This makes no sense because, obviously, one cannot present the case without evidence, and indeed a case is evidence to which the trier of fact must apply the law. How can one know what is permitted and what is not if, as of the start of the trial, neither new evidence nor old evidence is part of the record? You’ve got me.

AD

The “record,” contrary to the Clinton impeachment rule, would not automatically include documents sent by the House, I suspect, because Republicans want to cover up (i.e., keep out) Lev Parnas’s documents and the Government Accountability Office report finding the administration broke the law by holding up aid to Ukraine.

AD

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) bashed the obvious coverup. “After reading his resolution, it’s clear Sen. McConnell is hell-bent on making it much more difficult to get witnesses [and] documents and intent on rushing the trial through,” Schumer tweeted. “On something as important as impeachment—Sen. McConnell’s resolution is nothing short of a national disgrace.”

Schumer continued:

One consolation: If there is no record to begin with, the House managers can, I suppose, talk about whatever evidence they please.

AD

On Tuesday morning, Schumer announced a clever maneuver. He will offer amendments to the resolution that specifically call for documents and witnesses, forcing Republicans to choose between a cover-up and a real trial.

If that fails, the next opportunity to expose this Alice in Wonderland set of rules (“Sentence first — verdict afterward!”) may come during the question period of 16 hours following the two sides’ presentation of their cases.

As to the questions, so long as McConnell is bent on covering up Trump’s misdeeds, Democrats should feel free to expose the coverup with questions such as:

AD

I remember reading about the GAO report in the newspaper. Why am I not allowed to see it?

saw the Lev Parnas interviews . Why can’t all my colleagues see and consider those statements?

What would John Bolton say if under oath? If you don’t know, why can’t he appear? (The same questions should be asked of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, his aide Robert B. Blair and Office of Management and Budget aide Michael Duffey .)

Why can’t I see State Department documents that U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland said he was not allowed to review

Is the president arguing it is acceptable to solicit help from a foreign power to dig up dirt on a domestic political opponent?

Where did President Trump in private or in public ever say he wanted to root out all corruption in Ukraine? Didn’t he want to repeal U.S. law prohibiting a U.S. company from engaging in bribery overseas?

Is it normal procedure for the president to ask a foreign power to investigate an American suspected of wrongdoing? Isn’t the FBI or Justice Department supposed to do that work to, among other things, protect Americans’ constitutional rights? Why can’t we hear from Attorney General William P. Barr on this point?

of course he asked the Ukrainians about the Bidens, so why can’t we consider that evidence? Was Rudolph Giuliani representing the president personally or representing the United States? I seem to recall Mr. Giuliani saying on national television thathe asked the Ukrainians about the Bidens, so why can’t we consider that evidence?

If Giuliani was representing the president personally, how did he and his associates have authority to instruct the Ukrainians that U.S. taxpayers’ money (i.e., military aid) would not be delivered to Ukraine until conditions were met?

If President Barack Obama refused to make any witnesses or documents available to Republican-controlled committees investigating the killing of our personnel in Benghazi, Libya, would that have been constitutionally acceptable?

If it is constitutionally acceptable never to provide Congress with documents or witnesses because a president thinks it is behaving politically, how can Congress ever do its job?

The funny thing about disallowing witnesses and documents is that such a tactic inevitably winds up putting on trial the president’s lawyers and Senate Republicans who are aiding and abetting them. Democrats can ask whatever questions they please, and thereby help educate the voters about the illogical, fraudulent and constitutionally dangerous case Trump is trying to make. I suspect sharp questioners such as Sens. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) will think so, too.

Read more: