There is talk of just stipulating to allow Rep. Beutler's statement into the record. If so, it would be odd since Rep. Raskin already discussed the statement in the record. It would be an exit ramp back to where the Senate was before Raskin threw the Senate trial into disarray.
...If this is the result, it would clearly show that Raskin sandbagged the Senate Democrats who did not want to be seen as opposing the managers (despite just saying that they did not want witnesses). jonathanturley.org/2021/02/13/wit…
...It is a stipulation. The resolution shows that Raskin sandbagged the Senate Democrats. This merely enters hearsay into the record. However, the statement of Beutler also contradicts the House managers that this is truly new evidence.
Raskin just read Beutler's statement that she has previously shared her information with colleagues and the public. Yet, Raskin suggested that this was previously unknown evidence. How does that square with the statement just read into evidence?
If the Democrats wanted to confirm such information, how does this stipulation do that other than adding hearsay to a largely circumstantial record on Trump's state of mind?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
