This would not make any sense, because the defenders could refuse to agree to any witnesses, and then the prosecution would have no evidence.
“This would not make any sense,..”
Agree. I said the same on a different thread.
It would cause a stalemate every time and no trial could go forward.
Besides, there can be no fair trial if one side can prevent the other side from calling witnesses and presenting evidence. It makes no sense.
I think the fact that House Democrats got away with this one-sided kangaroo court Schiff Show has everyone confused, but let’s be clear:
An impeachment hearing is not a trial - there is no legal consequence and that is why there is no requirement that it be fair. Impeachment is basically the prosecution making an accusation, to help the court (the Senate) decide whether a trial is justified.
The House impeachment hearings were unfair not because it was run by Democrats, but rather because impeachment hearings don’t have to be fair, since there are no legal consequences.
Conversely, the Senate trial WILL be run fairly, not because the Republicans are running it, but because as a real trial, in a real court of law, having legal consequences, it is required to be fair.
When this matter goes to the Senate, everything will change. It will be fair. The President will be able to mount a defense. There will be none of the BS we saw in the House impeachment hearings. No one will be allowed to behave like Adam Schiff behaved.
And since he is guilty of no crimes, and since his accusers are guilty of plenty, things ought to get quite interesting - IF the Democrats let it go to the Senate.
And there is a real good chance they won’t.