General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI wonder if any of these news commentators
who are so outraged this morning that democrats didn’t call witnesses need the additional $1400 stimulus or are in danger of losing additional unemployment benefits in a few weeks or need Covid relief in anyway. It must be so nice to be so privileged that you can get on your high horse over a useless principle.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Timewas
(2,193 posts)They are blind to the actual situation in this country... Witnesses would have been a complete waste of time and money to arrive at the same destination.. They need the spend their time fixing the things that can be fixed
mzmolly
(50,985 posts)witnesses? WTF wasn't proven?
Jamie Raskin and his team of House managers did exactly what they needed to do..expose and lay bare the depravity within the Senate, the total disregard for human life and the insidious corruption of power..but what was particularly sickening was their naked fear of Trump's insatiable psychotic need for revenge... they were more than willing to rubber stamp the hunting and likely killing of Pence, one of their own...
"Where were the witnesses" when the crime in question, was filmed and documented, seems like a talking point for Republican traitors?
DonaldsRump
(7,715 posts)They could have suspended the impeachment trial and created a select committee to gain more information about what really happened in the insurrection. This would have freed up the Senate to tackle all the other things.
Remember: Ds control the Senate. We need to do so. McConnell did not allow the impeachment to be transmitted to the Senate while he was still Majority Leader. And then yesterday, he claimed that the trial was "unconstitutional", even though he is the one that allegedly made it "unconstitutional." Under these circumstances and trump's complete failure to abide by anything the House wanted for the last 2 years, suspension of the trial and creation of a Senate select committee was entirely warranted.
And the Senate could pass all the other things you reference during the suspension and while its select committee was gathering evidence.
The Senate called witnesses during the Clinton impeachment. Ken Starr called Secret Service agents guarding Bill Clinton during his criminal investigation. There is no way that a five day trial could cover what happened during the insurrection, and MANY questions are left unanswered.
The impeachment proceedings into the insurrection was NOT a "useless principle". Even if it would not have changed votes, it would have kept the matter before the American people and helped get to the root of what really happened. The Senate agreed to allow witnesses, and then no witnesses were called. Do you think that's ok? Don't get me wrong: the House Managers were brilliant. But they had limited evidence, because trump and the Republican Senate majority effectively prevented them from getting at that evidence. That's why witnesses were so important, as it allowed the possibility of getting more information (e.g., did Trump give specific orders for the insurrection, what is the real relationship between the Proud Boys and trump, etc. etc. etc.)
We may never know that now. It's like the Senate Watergate Committee leaving it at "well, these were Nixon's folks, so he's responsible, so that's that." It took multiple strands of pressure (Congressional and judicial proceedings) to get at the truth of what happened.
Look at how long the Rs dragged HRC through the coals on Benghazi. It wounded her badly. But with the insurrection, we have a five-day trial and no witnesses. That doesn't seem right.
Getting the Representative's statement into the record was no big deal. The House Managers could have done that on their own. They were routinely referring to newspaper articles etc during the trial. I don't see getting Herrera Beutler's statement "into the record" as any big deal personally.
Our nation is at death's door on many fronts. We elected Biden because we know he is capable of doing multiple things to fix the multiple failures. So can the Senate. And they need to play hard ball on EVERY one of these issues.
This article from Roll Call says it better than I can (and the fist-bump picture is nauseating): https://www.rollcall.com/2021/02/13/trump-acquitted/ . My teen-ager just let me know that "#trump2024" is top-trending. That's why this principle is not ridiculous.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)that wouldn’t have changed the outcome and the trial just can’t be suspended while the Senate does other business.
DonaldsRump
(7,715 posts)Impeachment Rule XI allows the Senate to create trial committees to hear and consider evidence and report it to the Senate. Such committees were not intended to be used for presidential impeachments, but four of the five impeachment trials completed since 1936 concerned federal judges, and in each of these cases the Senate established a trial committee. [THERE IS NOTHING PROHIBITING THIS FOR A FORMER PRESIDENT]
...
Although the impeachment rules prescribe that the Senate convene at noon for a trial, six days a week, a Senate majority can alter this schedule. It is possible for the Senate to conduct legislative and executive business on the same calendar days that it meets for a trial, but it must meet in legislative or executive session to do so. When the Senate is sitting as a Court of Impeachment, legislative and executive business cannot occur.
Another DUer had pointed out the first point, but the overall result is that the Senate can most certainly create an Impeachment Committee to obtain evidence and the Senate can also handle other matters while an impeachment is ongoing.
Who knows what witnesses would have disclosed? But criminal behavior etc could have been elicited. We will never know now. They had witnesses for the Clinton impeachment, so I fail to see why this far greater event doesn't warrant a far more detailed investigation.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)so it’s a useless principle. And with a 50-50 spilt changes in procedure are not so simple. Getting Covid relief is much much more important.
DonaldsRump
(7,715 posts)No one knows what would have been unearthed. Information about Trump's criminal activities could have been exposed. Who cares about the Senate vote then. Indeed, the worse the information was, the worse the political price that Senators voting to acquit would pay.
That was exactly what was the Watergate Committee was all about. It happened in the reverse order, but it profoundly changed things.
There are many outcomes. The Senate vote is just one of those, albeit an important one. And as said before, the Senate most certainly could multi-task.
Anyways, I doubt we'll change each other's minds, so Happy Valentine's Day.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)And it would not have changed the outcome. The republicans would never have voted to convict Trump. That is just reality. And it wasn’t worth delaying Covid relief for.
peggysue2
(10,828 posts)And Covid relief is of utmost importance both for the public's relief and proving that good, competent governance can produce positive results for all Americans. It's not enough to say it; people have to see it, the quicker, the better.
Good results in crushing Covid, reviving the economy and returning things to a sense of normalcy will have a profound impact on 2022, our continuing house-cleansing of the House and Senate. That's imperative if we're to get a handle on Trump's malign influence and the gush of disinformation.
Beat 'em over the head with a successful agenda and we're on our way to erasing the malevolent past of the last 5 years.
OnDoutside
(19,953 posts)
pwb
(11,261 posts)Ask questions that should not be asked and think out loud, and they call that news. With the money they make it is doubtful any think of need.
I am cutting back on the cable news talkers for awhile. A new show every hour saying the same thing all day. They are as much to blame covering the rallies in the run up to the Insurrection. A sore loser is not news but they all made it a story.
cally
(21,593 posts)She blasts Dems but barely mentions lack of courage of Republicans. She and the other commentators sound ignorant when many lawyers are saying how dangerous it is to call hostile witnesses. I have to trust the managers and not some armchair pontificator—half of which are never Trumpers who don’t agree with the Biden agenda and don’t care if it gets passed.
I’m so excited about these very progressive bills that may help address income inequality and health care inequities. Anything that hinders the chance of this agenda is not worth it to me. Especially since it would just be a show trial with a chance of hindering the strong case already made