Trump's lawyers keep arguing that an adequate case is the same thing as a full, fair case. That's wrong. Imagine a business fraud case where the evidence consisted of (a) a solid but complex forensic accounting, + (b) a former bookkeeper who was instructed to cook the books.
1/
1/
Now imagine the court allowed the forensic accounting report, but excluded the bookkeeper's testimony.
Are the accounting docs enough to warrant a verdict? Sure. But is the case even stronger if the jury hears the percipient witness explain it directly? Of course!
2/
Are the accounting docs enough to warrant a verdict? Sure. But is the case even stronger if the jury hears the percipient witness explain it directly? Of course!
2/
So it's NOT inconsistent for the impeachment managers to argue that (a) they've presented an adequate case, and (b) they nevertheless should be allowed to present their BEST case.
3/
3/
And of course, after arguing that the House has presented a good enough case and so doesn't need witnesses or additional docs, Trump's team will reverse and argue that the House case falls short of justifying impeachment.
Because (to use a term of art) they're hosers.
4/4
Because (to use a term of art) they're hosers.
4/4
