Why would oppose no new evidence be admitted?
The House either has a valid case for impeachment or not, as written.
Its just making the Senate rules favorable to the president, the same way the House made their rules unfair to the president.
What was unfair about the House rules?
1. The GOP couldn't call all the witnesses they wanted, such as Ciaramella, Hunter Biden, Chalupa, etc.
2. The Chair told witnesses not to answer GOP many questions
3. The GOP wasn't allowed to issue subpoenas.
4. The democrats did not follow the same protocols for impeachment that were used previously, such as allowing "hearsay" evidence.
1. none of those are fact witnesses to Trump’s actions. You don’t get to hijack the proceeding to chase down an unrelated matter.
2. The Chair told a few witnesses not to answer questions intended to unmask a whistleblower and were irrelevant to the matter
3. That’s how all committees work. The minority doesn’t get to issue subpoenas unless agreed to by the majority.
4. Hearsay evidence is very often admissible. There are plenty of rules governing it.
1. If the GOP wants to prove that there is a conspiracy against Trump they need to call their witnesses. Trump does get to mount a defense, especially if a conspiracy is involved.
2. The whistleblower does not get his identity protected according to the law. That the WB is a CIA plant, and a Biden supporter is relevant.
3. The minorities in prior impeachments did get to issue subpoenas, but not for this kangaroo court.
4. True, "hearsay" can be admissible, but the senate rules should make hearsay evidence inadmissible, because they can.
1. That is crazy.
2. The whistleblower is entitled to protection. He is not a CIA plant and what he alleges has been proven to be true.
3. Republicans were allowed to call witnesses which had relevant information.
4. They can't. Three Republicans defect and it fails. The VP does not cast a tie braking vote.