“It’s a little too quiet” - US Politics February 2021

as a former Republican, she should know!

congressional gold medal for officer goodman

Thanks for saving us from the murderous mob incited by the guy we're about to acquit. Here, have a medal.

Anybody hearing what CNN's reporting? Seems big, but how many times have you heard that before?

What’re they reporting?

Some expletive-heavy call between Trump and McCarthy after the attack started--McCarthy begging him to call them off, Trump declining.

The source is supposedly Republican house members.

Is there a recording?

Not yet--it's somebody "familiar with the call." But recordings tend to find their way out.

If not, it will be written off just like the Tuberville call

It'll probably be written off either way, but it does sound pretty damning. It's funny, the last two days I'd been wishing that someone from Trump's inner circle would be called up as a witness, Perry Mason-style, to talk about Trump's actions after the attack started.

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are."

Here's the link:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html

I don't know--is this a call that's already known? If so, and it's more information on something already know, doesn't seem as big.

Controversial opinion. I did not intend to actually kill anyone with my car after drinking a case of beer. You must acquit!

I haven't seen any reporting of that before now

"A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, "Who the f--k do you think you are talking to?" according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call."

He knew how bloody minded the Q fantasists were, and that they expected Jan 6 to be the day of “the storm.” He never once tried to hit the breaks on any of that. I think he believed the madness and unpredictability of his supporters was a source of strength as long as he could maintain a plausible distance from them. (The “mob boss” way of communicating he has... never getting his hands dirty directly but making his intentions clear). On January 6th he wanted to punish the GOP for not standing by him, in his view, and the more out of hand it all got, the better. He never thought he’d be held personally responsible for it.

xpost "Umm.. an out of work ex-President?"

I'm trying to figure out how new this is, because you never know with CNN, where everything (and therefore nothing) is breaking news.

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.

See? He loved this shit. If he was going to be forced to leave Washington, might as well trash the place out of spite.

Somebody pointed out that Cruz is probably attempting the Morgan Wallen haircut... a dog-whistle, maybe?

https://www.usmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/07-Who-Is-Morgan-Wallen-5-Things-to-Know-About-the-Scandal-Ridden-Country-Singer.jpg

just say the word, Ted. it's not "illegal". no one's going to arrest you. if you really want to show solidarity with this dipshit and the folks who are screaming that he's been "cancelled", sack up and say it. you'd be the immediate and undisputed 2024 front-runner

lmao Kevin McCarthy went to Florida to ask Trump for access to his donor list and he didn't even get it. pic.twitter.com/VUFF95BXFk

— Erick Fernandez (@ErickFernandez) February 13, 2021

pathetic. what a bunch of spineless buffoons

if during the riot McCarthy pleaded with Trump and Trump actually refused to send support, that is huge. still have only see it reported on CNN though

lol nothing matters.

it would be huge, but how many huge, obviously treasonous things has he done?

How can they not call McCarthy and Tuberville to testify? Seems ... pertinent?

it's damning evidence that confirms one of the main arguments of the prosecutors in the impeachment trial

It helps not to think of it as a trial because it isn’t one.

A source close to former VP Mike Pence tells @Acosta Trump’s legal team was not telling the truth when attorney Michael van der Veen said “at no point” did the then president know Pence was in danger on January 6th.

Asked whether van der Veen was lying, the source said "yes."

— Ana Cabrera (@AnaCabrera) February 13, 2021

Has the prosecution rested? Can they subpoena McCarthy?

they should

I think I read that House Managers can still call witnesses. Yeah, blurb on WaPo: "Barring a vote to call witnesses, the trial could end Saturday."

Sounds like the odds of calling witnesses are close to nil.

The Democrats have done a great job, so it's disappointing it will end with this one thing hanging there (especially when they were so frustrated they weren't allowed to call witnesses last time). Not that it would make a difference, but I'd love to see McCarthy called up--to see him squirm, and, probably, to see him lie under oath.

I think they just want it over with at this point, both sides. They verdict is foregone, and I think there's no much appetite to drag it well into next week with witnesses, etc.

"Barring a vote to call witnesses, the trial could end Saturday."

That vote would be a vote of the Senate. It's not at the discretion of the House managers.

The republicans would drag it out if the shoe was on the other foot...

until they could get their shoes on the right foot

so republican congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler has confirmed the McCarthy conversation with Trump

she stood on stage and told the story earlier this week. it didn't make any difference then. maybe boomer tv reporting it will help, but i wouldn't get your hopes up.

Trump's comment about the would-be insurrectionists caring more about the election results than McCarthy did was first mentioned by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Republican from Washington state, in a town hall earlier this week, and was confirmed to CNN by Herrera Beutler and other Republicans briefed on the conversation.

why didn't the impeachment managers didn't bring it up at all?

sorry, composed my comment in fragments and didn't reread it before posting

that seems like a big piece of information

why does House people never want to bring up

this is theater and it's terrible theater

The senatorial Q&A session was mainly theater. The impeachment prosecution case had elements of theater, but was quire serious in purpose and legally accomplished.

The Trump defense was fact-impoverished and consisted mostly of legally shallow theories and blather, but its hard to see how it could have been more solidly built because all they had to work with was a small pile of sand and a lot of muddy water. It was terrible theater because his defense lawyers were not adepts at showmanship and legal legerdemain.

defenders of democracy

https://i.imgur.com/GoBaJRJ.png

https://www.propublica.org/article/i-dont-trust-the-people-above-me-riot-squad-cops-open-up-about-disastrous-response-to-capitol-insurrection

So were the Dems played by Mitch again? They skipped the investigative aspects of the impeachment because they didn't want to waste time in the waning days of Trump's term and the early days of Biden's (with subpoenas and testimony), to get the ball rolling in the face of Mitch's potential and real foot dragging while he still had power to slow things down. Mitch then floating the prospect of conviction might have offered false hope, so the Dems hurry and get the impeachment done and filed, and suddenly Mitch and the rest are voting that actually impeachment is unconstitutional, which indicates an extreme unlikelihood of conviction. And now the trial is on the brink of concluding with no witnesses, even though at least two or three seem essential to (further) proving guilt.

The Senate gets to determine witnesses, right? Does it take a strict majority to do that, or would the Dems need a handful of Republicans?

I think it's a straight majority

I mean they can call any witnesses they want but at the end of the day the GOP isn't going to convict