re: #18 KGxvi

I was briefly listening to MSNBC while driving this morning and they mentioned that the Intelligence Committee’s portion of the inquiry is likely done and now it’ll go to the House Judiciary Committee. They also mentioned that there might be additional hearings and it got me thinking…

additional hearings before the Judiciary Committee make sense. But not fact witnesses. These should be expert witnesses - law professors, constitutional law scholars, lawyers, historians - who can put Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors in the proper historical context. They might not be as exciting as the fact witnesses (and John Bolton, if you’d like to testify, I’m sure you’re still welcome), but I think they’re necessary for the narrative of the impeachment process.

Just like in litigation, you gather the facts through discovery, then you get expert witnesses to explain the relative importance of the facts.

No offense, but I don’t think we need a repeat of the John Dean “hearing” we had earlier this year. Really, we should do everything we can to avoid getting down into the weeds of legal theory and historical context, save that for the trial where we can have Repubs looking like fools for dragging in those folks to try to argue that Donny’s power is absolute.

I have no problem with saying aloud that the hearings under Jerry Nadler earlier this year were a disaster and should not be the template for going forward. If he wants to bring in further fact witnesses or persons whose testimony bears direct relevance on the events, then more power to him and I will tune in to see those. But if we’re going to get prolonged sessions of debating the finer points of whether Donny broke the law or not, then I’ve got some cleaning around the house that is of greater interest.