That's not ALL that McConnel said:
“The Senate is meant to act as judge and jury to hear a trial, not to rerun the entire fact-finding of the investigation because angry partisans rushed sloppily through it,” McConnell said.
“The answer is the House should not impeach on this basis in the first place. But if the House plows ahead, if this ends up here in the Senate, we certainly do not need jurors to start brain-storming witness lists for the prosecution and demanding to lock them in before we have even heard opening arguments,” McConnell said.
Key point: He's right that it's not for the jurors to do that. That's the job of the prosecution and the defense. THAT's my point.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The whistleblower (CIARAMELLA) would be a new witness, therefore not admissible by Chuckles. Vindman could be called.
However, IMO, Trump can call anyone if he's allowed the ability. I don't think McConnell nor Graham want any witnesses.
Chief Justice Roberts will make the legal decisions but even he can be overruled by 51 Senators. I think there are too many RINOs to accurately predict what's going to happen.
Here are the Senate's official rules for impeachment: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/html/CDOC-99sdoc33.htm
Those rules emphatically falsify any claim that the Senate has no power to call witnesses that did not testify in the House impeachment hearings.
Key quote: "VI. The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments..."
The Chief Justice can force the Senate to abide by its own rules, no matter how many Senators vote otherwise. That's his Constitutional job in the Senate trial. The Senate's only legally-valid recourse would be to sue to over-rule Roberts. Guess where that ends up?
[–] 21797527? 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
The very reason there will be no Senate trial.