I would have liked to hear Bolton testify, but the House can still subpoena him just as well as the Senate can. Trial witnesses are there for one purpose only: to help the Senators decide. If enough of them have already decided, there is no purpose to calling them.
-
-
Show this thread
-
This is a replay of the "have a hearing for Merrick Garland even though you're already not going to confirm him" argument. There's no purpose to the thing once the outcome is already certain.
Show this thread -
Congressional hearings can serve purposes besides legislative decisions, of course. They can also be used to expose malfeasance to create public political pressure. But you can still hold hearings! An impeachment trial serves a more specific function.
Show this thread -
If the House thinks new testimony would support new articles of impeachment, it can do that too! It may not be the best politics, but if you think more testimony would persuade the public, then that step is available.
Show this thread -
There is indeed always the risk that doing what you believe is the right thing today will look indefensible later. Comes with the territory with Trump.https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/1223324808424771584 …
Show this thread -
They have every right to do this. It would, however, be an admission politically that they mishandled the original process https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1223326568589746177 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Beating Hillary Clinton in an election is not an impeachable offense
End of conversation
-
-
-
Usually, Larry makes sense. This is bizarre. You don’t have to like what’s going on to see this.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.


