Adam Schiff calls out Trump lawyers for making two opposite and competing arguments about impeachment witnesses
House Managers Adam Schiff (C) and Jerry Nadler (R) speak to reporters on the fourth day of the Senate impeachment trial on January 24. AFP / ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) nailed the White House using two conflicting excuses to try and block the president from any accountability.

During the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, the GOP argument was that the Democrats should have gone to court to get the witnesses they wanted. But when Democrats went to court, in the case of White House counsel Don McGahn, the White House argued they didn't have standing.

Schiff said that the GOP argument is that "the House should have taken the year or two years that it would have taken to force John Bolton to testify. They should have forced him to testify. I want you to hear what Donald Trump's lawyers in the Justice Department are saying not in the Senate, but before the court of appeals, on this subject."

Schiff then read the DOJ's statement from The Committee on Judiciary vs. Don McGahn:

"Summary of argument: The committee lacks Article III standing to sue to enforce a Congressional subpoena demanding testimony from an individual on matters related to his duties in the executive branch official."

Since the Trump team believes the House lacked standing, the only way they could get the standing to call witnesses was through an official impeachment inquiry.

"So, here they are," said Schiff. "The president's lawyers are this duplicitous, I kid you not, they come into the Senate, which they refer to as a court, and they say the House should have sued in court to enforce subpoenas like John Bolton. And they go to court and they say, 'the House may not sue in court to compel a witness to testify. That is the legal duplicity of the president's team. And it's in black and white. So, that's basically it. Are we going to get a fair trial or are we not?"

Watch the video below: