HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Lawrence O'Donnell, a for...

Mon Feb 15, 2021, 10:42 PM

 

Lawrence O'Donnell, a former Senate staffer, is NOT criticizing Dems for not calling witnesses

Because, having direct personal experience in that space, he actually understands how all of this works , knows why the decision was made, and is fully aware that the House Managers' call was on solid ground.

Interesting that his colleagues - most of whom don't have any of the experience, knowledge or insight O'Donnell has - can't stop second-guessing but the guy who actually know what he's talking about is telling us they got it right.

15 replies, 1067 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Lawrence O'Donnell, a former Senate staffer, is NOT criticizing Dems for not calling witnesses (Original post)
StarfishSaver Feb 2021 OP
elleng Feb 2021 #1
Walleye Feb 2021 #2
StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #3
Walleye Feb 2021 #6
regnaD kciN Feb 2021 #4
StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #9
OAITW r.2.0 Feb 2021 #5
servermsh Feb 2021 #7
StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #10
sfstaxprep Feb 2021 #8
dem4decades Feb 2021 #11
Poiuyt Feb 2021 #12
benld74 Feb 2021 #13
JI7 Feb 2021 #14
scarletwoman Feb 2021 #15

Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2021, 10:44 PM

1. Right.

PLEASE CALM DOWN! Raskin's move was absolutely perfect. This was a win
Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Last night and this morning, many people demanded that McCarthy be called as a witness to force him to admit that he had the conversation with Trump on January 6 as described by Rep. Herrera Butler. They insisted that this information needed to be put in the record.

This morning, Rep. Raskin paved the way for Herrera Butler to testify. Trump's attorneys freaked out. Now, a few minutes ago, Schumer announced that Herrera-Butler's previous statements would be put into the record. And Trump's attorneys stipulated that he would not object to it going into the record.

This is a big deal. If the point of bringing in Herrera-Butler was to get her statement on record and the point of bringing in McCarthy was to get hm to admit to the conversation, then putting her statement in the record and having Trump, the other person in the conversation, essentially admit that the conversation happened achieves the goal of any testimony. And it does so without a lot of delays, distractions, drama, extraneous defense witnesses and other circus-like shenanigans.

I understand why some people may think this was a cave at first blush. But if you wanted McCarthy to testify to prove that this conversation occurred, Trump admitting that the conversation occurred takes care of that.

Now, if you were looking for some other kind of drama to come out of that, that's another thing. But the purpose most people claimed they wanted from McCarthy's testimony has been satisfied beautifully.'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215105683

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 15, 2021, 10:51 PM

2. McCarthy would've just lied anyway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walleye (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 15, 2021, 10:52 PM

3. If and when he finally showed up

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 15, 2021, 11:01 PM

6. Right, exactly. I think Raskin played it just right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 15, 2021, 10:53 PM

4. Unfortunately, the question is not...

...whether they succeeded in getting the admission down on the record. The question is whether they could do so in a way that might make enough of an impact to sway Senate votes, or at least mobilize popular opinion enough to make criminal prosecution more palatable. And the obvious answer is "no." It's one thing to have the ranking House Republican, a man known for his extreme partisanship, have to admit in a public hearing on national television that this happened; it's another to have that fact quietly written down on a piece of legalese-filled paper (the public understands "yes, the president did it"; they don't understand what "stipulated" means) that no one will ever remember. By that standard, the deal that was worked out was impeccable legally, but unfortunate strategically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 15, 2021, 11:19 PM

9. The testimony would have been taken by deposition, a pretty dry process not on television

 

and the deposition transcript would have been entered into the record, just as her statement was. She would not have testified on television.

That would not have done a thing to "mobilize popular opinion" - in fact, it would have been just what you dismissed her statement as.

But even if the testimony was live, the idea that seeing a congresswoman they've never heard of would suddenly sway public opinion in a manner sufficient to get the public to force 10 additional senators to vote for acquit - after the public had not been moved by anything they saw or heard up until last weekend - just doesn't pass the laugh test.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 15, 2021, 10:54 PM

5. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2021, 11:13 PM

7. Just answer one question

Why did Schumer repeatedly tell them it was their call to make? Then they made it, and were not supported?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to servermsh (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 15, 2021, 11:22 PM

10. Who didn't support them?

 

They got exactly what they asked for. They wanted her testimony in the record. They got it.

The House managers have unanimously said they got exactly what they wanted - Hererra Butler's statement placed in the record - and they all agreed they didn't need to take her deposition or to call any more witnesses. So why are you insistent on saying that that's not true. Do you think they're all lying?

Or - hey! Here's an idea. Maybe the facts are just what they said they are and it is YOU who has your facts wrong and are assuming things that just didn't happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2021, 11:14 PM

8. They Could Have Dug Up Jesus And Had Him Testify

There was NOTHING those Assholes would have listened to. They made up their mind 4+ years ago who their Savior is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2021, 11:28 PM

11. They could have called Trump and Trump could have testified he did it.

And we would have had the same vote totals.

I'm actually glad it's over, let Biden get going and get his program through now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2021, 11:33 PM

12. Stacey Plaskett said it best

They didn't need more witnesses, they needed more senators with spines

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Tue Feb 16, 2021, 12:27 AM

13. Totally agree,,,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Tue Feb 16, 2021, 12:38 AM

14. Instead of calling out the Republicans who are ADMITTING Trump was guilty but still voted not to

convict you have idiots thinking these fools were going to vote guilty .

These are the same ones who were attacking Pelosi for not sending the impeachment articles to the Senate earlier because they were just sure McConnell was going to convict if it happened then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Original post)

Tue Feb 16, 2021, 01:17 AM

15. I suspect that the reason all these talking heads keep harping on the witness thing,

is that they were hoping for some extra drama and fireworks to pump up the viewership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread