Not a lawfag, but how in the hell can the dem impeachment managers introduce cherry-picked evidence, bits & pieces (with video clips) of Schiff's hearing's witnesses like Hill, Yovanovitcen Sonderland, Vindman, etc. WITHOUT those witnesses undergoing cross-examination by the DEFENDANT?

Because the dem managers are doing this all day today, surely they have opened themselves up for President Trump's team to right to DEMAND those witnesses to come to the Senate Chamber to undergo cross. And, this would have absolutely nothing to do with the question of 'calling of witnesses' under the Senate Impeachment Procedures as presented earlier.

Please, can a lawfag prove this anon wrong?

>>7879396

Dems are too stupid for that. Dems believe that Schiff's witness CAN NOT be called. They believe calling of any witnesses are a 'stand alone' decision the Senate must take.

Anon believes not a one of Schiff's witnesses would stand up under cross. Each and every one of them would destroy the dems' case.

>>7879396

Plus. They would not be called up a witnesses. They are already witnesses, They are the witnesses who provided 100% of the evidence the House used for IMPEACHMENT. They would only be called up for cross-examination.

Again, can a lawfag prove anon wrong?

>>7879529

That's anon's point! Anon's saying that the dems' cherry-picking, and making their whole talk today, certain bits from their witnesses, (plus understanding it's a PR gambit to sneak in propaganda to the American people), then the RULES don't apply to this.

POTUS'S team can, & should, bring them in for cross!

>>7879588

Thank you for a well thought out explanation lawfag jr. Anon still maintains the stand that the Schiff witnesses must undergo cross-examination during this shitshow.

Not a lawfag, but am a gamblerfag. Will give a little more than even-money that's what we will see.