The impeachment officers of the house only wanted a testimony from a witness given in the Senate contract.
The howling of those affected from the left is that the Democrats gave in to witnesses, but this is not true:
The managers’ original motion was for only one witness.
It is usually considered a win, not a surrender, to reach an agreement that the exact evidence you wanted is relevant and legal.
– Randall Eliason (@RDEliason) February 13, 2021
They did not “give in” to witnesses. They wanted Herrera-Beutler; they got the substance of their testimony; and her fall is extremely strong. Good litigators only provide the evidence they need to prove their case. The property managers did that. https://t.co/FMWZJSwrz4
– Michael R. Bromwich (@mrbromwich) February 13, 2021
Lawyers and legal experts say the Democrats have not given in. The impeachment managers of the House sought the testimony of a witness, Rep. Herrera-Beutler, and that is exactly what they got in the deal.
Democrats didn’t want a long process, but the idea that they gave in to Republicans just isn’t true. If the House impeachment managers had wanted to call witnesses and testimony in the Senate, the Democrats would have made it possible.
If the Democrats hadn’t won two seats in the Georgia Senate, Mitch McConnell would have held a mock trial and the vote would have already taken place.
Trump’s second impeachment trial was both informative and damned, and none of this would have happened without the democratic majority.
For more discussions on this story, join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC groups.
Follow and like PoliticusUSA on Facebook
Mr. Easley is the Founder / Executive Editor, White House Press Pool, and a Congressional Correspondent for PoliticusUSA. Jason has a bachelor’s degree in political science. His thesis focused on public order with a specialization in social reform movements.
Awards and professional memberships
Member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Political Science Association