You need to get out more.
I know you likely hate FOX news - but if you could just plug your nose for a little while on this one issue alone - you could get a whole other slant on things.
You should quit making assumptions, you are apparently really bad at it. When I said most legal analysts, I meant most (including one on Fox News), including the ones that Fox and other conservative news sites are trotting out.
And, before you say that it's a whole Republican slant - I think you'll find it much more fair and balanced than any of the liberal media you're used to.
That is laughable, particularly since you don't seem to have any clues of the places I get my news.
By most expert unbias accounts Volker's testimony was absolutely devastating to the idea that there was a crime committed by Trump or even that there could have been a quid pro quo. Again - you really need to get out more. You're being fed a load of pabulum.
Again, no, and I'd say you need to listen to a balance of news sources. Volker said nothing that "devastates" anything. Instead, when I read the transcript (before hearing any news reports) he sounded like a man that wanted to make sure he isn't dragged into Trump's mud -- instead, he insisted that he had no real knowledge and that the little work he did was to put Giuliani and the Ukraine together. OTOH, he did confirm that Trump refused to meet or talk with Zelensky until after he agreed to the investigation -- confirming yet another tidbit from the whistleblower's report.
Of course, then the texts were released...
There is no mandated access to private conversations between a President and another head of state - as decided by the coutrt during the Obama administration.
Nice strawman, that isn't at all what I claimed. Instead, I claimed he illegally placed the call transcript on a classified code word server. See, the White House has a limited access server where transcripts of calls with foreign heads of state are placed. The public can't get access to them and only those in the administration that typically have a need to see them (such as someone in the State Department which needs to know what was talked about when drafting US policy towards a country).
Instead, the Zelensky transcript and memo was placed on a classified server, where only conversations and information dealing directly with classified information is placed. There is no classified information in the Zelensky call (unless Trump is hiding things on the unreleased official transcript, not the memo that was released) but it was on the classified server -- you can tell that because of the markings at the top of the transcript, as well as the fact it says Trump declassified them to release them.
Now, if you believe the whistleblower (and at this point, pretty much everything that can be verified appears to be true) it was placed on the classified server because the few administration officials on the call with Trump realized that he had basically committed a crime on the call and were trying to cover up -- so put it on the classified server to limit the access to a select few people.
Nonsense.
You need to get away from the liberal party lines and research things for yourself.
And if you haven't realized, I have researched -- it sounds like far more than you. I have looked at the actual whistleblower's complaint, I've read (or at least skimmed) most of Volker's testimony (I may be missing the last hour or two, which may not have been posted when I read it). In fact, I've avoided the news on Volker's testimony today, preferring to know what he said unfiltered. The only reason I know what any media said is because of people like you -- so largely the conservative media -- and it does not match what I read.
I'm trying not to make up my mind until we have all the evidence but, from the little that has been released thus far, it clearly appears as if Trump broke the law -- numerous laws.
But let me ask you a counter question: If you learned Hillary had put in a call to the Pres. of the Ukraine in 2015, to get information (an investigation started) about Trump, would you think she had broken the law? Would you want it investigated and assume it was completely legal (particularly with laws against foreign interference)?