[frog in a pot]

No not at this time, the best course is to end this farce either tomorrow night or Saturday.

I may have been unclear, but agree with that. A fact-finding forum without cross-examination, or oral arguments without ethical restraints can be inherently inefficient and exceedingly dangerous for the defendant.

However, Schiff is turning out to be a much better prosecutor than committee chairman and IMO will gain a vote for witnesses.

If so, it seems prudent to assume that Ciaramella's transcript either does, or will, carefully support the House argument, and Ciaramella survives a Senate deposition. IMO, the House also knows full well Bolton will support their position and views his role as not threatening. (The duration of legal entanglements for both will play right into the D's plans.)

In any event, the rhetorical question is what single supporting witness is available to the WH for response?

[rollo tomasi]

Where is Schiff's inculpatory evidence at?

As a prosecutor, he is on the same level as committee chairman, an outrageous blowhard whose hearsay, conjecture, and assumptions flow like anti-freeze. On the surface kind of sweet and appealing, but dig deeper, extremely irresponsible and deadly.

Reubublican House Intelligent managers know who the whistleblower is because they had access to the 18th witness.

Bolton is a non sequitur because again, the inculpatory evidence does not back up whatever Bolton, a extreme jaded and prejudicial witness btw, will say.

Did you watch the Intelligence Com. hearing? Republicans KNEW that Vindman leaked the call (Which he only knew part off and filled in the blanks with his own assumptions because the complaint did not align with the transcript) to the whistleblower.