Thread by @jgeltzer

THREAD on impeachment, admissible evidence, & actual facts:

Day 1 of the impeachment trial spent hours on what would be admitted into evidence & how.

Day 2 showed the debate was more symbolic than consequential.

Because what's admitted matters less than what's simply known. /1

Start by thinking of a normal trial.

What gets admitted into evidence can be hugely consequential, even decisive.

If it's not admitted into evidence, the decision-maker--the jury--doesn't see it.

If they don't see it, they can't decide based on it.

So it matters--a lot. /2

Now contrast impeachment.

100 Senators already know the facts uncovered so far.

They've seen the House testimony, read the House report (I hope) & READ THE TRANSCRIPT as Trump would say.

Whether or not it's admitted into evidence, it's known.

No Senator can hide from that. /3

So, why fight over what's admitted into evidence?

For McConnell, being able to minimize admitted evidence is a rhetorical tool--an excuse for claiming the facts are somehow thin.

But 100 Senators aren't a typical jury.

They can't claim to know what we all know they know. /4

Enter Day 2's opening arguments brimming w/ facts--undisputed facts from WH emails, House testimony, etc.

Those facts are now before 100 Senators.

Call them admitted evidence, call them what you will--ultimately, we know they know these facts.

The Q is what they'll do. /END