The Houses case is strong, I know you don't see it and in time history will sort it all out and Trump will be remembered as one of if not the most corrupt/unlawful presidents ever. The WH would and will do everything they can to drag out and prolong the cases, see the McGahn case for example where the defense is constantly trying to drag it out.....so while it is possible it is also unlikely that the cases would move forward and certainly would not be finished in 3 months.....at best it would have been late spring into the summer.
Here is a article that has some good info
The issue could affect ongoing court cases revolving around impeachment.
www.politico.com
The House case simply is not strong. A case based entirely on speculation, key witnesses stating no quid pro quo and no criminal activity that they had evidence of, is not a strong case. The case is predicated on making a variety of assumptions to conclude that Trump must be guilty. In a court of law the evidence presented by the Democrats would be thrown out, below are a few reasons why from a legal standpoint it doesn't hold weight.
"[In] an
argumentative objection, the questioner (attorney or self-represented party) is likely trying to offer a
conclusion of what the evidence means rather than simply asking for the facts of what actually happened."
"
Speculation is a legal basis for objecting to witness testimony on grounds similar to the argumentative objection — because the evidence is not considered reliable or factual. A witness' testimony is limited to their personal knowledge of events (estimating is allowed, but most opinions are not). Speculating is even worse. It's akin to guessing — and it's not permitted.
We certainly wouldn't want a jury to decide a case based upon someone's guess. That's a primary reason we have rules of evidence: to establish a fair trial that is based on
facts, not speculation. Learn more about
rules of evidence (the backbone of evidentiary objections).
"
Hearsay is one of the least understood concepts of evidence law in the United States. Most people don't realize that the term “hearsay” covers a much broader range of statements than just words.
In fact, many (even most) statements made in everyday life would fit the definition of hearsay and be inadmissible in court — unless they fall under an
exclusion or
exception to the hearsay rule."
Source
Now let's go one step further. Even IF you ignore the rules for how things work in a court of law you have the testimony from the key witnesses stating there was no quid pro quo and no criminal activity. They did a lot of speculating and inferring and assuming that there may have been but they had 0 evidence for such. The "mountain of evidence" the democrats have is also a mountain of things that do not prove guilt; one can certainly assume it but it does not prove it. The Senate should acquit Trump today and rightfully so based on the evidence presented. If the House wants to go back and try to build a case not based on these false premises then by all means they should do that and try to get key witnesses to testify even if it gets stuck in the court system. However at this time the evidence presented is laughably weak and as I've shown it doesn't hold up in a court of law and various legal scholars have also agreed how weak the case is.
