re: #35 Targetpractice

No offense, but I don’t think we need a repeat of the John Dean “hearing” we had earlier this year. Really, we should do everything we can to avoid getting down into the weeds of legal theory and historical context, save that for the trial where we can have Repubs looking like fools for dragging in those folks to try to argue that Donny’s power is absolute.

I have no problem with saying aloud that the hearings under Jerry Nadler earlier this year were a disaster and should not be the template for going forward. If he wants to bring in further fact witnesses or persons whose testimony bears direct relevance on the events, then more power to him and I will tune in to see those. But if we’re going to get prolonged sessions of debating the finer points of whether Donny broke the law or not, then I’ve got some cleaning around the house that is of greater interest.

The problem with that earlier hearing was that there was no real context for it, and it was basically a stunt. I think with the context of the hearings with fact witnesses in the books, having someone explain the historical/constitutional issues that isn’t a member of congress could actually help.