A “trial” is not based on reciprocity!
Assuming we get to a stage were witnesses can be called / “evidence” introduced (beyond the house record) - there can and SHOULD not be any reason to limit what defense witnesses President Trump is allowed to call / evidence he can present (assuming relevance). IOW if the managers call Bolton, that does not mean that Trump gets ONE witness - he must be allowed any and all that he can muster to clear his name / dispute the manager’s claims.
The irony here is that in one sense it’s actually in the best interests of the DEMOCRATS to have the defense call a lot of witnesses. Because without witnesses testifying under oath, Trump will have the latitude to post Twitter messages and hold rallies to make outlandish claims outside any formal process.
“...he [Trump] must be allowed any and all that he can muster to clear his name...”
Agreed. It seems really odd that their isn’t a standard procedure for this type of thing. It sounds like the Dems are trying to allow only THEIR witnesses - and Cruz is negotiating the reciprocity idea.
I guess that is one suggestion as they make up the rules as they go along. I don’t know why they can’t just use the well-established rules for U.S. court rooms.
What judge would let a case like this go to trail? Don’t answer that.