultimate arbiters in a democratic republic?

(01-21-2020, 07:07 PM)jj82284 Wrote:

(01-21-2020, 05:54 PM)Gabe Wrote: I believe you're correct, but Volker (who was on the call) confirmed everything in the whistleblower doc...prior to being slandered in the media.

No he didnt. 

The transcript of the call itself negates the major claims of the whistleblower.  

Please cite the parts of volkers testimony that override the factual evidence that defense aid was never mentioned on the phone call ( not 8 times).