The House Managers have convinced all of the Republicans it's possible to convince

[StarfishSaver]

And nothing else they do, say, or produce at this point will change any more minds. Any Republican open to voting guilty already heard enough to convince them. But the vast majority of Republican Senators are stuck in place and wouldn't vote to convict even if Jesus Christ walked into the chamber and showed a video of Trump confessing to inciting a riot.

The House Managers have done all they can and more. But I think we're at a hard stop on impeachment at this point.

But remember, when this started, no one expected a conviction. And many didn't think there'd even been an impeachment at all. But not only has there been an impeachment, it was handled magnificently and brilliantly and, the stalwart and united Democrats have set the stage for the more complex and more impactful next phase of criminal investigations and prosecutions.

And, perhaps more important, they've laid the groundwork, framed the issues, and shaped the narrative for the first draft of history, which, like the vast, bipartisan majority of Congress, will forever condemn Trump as a disgraced, craven criminal.

[LuvLoogie]

1. Then call witnesses and subpoena documents.

Make the traitors pay.

Before you acquit
Eat some shit

[StarfishSaver]

5. What good would calling witnessed in the impeachment trial do at this point?

[Hugin]

6. Get it into the record.

Also, there's the onlookers to consider. There may be some changeable minds attached to a functioning conscience out there. Lord knows there aren't any in the GrOPper Senators.

[StarfishSaver]

8. The impeachment record is not the only record that will come of all of this

And no one knows what these witnesses will say. They could simply end up clouding the record, not clarifying it.

I think people assume that witnesses would create a powerful Perry Mason scenario. But they would actually probably obfuscate the very clear record that's been developed.

There are plenty of opportunities to get this information in the record and other fora. I don't think the impeachment trial is necessarily the best way to do that.

[Hugin]

18. What's the rush?

So that the Repugnants can get back to obstructing?

I trust the House Managers not to call people who are going to hurt their case. Most of them are former prosecutors after all.

We've just been through four years of Hell in our 240 year old Democracy. I think we can spend some time getting to the bottom of this.

Also, as has been exhaustively pointed out... This is not a legal trial. It is an Impeachment and as there have only been a handful of them (two for Trump) anything they decide to do is precedence setting.

Let's see how this pans out.

[StarfishSaver]

20. Not a rush, just strategy

There are many avenues to conduct investigations. Everything doesn't need to be done in the impeachment trial, especially since none of the evidence that would come out of witness testimony is going to have any effect on the outcome.

[Hugin]

23. Most of those other avenues aren't as public.

Non-public things are easier to bury.

If we're going to air this laundry, let's do it where everyone can see 'the whole truth'.

Besides, there are State level investigations spinning up on other crimes committed.

A 'conviction' or 'acquittal' (if that's what they are called in an Impeachment) aren't the only goals in a political theater such as what this is in reality.

[TheRickles]

26. Seems like Tuberville and McCarthy and Pence can answer the 2 key questions about Trump:

What did he know, and when did he know it? Worth subpoenaing, IMO.

[StarfishSaver]

32. You're assuming they'd be cooperating witnesses

They would be hostile witnesses and it would be days, maybe weeks before they would actually testify. And the testimony could be very muddled and not produce the kind of information some people think it might.

And it would put the House managers - who have built a tremendous amount of public goodwill for the impeachment process and how they've conducted it, in the position of having to tussle and fight publicly with cagey politicians who don't intend to answer their questions or give them the information they want.

And it won't change a single vote for conviction.

I think the better course of action is to, at most, get sworn statements from the Secret Service, if possible (it may not be easy to do that quickly) and then call the vote - and let the various Senate and House committees of jurisdiction take over the investigations. THEY can drag Pence, et al in to testify, fight over subpoenas, and hammer them with well-prepared questions from all sides.

But at this point, I don't think the impeachment managers need to big themselves down into trying to present evidence that will be difficult to get and won't make a difference to the process they're responsible for.

[StarfishSaver]

28. House and Senate hearings are public

[Hugin]

33. They found the entirety of the results of the Iran/Contra hearings showing...

irrefutable guilt of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the Reagan administration packed in boxes locked in a storage room of a DC parking garage 20 years after they could have been relevant.

Let's try a different way this time.

[LiberalArkie]

61. I only know 1 local person who has heard of the "impeachment". Most people do not care at all about

it. The now person in my area that I know that had heard of the trail just believes it is just a democratic coverup for stealing the election.

I don't think that there are many people that are interested in all the political stuff, they just want to live their lives and be able to put food on the table.

I was at a family last night helping to get their kids iPhone working again. I mention that the US could have been taken over by Trump and he really did not care. They just want to be able to earn a living and put food on the table.

[ancianita]

36. Not even Secret Service testimony?

[StarfishSaver]

40. I think that could be done with a sworn statement, if needed

But it's a very sensitive area and I don't think the Secret Service wants to reveal much about their processes and protocols, including how they communicate internally.

[ancianita]

43. Okay. I see. Thanks.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

69. You were SO right Hugin!

[Hugin]

70. ...

Thanks, LPMD.



This is one of those times where being right about doing the correct thing is upsetting to me.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

71. Why? I think it's great. To me, I think the team is much more

independent this time. And people speaking their mind here and not backing down is hopeful too.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

72. Well shit, scratch all that, they caved for some reason.

[DonaldsRump]

9. A lot

There two ways to make this trial change complexion: (1) trump was directly involved in the violence (e.g., an email from him or his staff coordinating the raid on the Capitol; and/or (2) what he did or didn't do the moment he knew the protest turned violent.

It's the second issue that the trump-McCarthy call relates to. Failing to act when he knew the siege was ongoing and violent is a complete failure of the President's duty under Article II of the Constitution. Arguably, that's new information that came out yesterday after the proceedings were closed for the day.

The Managers can also call the Secret Service to get precise information about trump and Pence to establish what trump did or didn't do and when on the afternoon of January 6.

[StarfishSaver]

11. You're assuming witnesses will come in and just say just what you want them to say

But that's not how it would work. The house managers would be question people without much preparation and the defense attorneys would subject them to cross-examination. It could it It could end up being a mess.

At this point it doesn't matter what the Secret Service would say about timing. Everyone knows exactly what happened, That Trump knew what was going on and refused to send help. Further testimony about the timeline won't change a thing - not a single additional Republican will vote to convict based on that, so it won't change the outcome. And if the concern is getting more information into the public record, there are many other ways to do that and that will happen in the coming days weeks and months.

[DonaldsRump]

14. I'm a lawyer, so I get that

I disagree that everyone knows what happened. Pence's folks yesterday evening said trump's lawyers lied about what happened. That's kind of a big deal. There could be some really damaging stuff that Senators who would vote to acquit might change their mind because it would be politically damaging to acquit. We don't know, but there is some tantalizing last minute stuff coming out.

My point is do the investigation. trump's lawyers screamed about that. Talk to the SS. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there. You resume, have the Senate vote, and trump's acquitted.

If there is something there, then it was obviously worth it.

Nothing is lost by a few more weeks. Put it this way: the trump/McCarthy story has been the top story in Google news for the last 15 hours, so people are taking it seriously.

The record thus far has been made well by Managers.

[StarfishSaver]

15. I agree that an investigation must be done

I just don't think it needs to be done as part of the impeachment trial. There are many other avenues for a more thorough investigation without tangling up and delaying the impeachment.

[rainin]

41. Justice matters. If democrats appear to put on half a case

people will feel discouraged. I know I'll be disappointed if they don't bring everything they can, right now. Remember, people supported Nixon until the truth came out. It changed minds. For 4 years, we've been screaming for accountability. You can hear on DU that there's a need to hear the full story. Let the republicans do what they do, but the dems aren't in the minority anymore, we shouldn't have to feel so powerless right now. Let the full truth be laid bare.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

73. So disappointed :(. You are so right!!!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

68. You were SO right!! Bravo LL

[DonaldsRump]

3. The Managers may call witnesses, do you think?

They have done an excellent job, but there's a bit more unearthing to do with the trump/McCarthy call.

I will be very disappointed if they don't pursue that.

[StarfishSaver]

7. I'm not sure that's a good idea

Calling witnesses isn't a quick thing. They will have to vote on subpoenas, then issue them, and serve them, which takes several days.

And, is any good trial lawyer would tell you, you never want to put a witness on when you don't know what they're going to say. So they would need to depose witnesses in advance, if possible, which takes more time. And that won't happen with any hostile witness, who won't submit to a deposition, which means they'd be putting people on the stand without any clear sense of what they would say. It could be a mess.

And for what result? As I said, nothing anyone says is going to change any more minds, so it won't affect the outcome. Some may argue that it's important to get them on the record for history's sake, But as I also said, impeachment trial is not the end of it. There will be many more opportunities to get this information into the public record.

I just don't see how calling witnesses at this point in the impeachment process would be helpful. It would delay and slow down the process, not change the outcome, blunt the powerful message and momentum the House managers have created and possibly muddle the very clear message they've presented.

[DonaldsRump]

12. Our wires crossed

There's no need to rush this. Let this linger. And do the investigation.

It couldn't be done until after 12 noon on January 20, but it sure can now. And I do think it would be politically devastating for many R senators to vote to acquit if trump's failure to stop the insurrection is provable.

The immediate threat of trump is over, but the question is whether he can come back. An acquittal gives him that opportunity.

Nothing will change the fine job of the Managers. But the drop of information about the trump/McCarthy call just before they discuss witnesses tells me something is cooking behind the scene.

[StarfishSaver]

13. I'm not sure it's a good idea to drag the impeachment out that way

The impeachment is not the only or last investigatory tool. There are many other ways to get this information into the public record - the house in Senate can conduct in depth hearings and DOJ is conducting criminal investigations.

I think the fact that the impeachment is the first thing that was done post-presidency and it's happening right now in real time makes us feel like everything must be done under the umbrella of impeachment as if it's the only mechanism for holding Trump accountable. But impeachment is a very limited, discrete thing and it need not be treated as the end all and be all - especially since we all know that there's nothing that can be produced in the impeachment that will change any more minds.

Of course, this is all up to the House managers and they may see it differently and, based on much more knowledge and information than I have, they will do the right thing.

[DonaldsRump]

16. Right, but don't let trump off the hook on impeachment.

let all the other proceedings that you mentioned run their course.

I think I'll stop responding for awhile! We have two discussions going. Nothing takes away from your central point that the Managers have done a terrific job.

[StarfishSaver]

17. We are in total agreement!

[DonaldsRump]

19. And for that, you get one of my last remaining hearts! Happy Valentine's Day!

[StarfishSaver]

21. Aww, thanks.

And here's one for you!

[DonaldsRump]

22. Ditto!

[calguy]

25. Every day spent on the impeachment trial

Is day not being spent on making Joe Biden's agenda reality.

[bdamomma]

60. So maybe

Biden will sign EO's to just get things done. Repigs are not going to vote for improving people's lives. There's some sort of strategy here.

Maybe Graham will do harm to himself??

[calguy]

62. The politicians on the Hill are much more knowledgeable and skilled than we will ever be

All can do is watch. But we can have our opinions, and everyone has one.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

56. Omg this is hysterical! Disagreement with House? Omg

Must equal disparaging them.... Oh noooo.

[SkeezerRedux]

4. Certainly, I hope for a conviction.

But I think the only positive to come from this will be getting all the Repukes on the record either for or against the rule of law, peaceful protest, and democracy as a whole.

Having accomplished that, each and every one who votes to acquit must be noted and every opportunity and effort taken to make their political lives miserable henceforth.

No prisoners!

[JimGinPA]

10. At This Point It's Not About "Convincing"

It's about pressure. They know they're trapped rats & they need to be forced to do the right thing in order to get away from the box they're in.

[HariSeldon]

27. Agreed, and let them know this isn't "politics as usual"

Given the evidence supporting this impeachment, the vote is effectively for or against the rule of law. I'd have the House managers tell the Senate: "The evidence he committed this crime is so clear it leaves only one question for your vote: do you believe in the rule of law? And the nation will take note of this, because if one party does not believe in the rule of law, the other party cannot afford to." Put it in the language of fear, of threat -- it seems to be the only language they are capable of hearing.

[bdamomma]

66. hmm....

interesting comment, sounds plausible to me. Let's see if they back into that corner. Rats=corner

[bucolic_frolic]

24. No, I don't think we're at a hard stop, I think Republicans are flummoxed and feeling it in the gut

From their perspective, Republicans are faced with only bad choices. They either pass on condemning the insurrection, which will be incredibly bad for their political careers, or they convict and suffer whatever the consequences that they would never tell and about which the public can only speculate. It may or may not include or be limited to sources of campaign cash. It could simply be about worshiping money as the primary purpose of life.

"From blood - money. From money - blood."

[gab13by13]

29. I agree,

I'm tired of waiting for something to happen "down the road." I'm about done counting on Cy Vance to do squat."

Now is the time to "fight" as so many Democrats have said.

I agree if we call Pence we don't know what he will say but we have a witness of McCarthy's call to Trump. McCarthy called Trump asking for help and Trump told him, according to a witness, "it seems that the rioters care more about the election than you do." McCarthy responded, "who the fuck do you think you're talking to?"

Someone give me a good reason why that is not a smoking gun? We don't know what the Secret Service will say, we don't know what Pence will say, but we have a witness to what Trump said to McCarthy. The press found out about it from someone. Will McCarthy commit perjury since he knows there was a witness to his conversation?

Call McCarthy.

[ms liberty]

30. For me, it's about putting everything and everyone on the record, now

Rather than waiting on them to spin themselves out of accountability later on their terms rather than ours.

[Wounded Bear]

31. I agree. Witnesses and other shit would just waste time...

Have the vote and make them live with it.

[StarfishSaver]

35. Exactly

Some people think this would be some dramatic Perry Mason moment that will reveal all manner of wrongdoing. But it would actually be a mess.

And if anyone thinks Raskin can just issue a subpoena this morning and Pence, McCarthy, et. al, will show up this afternoon - or tomorrow or Monday or next week - clear everything up by telling us exactly and only what we want to hear - they are mistaken.

[gab13by13]

34. Allow me to clarify how the McCarthy/Trump phone call went down.

"In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did. '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," CNN reported Friday.

Will McCarthy deny this CNN report and commit perjury?

Call McCarthy.

[StarfishSaver]

37. It's not as simple as you think

They can't just "Call McCarthy."

They would have to subpoena him and give him a few days to comply and then he'll contest the subpoena and then they'll go to court and then he'll appeal and then if and when (probably atvleast a week or two from now, if not longer) a court FINALLY says he has to testify, he'll be a hostile witness, refusing to answer questions, arguing, haggling with the impeachment managers and turning this into a circus. And since we don't know what else he'll say - and neither will the managers - we have no idea whether he'll say something exculpatory about Trump that could offset anything damaging.

And let's not forget that once House managers open the door to witnesses, that allows the defense to also ask for witnesses and who knows what they'll do with that.

In other words, this could be a mess. And it wouldn't change a single vote.

Better to got to the vote and then let the House and Senate committees do their investigations and drag these guys in to testify under oath. But doing it in the impeachment process, in my view, is not the way to go.

The House managers may see and do it differently. If so, I'll be right there with them. But if I were advising them, this is the advice I would give.

[flying_wahini]

47. Then call Pence out.

[gab13by13]

49. Looks like we have the witness,

Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler backed reports late Friday that said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy spoke with then-President Donald Trump as a mob was attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and that the president seemed unconcerned about the riot.

Call McCarthy, subpoena McCarthy.

[StarfishSaver]

51. I think that's a really smart move

Frankly, I hadn't thought of her. I was thinking about McCarthy, Pence, etc. whom I thought and still think would be problematic.

But calling Herrera-Butler is really smart - she's a friendly witness who will cooperate, corroborate their point and not cause them problems.

Nicely done, Dems!

[mahina]

57. Thank you starfishsaver

That’s a really useful perspective. You be well.

[Gore1FL]

38. I'd like to have Republicans testify

They have three options. Perjure. Plead the 5th. Tell the truth.

Any of those choices will ultimately lead to truth and consequences.

[FreepFryer]

39. Typo in the headline. Agree w the post. We will see what happens. (Nt)

[DarleenMB]

42. Sure wish I had the same crystal ball

you all have. EVERYone keeps saying they won't convict. Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist but until the votes are counted I'm holding out for a few more Republicans to find their moral center and their love of country.

Hope springs eternal.

[safeinOhio]

44. I think the next stage, Federal, State and local courts,

both criminal and civil can really put the kibosh him. His money, the thing most dear to him and his freedom.
I'm more hopeful than ever with the info from this trial. Lets have a real jury.

[bigtree]

45. none of that stops a repeat performance

...none of that erases the permission an aquittal would provide future presidents from doing the exact same thing.

Public opinion didn't stop Trump from inciting the mob to invade the Capitol. We shouldn't be so sanguine about allowing this trial to be dictated by republicans' refusal to convict.

[mn9driver]

46. Since impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding, acquittal doesn't let him off the hook.

He can still be criminally and civilly charged with crimes related to 1/6. And it is important that this happens. There is a ton of evidence available to try and convict him in any court other than the kangaroo court of the senate.

[gab13by13]

50. It sets a precedence for future presidents to do the same.

[ananda]

48. Keeping Reeps in the hot seat is OK with me.

Make them look reallyreally bad when they acquit.

[gab13by13]

52. Ruh Roh, looks like Jamie Raskin agrees with me.

On Saturday, House impeachment manager Jamie Raskin announced on the Senate floor that he will move to subpoena Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) as a witness in the trial of former President Donald Trump.
Raskin said that he specifically wants notes from Herrera Beutler regarding her conversations with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) on Trump's resistance to calling the national guard to put down the Capitol insurrection, a set of facts which goes to the president's disinterest in stopping the riot from taking place.

[StarfishSaver]

54. I think calling Herrerra Butler is really smart

It's streamlined, clean and focused.

It's a good move. And I think they'll strive to keep it very narrow.

[gab13by13]

55. Thank you. It is the smoking gun.

It will also explode in the MSM.

[TheRickles]

58. So Raskin read your post? Excellent! :-)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

65. Video below. Maybe it's one of those great minds think alike moments. Bravo gab13x13

Link to tweet

?s=20

[gab13by13]

53. It's THE freaking smoking gun,

why would you not pursue this? I am baffled at people here. We have a witness to McCarthy's call with Trump it would be dumb to ignore this, no, it would be dangerous.

[flibbitygiblets]

67. This 👆

[bringthePaine]

59. siege tactics favor the managers bigly, now's the time to redouble resolve and popcornage

[Ponietz]

63. I don't believe the country survives an acquittal

With an acquittal, the Republican Senate crosses the Rubicon, and doubling down will be the only way it survives. Wholesale election fraud will occur in red states. I just read that witnesses will be called and welcome this news.

[StarfishSaver]

64. We'll survive

We've survived much worse. We'll survive this.