Which is only relevant for you in your attempt to desguise the reality that the Senate violated the will of the people they are supposed to be representing.
No Bernard, it is relevant to everyone , well except you. Its a classic example of you getting duped by a poll designed to fool people. The question was quite clear..."witnesses" and not "additional witneses", and was asked in such a way to elicit the most favorable responses even though the trial DID have witness testimony presented. As for "violating" the will of the people, if you look at the polls, they tell you that the people are pretty much evenly divided for and against impeachment. Given the fact that Republican respondants are almost in complete ageement against Impeachment and the Senators who are against ADDITIONAL witnesses are Rebublicans, it appears they are being faithful to their constituents.
The reality is that the people who answered this question were hoping to see the Senate have witnesses testify, regardless of whether there were already witnesses heard from the congress.
The reality is, IMO and that of others is the vast majority of American had no idea how this trial would work. Its not like they happen very often or that the average American is actually paying attention to the trial. Most are tuning it out. If you were to ask Americans what a witness at a trial looks like I suspect the overwhelming answer would be someone sitting in the dock, being sworn in and being questioned DIRECTLY with in front of the jury. Like they see on Law and Order. Of course, your original stated position was "additional witnesses" Now you are simply trying to do the backstroke.
So "witnesses" always meant "additional witnesses". That's the default understanding of the meaning of the word in the context and what common sense dictates.
Which is of course complete and utter bullcrap. The words were PLAINLY written. Words have meaning. It this case the meaning was QUITE clear. You, like Shiff are simply making things up
