@TheMarkPantano This is my take. Say you are being sued. You either agree, or deny the charges made against you. Then you go into a discovery phase. Some courts don't have a discovery phase, they just say bring all the evidence you have, and i'll decide. But discovery. You call witnesses for
@TheMarkPantano depositions, you gather documents, you subpoena for documents. Once you have gathered all your facts, you go to trial. You go to trial with the evidence you have gathered and make your case. If I'm being sued, and I don't think the person suing me has evidence or proof, I may
@TheMarkPantano say, ya know, you don't have enough proof. I don't even want a trial, I am just going to let you give all this stuff to the judge, and ask for a summary judgement. The judge then decides, no more witnesses, no more documents- to bad if you wanted to call one but didn't. so now
@TheMarkPantano the person suing me says oh wait, I found something else, consider this! Uh, NO, you blew it. to bad so sad. It doesn't matter if it's even a smoking gun. The judge can only dispose of the case, or rule in favor on the evidence submitted. New smoking gun means crap, inadmissible
@TheMarkPantano Senate trial is a little different in that the Senate can look at the evidence submitted and vote on disposition. If they think there is not the evidence needed to prove a crime, they ask for a summary judgement. Why would they want to drag it out? I wouldn't. It would only help
@TheMarkPantano the accusers, and why would you do that? get a clue. The House should have been more thorough, not rushed to do this, and made it's case on merits. to bad so sad. It is done.
@TheMarkPantano @threadreaderapp unroll
