I know folks are coming down hard on House Managers/Senate Dems for agreeing to that witness stipulation, but it looks like it was the right strategic decision for a few reasons. Quick thread. 1/6

One, FACT: not a single R Senator would have been convinced by the admission of new evidence. They already know the most damning facts! All were already in the public record. 2/6

No one believes Trump really tried to help stop the attack. It's not a fact in dispute. All R Senators are aware he watches TV 24/7 and was fully aware of what was going on. 3/6

Two, FACT: no witnesses would have been likely to come in to testify, so the House would have had to litigate executive privilege issues, dragging the process out. You're probably saying, "big deal, right? It's a moral issue so dig in and fight for it!" 4/6

Well, again, nothing would have been gained by a month of litigation that would have both stopped whatever momentum the House Managers have, and more importantly, flipped a single R vote or changed the public record. 5/6

Putting @HerreraBeutler or others on the stand to reiterate facts already made public wouldn't have changed the outcome of any of this. The decision might have been unpopular with many of my fellow Blue Checks but it looks like it was a well-thought-out strategic call. 6/6