Because you need to get your facts and case 100% nailed down. As literally any/every lawyer/prosecutor/professional would do. Obviously. Duh.Easily impeachable ? Why is Nancy so hesitant to proceed ?
The WB complaint is mostly hearsay. Even though the court rules of evidence don't apply to impeachment, you'd of course want to get the best, most corroborated set of facts collected. So if the WB says "A told me he saw X do Y", every professional would go to A directly. If A tells you "I saw X do Y with my own eyes" that's better, more corroborated evidence.
For example, as pertains to the phone call itself, the WB's hearsay has already been largely corroborated. Because the WH transcript was produced by people who actually heard the phone call. While the transcript itself is also not direct evidence, FYI it likely would be admissible in a court pursuant to one or more exceptions to the hearsay rule (see below).
But even better than the transcript would be direct testimony from the people who were on the call.
The process of nailing this narrow set of facts down should not take very long. Unless...the WH goes back into "everything isexecutive priveleged" mode. My guess is that is what is going to happen next.
(5) Recorded Recollection. A record that:
(A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;
(B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and
(C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.
If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.
(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:
(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;
(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and
(E) the opponent does not show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
Defense spending is up how much? Broken rice bowls, my *ss. If this nonsense was remotely true, the IC would have eaten both Congress and Obama alive over the sequester....THAT broke rice bowls. So where was your Deep State then? Take your time answering.
