mitch mcconnell on this. but it s worth putting a spotlight for a second on one republican one reason that republican senators may be so resistant to calling witnesses. the house took testimony from several witnesses you ll recall in its impeachment hearings, and that testimony even from senior trump appointed officials really, really did not go well for the white house. even if you did not personally find the testimony from those witnesses compelling, even if you didn t watch much of the testimony at all, just the fact of all these incredibly impressive, ipeckably credentialed public servants coming forward to tell the truth about what they witnessed was a powerful rebuke to a white house that has often seemed allergic to truthfulness. take bill taylor. he was tapped by the administration, the trump administration to be the acting ambassador to ukraine after the president fired the previous ambassador for ostensibly standing in the way of trump s
rhetoric about it s clear and then we need all new information. as a trial lawyer i find that kind of funny. but a trial is a trial. you start with a clean slate. if you look at the house proceeding, that s more like a grand jury giving an indictment and the trial is the trial and both sides are entitled to claim that they want particular witnesses. in regards of the eventual or inevitable outcome, don t you think the american people deserve to hear from anybody who knew anything that went on when it comes to ukraine? yeah, i don t have any problem at all with the notion of calling witnesses and again, to be a broken record, as a trial lawyer i find it kind of funny to see political rhetoric, where in a trial i may say to the junl i want mr. x to testify, the other side might object. the person may come in and testify without the jury and make what s called an offer of proof. that s the normal course. you guys said this is all political and not legal, so i might as well just go hom
but it s worth putting a spotlight for a second on one republican one reason that republican senators may be so resistant to calling witnesses. the house took testimony from several witnesses you ll recall in its impeachment hearings, and that testimony even from senior trump appointed officials really, really did not go well for the white house. even if you did not personally find the testimony from those witnesses compelling, even if you didn t watch much of the testimony at all, just the fact of all these incredibly impressive, ipeckably credentialed public servants coming forward to tell the truth about what they witnessed was a powerful rebuke to a white house that has often seemed allergic to truthfulness. take bill taylor. he was capped by the administration, the trump administration to be the acting ambassador to ukraine after the president fired the previous ambassador for ostensibly
that will lead to an avalanche, right? proceed yurl things like calling witnesses. that getting them a quarter of the way there. in that sense yes it is important to know there is a little daylight. okay, halle jackson kicking things off, thank you i want to bring in jonathan allen. natasha bertrand, and rick pildris. let me pick up on that last point that halle jackson was
cannot choose our impeachment managers until we know what sort of trial the senate will conduct. the impeachment managers act as prosecutors during the trial that takes place in the senate. meanwhile in the senate, democratic leader chuck schumer is pushing for witnesses, specifically schumer wants to hear from four administration officials who were blocked by the white house from testifying in the house. the list includes the acting white house chief of staff, mick mulvaney, and the former national security adviser john bolton. majority leader mitch mcconnell sounded reluctant last week about calling witnesses. today he sounded a note that was closer to maybe. it could be that public pressure from senate democrats would be enough for them to get some of what they want in an impeachment trial, but with republicans having a narrow majority, democrats could conceivably get support for rules that they like by persuading a handful of republican senators to go along.