Actually? It's pretty tight already, from this attorney's perspective—especially when you consider the major-media investigative reporting that wasn't the subject of federal testimony. In other words, take everything reliable in the public sphere and the evidence is overwhelming.
PS/ I'm willing to retweet THE HILL if it's from the news division, not editorial, *and* comports with all other major-media reporting. This one is close to the line. There are no "missing" witnesses, and the Kremlin's conspiracy theories aren't "unproven" but *without evidence*.
PS2/ For instance, Mueller opined early on in his report that Trump advisers, allies, agents, and associates had—variously—refused to be interviewed, withheld evidence, destroyed evidence, and lied about their actions and knowledge. Was that "missing" evidence—or obstruction?
PS3/ As I recall, back then THE HILL ignored the "missing" evidence—as calling attention to it would've underscored that investigators had *much* more to do and the Mueller Report wasn't the "end" of anything. And it would've forced THE HILL to clock a huge volume of obstruction.
PS4/ But I'll take a consistent view in both cases, as in both cases you have the actions of the Trump administration on the one hand and the investigative needs of law enforcement on the other: Trumpists *obstructed* the Mueller probe, and they're *obstructing* this impeachment.
PS5/ So Democrats should reject the idea of "missing" witnesses, as so should THE HILL if it wants to remain neutral. Democrats have the evidence they have—and it's *overwhelming*, objectively speaking—while Trump and his team *obstructed* the disclosure of *additional* evidence.
