Yes, basically. The argument is, "He did it, but so what?" Normally questions of law (👆🏾) are decided by a judge, and questions of fact ("did he do it?") by a jury. In a Senate trial, the Senators are basically the judge AND the jury. (CJ presides, but doesn't do much.)
Another way to say it is that the Senate is already treating this as some sort of appeal -- a review of "the record" -- rather than as an independent arbiter of the facts. So they are setting themselves up to rule on questions of law (which is what an appellate court does).
.@MiekeEoyang lays this out very eloquently in this piece. If the Senate wants to act as an appellate court, then it would be limited to "the record" -- and Trump does not have the option to present a new (including legal) defense https://www.lawfareblog.com/senate-impeachment-trial-call-witnesses-or-concede-facts …
As she points out, this isn't what the Constitution contemplates. If it did, then Trump's legal claims should be limited to what scholars have *already* testified to. If Dersh is basically a new expert witness, then he should be cross-examined and D's can bring in their own
You can follow @AshaRangappa_.
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.
Enjoy Threader? Sign up.
Threader is an independent project created by only two developers. The site gets 500,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Running this space is expensive and time consuming. If you find Threader useful, please consider supporting us to make it a sustainable project.