New Yorker:How the House Democrats, in the face of certain defeat, presented the case

[Laura PourMeADrink]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/the-prosecution-of-president-donald-trump

Snip

The Laurel and Hardy–esque physical contrast between Schiff and Nadler, the team’s most senior members, could stand as a metaphor for their differing attitudes toward impeachment.

Schiff had resisted calls to begin proceedings against Trump even after the release of the Mueller report, and had urged Pelosi last fall to keep the scope of the articles narrowly focussed on the Ukraine matter.

Nadler, on the other hand, was an early advocate for impeachment. Last summer, a month before news of the Ukraine scheme had broken in the press, he told CNN that the Judiciary Committee was engaged in “formal impeachment proceedings,” a declaration that caused some consternation among his more cautious colleagues in the House.

And, when we spoke during the trial, he confirmed to me, for the first time on the record, that he had pushed Pelosi, unsuccessfully, to include an article of impeachment dedicated to the obstruction-of-justice allegations in the Mueller report. “It was clear to me by the beginning of 2019 that, on the merits, he ought to be impeached,” Nadler said, of Trump. By December, when the actual articles were drawn up, he said, “we could have impeached him on a dozen, literally a dozen, different arguments. But there’s a prudential political judgment to be made in terms of which articles and how many, and that’s the judgment that Nancy”—Pelosi—“ultimately made. That’s not a judgment on values, on the merits. It was a judgment, ultimately, on which could be most easily explained.”

[mopinko]

1. and that's where we are.

and sadder than that is that the real story didnt come out.
the gas contracts, and burying the black ledger, are what this was all really about, and that didnt even come out in the media, let alone the trial.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. Perry's dirty as dirt on that. But, here's what I missed.

The Dems seemed careful not to go beyond scope at all. Like you say, more background in the Ukraine saga. It reminded me of a real court trial and unsubstantiated information being inadmissible.

Yet the CJ didn't seemed concerned about that and were they really bound to stay in scope? And Republicans brought up Steele dossier...

[OnDoutside]

4. They impeached on what they had clear evidence for. But for Trump/Barr blocking everything else

they couldn't take a chance that the provable articles would be lost amongst the reeds,

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. So you're saying even relevant info was not raised

For fear of confusing matters? I was talking about admissable testimony...and whether or not things could be discussed not whether or not some thought it should be.

[crickets]

3. Succinctly but thoroughly revisits all the highs and lows of the experience,

and ultimately drives home one point: McConnell must go.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. Did you watch trump's victory deal yesterday? Everyone

stood but McConnell. Then it looked like Malaria glared at him and helped him stand? He sat first too. Wonder what that was about.