A few things about witnesses or the lack thereof

[dsc]

First, in a regular trial, there would have been witnesses before any of those videos could be played (they all would have had to be verified). But those witnesses would have largely been just to say this video was shot on such and such a day at such and such a time. Now after this part of the trial it would be nice to hear from some of the participants but they would require immunity and well, that is a non starter. It would also be nice to hear from aids to Trump but the privilege claims would take eons to resolve if previous dealings show us anything in this regard. But that said, I could see at least issuing the summons would be something to try.

So who is left? Call Sasse, Lee, and Tuberville?

They have a compelling case with or without witnesses.

[rsdsharp]

1. You wouldn't necessarily have to call foundational witness to admit the videos at trial.

A stipulation could have been entered into. In fact, most judges I’ve appeared before require an exchange of exhibit lists, and then a few days later a statement of which exhibits will be objected to and the basis of the objection. No objection, and the exhibit is deemed admitted before trial ever begins.