So @PreetBharara & @maggieNYT are explaining on CNN right now that Democrats correctly noting over the last few weeks that Trump is a threat to national security *therefore* means they must participate in a sham trial with no witnesses and I'm mystified by this reasoning honestly
@PreetBharara @maggieNYT Never in his life did @PreetBharara willingly go forward with a trial when multiple jurors had already admitted to being corrupted by the defendant and being unwilling to honor their oaths as jurors *and* Preet was being told "sorry Preet there will be no witnesses in this trial"
@PreetBharara @maggieNYT My view is @PreetBharara *can* fault Democrats for rushing toward impeachment if he likes but that's *different* from implying that now they must end their investigations, hand over their indictment to a compromised court that's promised a sham trial, *and* must participate in it
@PreetBharara @maggieNYT To be clear, @PreetBharara didn't address the ongoing Democratic investigations but my point is that if he's saying (as he is) he doesn't understand what possible benefit Democrats could get from holding onto the articles he must be presuming they are ceasing their investigations
@PreetBharara @maggieNYT Because of course, and I've no doubt @PreetBharara can see this, one value of holding onto the articles is that additional articles can be added as new evidence and witnesses emerge from ongoing investigations, even as you're negotiating a real trial with witnesses in the Senate
