What Happened This Morning (A Tale Told In Tweets)

It’s also a particularly weird claim since their client, Trump, actually IS hiding evidence-trying to block every witness and document. https://t.co/WbSjN0oFkU

— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) January 25, 2020

Due process and cross examination of witnesses is impossible if you prevent witnesses from testifying. Not your best argument here.

— Joe Lockhart (@joelockhart) January 25, 2020

House Managers don’t actually know what is in the documents or how Bolton or Mulvaney would testify, but they want to find out.

The Administration does know what’s in the documents and what witnesses would say, but wants to keep it all hidden.

— Elie Honig (@eliehonig) January 25, 2020

So far, the president’s defense has been that it’s unfair of us to present facts that demonstrate the president’s guilt.

— Rep. Val Demings (@RepValDemings) January 25, 2020

Democrats are having a field day after Trump's lawyers accidentally made the strongest case to call witnesses in his impeachment trial https://t.co/4vHHZbv03q via @businessinsider

— Emily Cohn (@emily_cohn) January 25, 2020

"Now, the first point that I would like to make is that the president's counsel did something that they did not intend: They made a really compelling case for why the Senate should call witnesses and documents," said Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer.

"They kept saying there are no eyewitness accounts, but there are people who have eyewitness accounts, the very four witnesses and the very four sets of documents that we have asked for," he said. "But there are people who do know. Mick Mulvaney knows. In all likelihood, Mr. [Robert] Blair, [an aide to Mulvaney], knows. Mr. Bolton may know. 'Why shouldn't we have witnesses and documents here?' I thought."

And commentary:

The Constitution only matters if men and women in positions of power uphold and defend it. If we don’t have that, we don’t have anything.

— Evan McMullin (@EvanMcMullin) January 25, 2020