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

it sounds like if anybody erred, it was Raskin - assuming he could have had this conversation with Chuck in advance, well frankly he should have. since they weren't expecting it, they were figuring it out on the fly.

yeah, the early reports are that the senate democrats were "blindsided" by Raskin's proposal. i get that. that was bad a good chat with chuck would have prevented that. but the problem is, after being blindsided, they still voted - with the support of 5 republicans - to call witnesses. the time to figure out if democrats were serious or not about calling witnesses was before that vote, not after

To Neanderthal's point. POLIICO:

When Senate Democrats stepped onto the floor on Saturday morning, they had no idea the House impeachment managers were about to drop a political grenade in their laps.

But after a brief schism that threatened to throw Donald Trump's trial into chaos, House and Senate Democrats quickly agreed to put the pin back in. House Democratic managers and the former president's lawyers ducked the issue of witnesses nearly as soon as it was raised, and Senate Democrats approved the turnaround.

Instead of a weeks-long drama over trial witnesses that risked upending the Senate schedule, a widely known statement from one House Republican was entered into the record. Trump’s team declined to dispute it. And amazingly, both sides decided to move on.

But that speedy resolution came after several hours of utter uncertainty.

While Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and his members had prepared for the possibility of voting on witnesses, they got no warning that the lead House prosecutor was about to force a vote that could have prolonged the trial for days or weeks. The impeachment managers spent Friday night and Saturday morning wrestling with the question themselves, according to Democratic sources.

Then Senate Democrats held a 9 a.m. Saturday conference call where members still indicated they were in the dark about House Democratic managers’ plans. The managers didn’t make the final call to force a Senate vote until minutes before the Senate gaveled in at 10 a.m., Democrats said.

why did senate democrats vote for calling witnesses, 50-45, if it was so clearly a bad idea an hour and a half later?

and on the other side of the coin, there would be much less outrage - probably almost none - if the democrats wouldn't have made a push for witnesses this morning. that's what was expected, in fact. the great outrage and disappointment right now is a product of their own creation! don't bother tantalizing people with glimpses of doing a good thing if you're not going to follow through!?

yea that's what's irritating about this to me as well. the Republicans' only argument here, the one they've been using for FIVE FUCKING YEARS NOW, is "you hate Trump just because he's rude, you had it out for him on Day 1 and that's why we don't take any of this seriously". doing something like this just plays into that. "oh if your case was so airtight, why didn't you call witnesses??"

at the end of the day though it's hard to have TOO much ire for Democrats. they're trying to work in a fundamentally broken system that rewards evil. I don't think dragging this out would've changed any votes, nor would it have swayed too many voters; even without witnesses, the Dems' argument was a slam dunk, the GOP's defense pathetic. adding more evidence to the pile isn't going to change anything. the system is broken. I understand that. but they're sending a huge message that they don't take this shit seriously, either.

they had to vote one way or the other once it was introduced, and to call Herrera required a "yes" vote, is my thought.

which is a bit different than Schumer saying "let's have witnesses" *disco dance* "just kidding!"

Raskin probably didn't tell Schumer because the only reason he was motioning for witnesses is because he had one witness to call and he greatly misjudged how much of a clusterfuck it would be once he introduced it. he figured it'd pass on party lines or with aisle crossers, they'd call Herrera, and that's it, not the procedural wonkery that was proposed afterward.

Seems like the Senate GOP leaders had carefully gamed out how to react to a motion to call witnesses and had their countermove all ready in the bag, while Raskin and the House managers were simply reacting to Herrera-Beutler's statement on a last minute basis and hadn't gamed it out ahead - maybe because their heads have been deep into the process of putting together and presenting their case, not the parliamentary clusterfucks Mitch could spring on them.

weren't the GOP saying on television over and over that if the Dems called witnesses they'd spend months wasting time by calling pointless witnesses? they telegraphed this well in advance

anyway the shit that really gets me is that the Senate is adjourning for a week so it's not like they have important immediate business to attend to. this comes off like "we'd love to punish this insurrection but we're not gonna lose our vacation over it"

The way I understood it this morning was that the precedent says each side gets the same number of witnesses; if the Democrats proposed one, that's all the other side would get.

LIke I mean...

We keep pointing out the Senate voted "yes", but how big of an optics disaster would it have been if the Senate voted "no" after Raskin proposed it? You never want your party to be on different pages in a trial like this. The moment Raskin proposed it, they had to vote "yes".

I think they actually did want to depose Hererra, and used the vote to negotiate getting their statement added into the record and being able to avoid the clusterfuck.

it feels botched, but....I think some of you all are oversimplifying waht happened.

Harder to get those bingos now that “Dr Morbius says bye” will go forever unchecked

I motion that "Dr. Morbius says bye" spot should become the "Dr. Morbius Memorial Free Space" in ILX POLITICS BINGO.

I think he’d object to his memorial being located in the center.

it's just me oversimplifying

there is no accountability, at all. it's gone. i'm sure the democrats had good reasons, bla bla bla. fuck them, fuck the GOP 1000000 times more, fuck trump 1000000000000000 times more than that.

what else can you do

lol silby, and also otm

Does the defense always get the last closing statement? If the order is controlled by the majority, I'd want last at-bat--this guy's saying all sorts of ridiculous stuff right now.

I’ve had it on mute for like an hour now.

so what exactly did the Dems get in this "deal"? a promise to be better next time?

Herrera's statement entered into the record. Had they stuck with the witness call, they'd have gotten the same thing but with actual live testimony which admittedly would have been better

Legally, are the managers allowed to introduce new evidence during closing arguments?

If the Senate permits it, it's "legal", because this trial has no connection to normal civil or criminal trials.

I know this is all theatre for this guy, but "show trial," really?

I was thinking Moscow, of course, but when I look up the definition, I guess it's in fact the ultimate show trial: "A show trial is a public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt, and/or innocence, of the defendant."

Ironically, during "show trials" the star witness is usually the defendant confessing to all his crimes against the state.

ok so they’re voting right now?

I hope someone could come up with a better case than this in a criminal court. I have not watched it all, but it seems to be missing enormous amounts of the context that makes what he actually did so terrible. What did was to build his own army, and this building happened mostly online and in alternative media. He had a team of henchmen that did and said all the most dirty things for him, that did all these things with his obvious knowledge and approval. He directly insulted and threatened those that didn’t show loyalty. Set up a culture of extreme intimidation, then made “reasonable” demands and “suggestions”. Henchmen and follower army restated those threats much more explicitly of course / he was well aware of same because he literally was his intention. Then does beyond the pale things like calling Georgia officials to intimidate directly, all in that context, and then openly expressing “disappointment” over Pence not having the “courage” to bend for him. Very little of it was about his words and actions on the 6th- that was just another part of the same pattern. I mean, it’s godfather stuff. Surely that case could be made better than we saw here.

it seems to be missing enormous amounts of the context

all that context was supplied by the House managers prosecuting the case, but apparently you missed it.

he’s acquitted, btw

SHOCKAH

I have not watched it all, but it seems to be missing enormous amounts of the context that makes what he actually did so terrible.

at the very beginning, within a few minutes of raskin starting his opening statement, they played a (already infamous) 13-minute clip that made it very, 100% clear what he did and why it was so terrible. everyone in that room voting Not Guilty knows exactly what a fucking scumbag they are

57 guilty votes

sasse, toomey, murkowski, collins, cassidy, romney, burr were the republican guilty votes

Not bad--three more Republicans, everybody else held. Congragulations DT, only 57% of the Senate think you're a menace.

I did miss the opening arguments.

Forever LOL at *this* being the absolute ceiling for bipartisanship in such matters.

burr also voted to convict clinton, the man just loves impeachment

way to go usa

They're making speeches now? I don't get it.

now that this is over can Trump fall down 12 flights of stairs and break his neck and be forced to live in a vegetative state forever

I assume Burr thought he was impeaching Hillary.

Hope republicans don’t invite their mob over to prevent the peaceful transfer of peace again, especially now that it’s been shown that during the last few weeks of a presidential term, you can do whatever you want.

But surely everyone has learned their lesson

That McConnell is up there saying all this now is great, but Jesus, man, that's what you just said didn't happen with your actual vote.

I guess time will tell if there was any point in doing this at all, any long-term real-world positive impact. I will guess 'no'.

McConnell: "After deep reflection, I have determined that these legalistic quibbles allow me to have my cake and eat it, too."

wonder if he wants to suggest a censure

I mean yes, it's important to call Trump to account for his actions and to get his party on the record as supportive of those actions. But all it does ultimately is buttress the positions everyone already held. Maybe there will be a little more GOP attrition but I'm not holding my breath for any substantive shift.

Do you need 2/3 for censure, or just a majority? I'm all for it. I know it's just symbolic, but I've been reading my whole life about what an effect McCarthy's censure had on him.

A majority.

?

Sen. McConnell, who voted not guilty, says, "There's no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it."

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) February 13, 2021

Basically, McConnell is giving all the Republicans who are disgusted with Trump a free pass for remaining in he party after this acquittal, while letting his caucus off the hook for their "not guilty" votes. His argument only needs to sound impressive and constitutionally-based to accomplish this, because the sole reason for making it is to manufacture a fig leaf for doing what is most politically expedient or emotionally satisfying. He's absolving the tribe of sin.

so when is that McCopnnell/Chao case reopening?