Watching the impeachment trial is very different to following it on twitter. It seems like the Dems wanted to get a specific piece of evidence in, and used the threat of witnesses to do so. But based on twitter you would think they made a massive strategic error.
At this point we know what happened and the outcome of the trial. Prolonging the trial is basically about how much you want put more material in the record and on public view vs. the potential opportunity cost of other policy gains in the Senate.
This line on twitter is "Dems decided to call witnesses, and then decided not to" when I think its more accurate to say they wanted to get a specific piece of evidence in, and they did, and the defense accepted it as accurate.
https://twitter.com/AriMelber/status/1360649222387826689?s=20
Open to being persuaded otherwise about how witnesses would have been an impeachment game changer, but my initial reaction is that twitter is hard wired to revert to a "Dems blew it again!" narrative on very little evidence.
It could be that the Dems are wrong in their strategic calculations here about presenting their case. But we generally assume that people who have more information of the facts on the ground make better decisions and it's not clear why we should suspend that assumption here. 
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
