Sure, that makes sense. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to be confronted with the witnesses in a criminal trial, so why not for an Impeachment trial?
In this case, Sekulow spoke in regard to former National Security Adviser John Bolton. Bolton allegedly said that he heard Trump tie in aid to Ukraine with Ukraine agreeing to an investigation of the Bidens.
So the obvious solution is to have Bolton himself testify at the Impeachment trial so it’s not unsourced but is direct from the witness, right? No–Trump’s team (and political party) wants to stop Bolton from testifying.
I wonder how that would work if everybody who was going on trial could choose which witnesses, if any, could testify against them. It might go something like this:
“Your honor, the Prosecution wishes to present its first witness to the crime who–”
“Objection, your honor; the Defense objects to this witness testifying.”
“In that case, your honor, the Prosecution wants to present a second witness to the crime who–”
“The Defense objects, your honor; we don’t want that witness testifying either.”
“All right. Well, that still leaves us the victim who–”
“The Defense objects.”
“The Prosecution has no further witnesses.”
“In that case,” says the Judge, “case dismissed.”
An opinion of an individual member of The Loveshade Family does not necessarily reflect the views of the whole family.