Your addendum of "We don't have all the testimony" had absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making. Nothing.
He was making his case based on an e-mail, and an e-mail is not sworn testimony.
Adding on "But we don't know if there's more in the grand jury testimony" is a moot point, because the poster doesn't know that either.
He was like, "Wait! Wait! He said in an e-mail that he stopped it!" And I'm like, "Whoop dee doo, an e-mail isn't sworn testimony..."
End of point.
Yes, there could be more testimony, but that doesn't change the fact that the only time we've heard about this stopping of the incident is from an e-mail.
Woop. De. Doo.
No more from me on this point, I promise...