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

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

Is there nt a degree taht this is being done for teh public record as much as for a non forthcoming conviction

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) signaled that he will vote to acquit former president Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial. In an email, McConnell made his plans clear, according to an official who confirmed on the condition of anonymity.

Word of McConnell’s plans came shortly before the trial was set to reconvene at 10 a.m. Saturday, when senators are scheduled to decide whether to call witnesses. If they forgo that step, House managers and lawyers for the president will deliver final arguments.

At this point (as it was all along), the point is to get this shit on the record. Call some fucking witnesses.

Good morning!

could somebody throw the book or indeed the library at turtle mitch please.
About time this hellspawn felt the consequences.

Book should have a thermonuclear warhead in it imo

Democrats are "contemplating" calling witnesses. (According to CNN--and it's breaking news, so it must be 100% real.)

Agree totally with unperson: call witnesses, especially McCarthy. This is about getting everything on record, about how big an albatross you hang on some of these people in the immediate future, and about the longer view of history.

Yeah, just throw a hail Mary. Maybe no one will catch it, but at least you'll show people you tried.

Wow.

Rep Jamie Raskin says House impeachment managers want to subpoena Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler about the McCarthy-Trump call.

— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) February 13, 2021

there you go

Whoa! This is interesting. Their response: we're going to have to call 100 witnesses. We're going to drag this out till 2022.

McConnell delayed the trial, now he wants to acquit b/c it took long or something.

At least we won't be subjected to another round of endless 'totally exonerated!' braying when he's totally exonerated for the second time.

Yes, that's next-to-nothing in the way of good news but it's all I've got.

Their catch-22/paradoxical defense is so blatantly dishonest.

Something I asked yesterday: "Was making impeachment specifically about his inaction during the riot (rather than the question of incitement) ever an option?"

This is 100% Monday-morning quarterbacking--the thought had never occurred till me until the last couple of days. But that case seems so much more indisputable. And once that's established--we know he didn't do anything because he didn't do anything--then you can work back if you want to. Why didn't he do anything? Because he got what he wanted, an insurrection.

McCarthy is denying the house member--all rumour. Suprise.

This guy's angry-man theatrics are pathetic.

I'm waiting for him to point at Raskin and hiss "I'm going to the board of bar overseers about you, buddy."

Double whoa! Graham changed his vote from "no" to "yes."

Hmm. Something's fishy.

I've always got movies on the brain...the Republicans are going to do what the other side did to Gene Hackman in Class Action: he requisitioned one document, and they sent over a warehouse full.

Yep. He's gonna insist on subpoenaing the BLM head.

I don't know if this is Biden's preference, but I have to believe there was tacit (maybe direct) approval somehow.

There's a lawyer on MSNBC who is adamant that the Trump lawyer's threats this morning are all bluster. (paraphrase) Do they really want to call Pelosi, who a) had her life threatened, and b) they have no idea what she'll say? Do they want to call an FBI agent, who may confirm that they knew lots about this weeks in advance and did nothing?

Congress openly laughing at Trump's lawyer was a nice touch.

"That's the way it works, folks ... I don't know why you're laughing ... there's nothing laughable here" -- the Senate chamber breaks out in laughter after van der Veen threatens to depose Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris not by Zoom, but in his office in Philadelphia pic.twitter.com/T0xiozHckE

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 13, 2021

I'm not owned!
I'm not owned!

phillydelphia

Wow, Ron Johnson picked a fight with Mitt Romney on the Senate floor just now after this witness vote, per pooler @jason_donner

“Ron Johnson turned to Mitt Romney and was upset with him, even pointing at him once. Johnson was visibly upset....”

— Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) February 13, 2021

I get visibly upset whenever I see Ron Johnson. Or hear him speak. Or see his face.

Just saw that only the Senate gets to call witnesses, not Trump's people, not the house managers or defense.

"You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at," Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. "That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry."
"We should never stand for that, for any reason, under any party flag," she added, voicing her extreme frustration: "I'm trying really hard not to say the F-word."

there are already media sites running the "people laugh at Van Der Veen" news as a short article, which is sure to please a President who doesn't like when his representatives are openly mocked

https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-senate-chamber-openly-laughs-at-trump-defense-lawyer-van-der-veen-call-for-depositions-in-his-philadelphia-office/

Perhaps he shouldn't have secured representation from Clownshows & Fuckstick LLP

Maybe they were the only ones willing to work Pro Bonehead.

Half expected him to follow up "I didn't laugh at you" with "I'm just as God made me, sir."

lol

All kinds of history being made here, I guess

Lol Henry

“The world is laughing at us”

equal rights for the braindead . is this lawyer geezer going to have a future?