jury, the senate acts like a trial. so the articles are the indictment. there s some evidence comes forward. the senate then will conduct the trial, look deeper into the evidence. i really think when you look at how they spelled out the articles against the president, pretty clear what the conduct is, and i think that, again, you can debate the constitutionality of it. i didn t hear much of that tonight in the judiciary committee. i mean, frankly, on one side of the building i thought was a little bit of an intellectual black hole without a whole lot of substance to the argument that was being made there. it was a process argument. it was arguments about, well, we ought to have these other witnesses. remember, when we talk about the case, we talk about proving the case, this is what dershowitz i think is ultimately getting at, we can have evidence of the case, let s start with witnesses, but let s really talk about witnesses that we want to bring in and witnesses that are being blocked
johnson and others were putting pressure on the administration to lift the hold. so we know that senators actually were probably really unhappy in the summer when they discovered that there was a hold on this money. my question is do they really want to talk about this? now, most of the trial, as you know, or probably with the senators say nothing, they just listen. those guys are up a number of them are up for elections. but the thing is do they really want to engage in the issues? i think they don t because they are unhappy with the way in which the president managed this, but they don t want to say so. none of them wants to commit to that. maybe one or two, maybe mitt romney will vote against the president. you think they don t want to be on the record. i think they don t want to be on the record. they don t, obviously, want a cloud show, but they also don t want to be on the record. i think that s what they re trying to do, trying to find a way to have to do their const
ofulgs to interfere,ing they should be. i read his piece and what i agree with is the house acts like a grand jury and the senate acts like the trial. the senate will then conduct the trial to look deeper into the evidence. i think when you look at how they ve spelled out the articles against the president, pretty clear what the conduct is. and i think again you can debate the kaungszitutionalty of it. i didn t hear much of that tonight in the judiciary committee. frankly, on one side i thought was an intellectual black hole without a whole lot of substance to be argued. it was a process argument. arguments about we ought to have these other witnesses. we talk about proving the case. we can have the evidence in the case and let s start with witnesses. let s talk about witnesses we want to bring in and witnesses
claims that alan dershowitz has denied. and he s been an ardent defender of the president relating to all the legal matters he s faced. in fact, earlier today, dershowitz was at the white house for a hanukkah can party where he praised the president for an executive order he signed earlier today on anti-semitism. sources signaling the whus could be open to a shorter trial in the senate. essentially this is the president and the senate the president colliding with realts. the reality that senate republicans,ing by and large, do not want that long, tex tended show trial that president trump was hoping to get out of the senate. for some time the president has been signaling he would like to use the senate trial as an opportunity, essentially, to
the by, you know, the accretion of lawyers because i m not sure how much work there is for them to do if the trial is going it beto be short and swee mitch mcconnell seems to want it to be and as the democrats want it to be because they want to get their candidates back out on the campaign trail. it s interesting, as you said, why hire so many lawyers if the senate is just going to acquit him, anyway? why would you yeah, there s even talk now about not even going through with much of the process and having a vote right at the beginning to acquit him. right. but here s here s the real question, which is are we going to get at the substance of the issue in the senate? are senators willing to talk about the question of the foreign policy decisions the president made and how they represented an abuse of power? many republican senators are uncomfortable. there s no question. are uncomfortable with the way in which the trump administration conducted the policy toward ukraine. h