Thread by @kyledcheney

It's incorrect to say Democrats did not seek testimony from all of the witnesses they now want at Senate trial.

They sought all of them, but the WH / administration ordered them not to appear.

Those saying the House should have gone to court to resolve it ignore the WH's position on this (which they've argued in McGahn case): that courts have no role resolving disputes between the Executive and Congress.

In fact, the administration's argument in court has been: If the Congress and WH disagree, Congress has tools to force cooperation, including withholding appropriations, blocking nominations and ...

Impeachment.

politico.com/news/2020/01/0…

SCHIFF's argument here underscores a potential mid-trial bombshell: an Appeals Court ruling on whether the White House claim of "immunity" to block McGahn from testimony is valid.

Arguments were made on Jan. 3, and ruling could come any day.
politico.com/news/2020/01/0…

SEKULOW is arguing the exact opposite of the Trump administration's long-held position.

"It is why we have courts," he says ,of dispute between Congress and WH.

DOJ has argued that courts should NOT step into dispute between two branches because it would politicize them.

HERE is how the Trump administration argued — *earlier this month* — that courts should NOT be involved in resolving disputes between WH and Congress.

Schiff calls the Senate's proposed resolution "ass backwards". Might be a first for that phrase on the Senate floor.

AND the Parnas evidence makes its first appearance. Rep. DEMINGS used it to press for disclosure of State documents.

OF NOTE: The White House lawyers could play clips of the testimony that support their argument, just as the House has, but instead Sekulow is reciting the transcript.