Stipulations of fact matter in a court of law, not political processes

[coti]

At least in these times, where facts matter so little politically, the Repubs aren't at all concerned with "what gets entered into the record." What they care about is what makes it onto the TV and how emotionally compelling it is.

Live witness testimony can give the drama necessary to actually sway public opinion, and that is all the Repubs cared about avoiding. They don't give the slightest shit about what the facts are. That's why they voted for someone like Trump to begin with.

Lawyers need to differentiate between when they're working in a court of law and when they're working in the court of public opinion. As we are reminded daily, this impeachment trial is a political process, not a criminal one.

Don't bury your publicity opportunities in a political process. It's counterproductive.

[FBaggins]

1. They also don't appear to be stipulating to facts

I could be wrong. I just got back online and see several people claiming that Trump is admitting that the conversation took place and was as described... but I have yet to see that reported.

What I have seen is merely a stipulation that, if she were called, her testimony would substantially match what she has reportedly already said - so that can be read into the record and avoid calling any witnesses.

That's "not nothing" as they say... but it's also a long stretch away from what many are claiming. It's double hearsay at best. This isn't a courtroom, so senators can use it however they choose in evaluating the trial - but it isn't the defense stipulating that trump's words were as reported.

[bigtree]

2. I think you are correct about 'hearsay'

[Bettie]

3. And what made it on TV is

"Democrats asked for witnesses and then chose to call none".