It's odd seeing people hammer Dems for not questioning a witness in 2-3 weeks instead of hammering

[StarfishSaver]

the GOP for acquitting Donald Trump today.

Especially since Democrats got that witness' testimony into the record and it wouldn't have made any difference at all to the outcome even if Jesus Christ Himself stood next to her nodding and giving thumps ups while she testified.

The focus should be on the Republicans not on the Democrats who busted their asses and did a brilliant job in putting together and presenting their case.

Why is it that some Democrats are so intent on tearing down their own?

[TwilightZone]

1. Nicolle Wallace just said that all the witnesses went cold.

That likely ended any ongoing discussion of having witnesses.

I agree entirely on where the fury should be directed. Blaming Democrats for a result that was preordained is silly.

[servermsh]

5. LOL. What kind of standard is that?

If witnesses don't want to talk to the DOJ or DA's, do we just give up? Wow.

[TwilightZone]

19. You want to call witnesses who won't testify?

Sure, that makes sense.

By the way, your motivations are quite clear. You're not fooling anyone.

[dsc]

31. actually if the DA doesn't think you will be a good witness and aren't needed

they do refuse to call you. and just how long would you be willing to wait for stimulus money while this was being litigated.

[servermsh]

2. Wrong on several counts

- You don't know what else she would have testified to.

- You don't know what is in her contemporaneous notes.

- Raskin reserved the right for more witnesses if her testimony led there. You don't know where that would have led.

[StarfishSaver]

9. You could say that about anyone

Should the impeachment trial just gone on for a few months or so just in case a witness might say something no one anticipated?

That's not how it works. And I will bet you that Raskin, et al knew EXACTLY what she would and wouldn't say.

[TwilightZone]

10. "You don't know what else she would have testified to. "

False. She said she would testify no further than what was already noted.

[BainsBane]

35. It wouldn't have made a difference

The Republicans were never going to convict.

[leftstreet]

3. If they knew he'd be acquitted, why even impeach?

...and these long term serving pols knew exactly what would happen

where are our checks?

[TwilightZone]

6. They didn't have any choice.

They had to impeach him. The target audience then became the American public because everyone knew the GOP would ensure he was acquitted.

[leftstreet]

13. Why didn't they have to impeach Trump on emoluments?

Which is oddly the one thing they could have gotten him on

[KPN]

14. With this Senate? I don't think so. The construct of the Senate no longer serves to

support Democracy, at least not with the values many hold today (most of them on the R side of course).

[TwilightZone]

15. Would have had the same result.

In fact, we probably got more votes on this than we would have on emoluments.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

4. We weren't going to get a conviction, but we did a great job

And Trump's problems are far from over

[blueinredohio]

18. IMO, Trumps problems ARE over.

He knows he can do anything and get away with it. No one is going to do anything to him. He'll even get to live at Mar a Lago.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

21. Letitia James may disagree n/t

[blueinredohio]

24. I'm not holding my breath.

[StarfishSaver]

20. I'm old enough to remember

folks here insisting that Pelosi needed to impeach him even if a conviction was impossible because we had to hold him accountable.

And then I remember them insisting that Pelosi needed to send the article of impeachment over to the Senate immediately even if that meant McConnell would either bury it or do a sham trial, because we had to hold him accountable.

I also remember their complaining loudly at the possibility the impeachment trial would be delayed a few weeks because, as they said this needed to be done and disposed of immediately.

But now all of a sudden some of these same folks are throwing a fit because the trial wasn't dragged out indefinitely in order to accommodate live testimony of a witness whose statement was entered into the record and wouldn't have affected the outcome anyway.

Sometimes I think that these folks just want to find something to complain about and for some reason the target of those complaints are always Democrats

[Just_Vote_Dem]

25. I think your last sentence sums it up for many

Some people also don't really understand that in politics you need huge majorities in order to get everything you want. Otherwise-and this happens most of the time-you have to compromise to get even part of what you want. In my personal life I've had to make compromises so I was lucky to understand this at an early age.

And thank you for posting. I enjoy reading your take on things

[StarfishSaver]

26. Thanks

Much appreciated, especially on days like this.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

28. My pleasure! n/t

[betsuni]

32. Was just thinking the same thing

Months of demanding impeachment to hold him accountable, conviction wasn't the point, then wails about a few weeks delay, and now this. Keeping up the Dems-are-weak-spineless-cave-don't-fight drumbeat.

[StarfishSaver]

34. I suspect some folk were frustrated this week

at the overwhelming praise at the awesomeness of the House Impeachment Managers' performance - what fun is that - and they were just looking for an excuse to run the "Democrats are Weak" flag back up the pole.

[KPN]

7. Question regarding the witnesses testimony, was it a sworn testimony?

[fearnobush]

8. There was no chance in hell 17 pukes would convict with two weeks of testimony

They all believe Trump won pure and simple.

The treasonous 45 will spend the rest of his life and money in court.

[Irish_Dem]

11. Sociopaths always like to get the victims fighting amongst themselves.

Rather than look at the bad guys.
Typical strategy.

[yellowdogintexas]

12. the entire proceeding did not gain us the exact outcome we wanted

but a lot of information is now public which can be put to good use by the Georgia team (as well as others)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. Isn't that what always happens?

It seems to me that far too many Democrats have internalized the Democrats are weak notion that the media have been propounding for decades, and as a result see every action or result that they either don't like or don't understand as more evidence of that falsehood. It's almost like the abused wife whose husband has told her for years that she's ugly and stupid to the point where she believes it herself, and so she'll never leave because she doesn't think anyone else will have her. Similarly, Democrats have been told they're weak for so long that at least some of them believe it.

We are not weak. We should not take every setback or every misunderstood tactical move as evidence of weakness; that behavior itself contributes to and strengthens the lie.

Just fucking stop it!

[timms139]

17. There will be plenty

of people testify in a regular court or maybe two in the future .

[StarfishSaver]

22. But but but a congresswoman we never heard of until yesterday isn't going to testify

in a few weeks about something she's already talked about publicly and is already in the trial record, so the Democrats failed and we're DOOMED!!!!

[timms139]

30. She won't have

a choice in regular court.

[SergeStorms]

23. Yeah, everyone has really been taking it easy...

on the republicans around here.

[Hortensis]

27. Weakness and foolish lack of conviction in too many is why we lose elections.

The right doesn't have this weakness, and oh how I wish I could send LW weaklings to subvert their conviction.
Unfortunately, they always "know" who they must fear, fight, hate, and that they must hang together to defeat their enemies. No confusion.

[Generic Other]

29. They fought as hard as any army ever did

They are my heroes. They fought against Bannon, Rove, Stone and Trump.

I believe in ma'at, the principle of truth in ancient Egypt. Truth will prevail. One's heart is weighed against it. And if one is judged wanting, one's soul is lost.

I appreciate you for helping us all better understand process and procedure.

The rest of us only have anger and emotion today. Tomorrow we will have new resolve...

[crimycarny]

33. Witness testimony rules take 60 votes

That’s why Lindsey Graham voted to allow witnesses, he wanted to be able to use the threat of tying up the Senate forever.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-acquits-trump-for-second-time-as-seven-republicans-join-democrats-in-guilty-vote-211230767.html

“For roughly two hours on Saturday morning, it appeared that the trial would extend for more than one day, and possibly for weeks or longer. House managers proposed calling witnesses, and the Senate approved the request by a vote of 55 to 45.

But after it became clear that it would require 60 votes to actually approve the rules for calling witnesses, the managers backed off. Hardline Trump loyalists such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., had made it clear they would seek to bring the Senate to a grinding halt and not allow It to do any other business other than the trial, turning it into a partisan circus and blocking any progress on a COVID-19 relief bill.”