re: #72 danarchy

I think this is the quote that is being referenced:

Given that the primary witness that Repubs wanted to put on the stand was Lewinsky, and that they were not shy about the desire to do so in order to further embarrass the WH by having her describe the affair, I could argue that he had a valid point.

By contrast, the witnesses that he and Senate Dems are requesting be subpoenaed are those that one would think would exonerate Trump if he’d done nothing wrong or illegal. They fit the criteria that the Repubs insist are vital to getting the “facts” of the whole mess: First-hand witnesses who listened in on the call and had direct communications with Trump both before and after.