Report: Schumer Privately Arguing Against Having Witnesses At Impeachment Trial

[babylonsister]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/report-schumer-privately-arguing-against-having-witnesses-at-impeachment-trial

Report: Schumer Privately Arguing Against Having Witnesses At Impeachment Trial
By Cristina Cabrera
February 8, 2021 8:35 a.m.


Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has reportedly been pushing back against Democratic House impeachment managers’ call to have witnesses testify at ex-President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, which is set to begin on Tuesday.

Politico reports that Schumer and his fellow Democrats in the Senate believe that videos and Trump’s actions in front of the public are sufficient evidence for convicting the former president on the impeachment charge of “incitement of insurrection” over the deadly storming of the Capitol that Trump egged on last month.

Additionally, Senate Democrats reportedly argue that calling on witnesses would needlessly drag out a trial that is all but guaranteed to end in Trump’s acquittal anyway given that most GOP senators have voted that impeachment would be unconstitutional (an argument that constitutional experts across the political spectrum have rejected).

TPM has reached out to Schumer’s office.

Impeachment managers have invited Trump to testify at the trial, a request the former president flatly rejected as a “public relations stunt” last week.

[Eyeball_Kid]

1. "Sufficient evidence" doesn't sound like "an abundance of evidence."

THIS IS A ONE-TIME SHOT!

I think Schumer is wrong. Pile it on! Embarrass the bejesus out of traitor GOPers. Make them choose to either dump Trump or lose their careers. Finish them off. All of them.

[TheBlackAdder]

4. I'm more for overwhelming and highly emotional evidence. Politics is mostly emotional to voters.

[NYC Liberal]

6. Sadly, voting to acquit will help most of their careers, not hurt them.

Those from solidly red states will not be punished.

[TwilightZone]

9. Agreed. Look at Liz Cheney.

How quickly we forget. Red states *want* their Senators to acquit him. The alternative is the Liz Cheney treatment.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Ugh

Shut up, Chuck.

[Nevilledog]

3. I guess it depends on what witnesses are called.

Goodman and other cops, staffers & employees would be powerful witnesses

[Squinch]

5. I disagree. Shumer CANNOT take his usual "gentleman legislator" stance on this one.

We need people who heard Donny Bodybags speaking off camera and off the record. We need people other than legislators who can tell what the treasonous insurrection did to them.

[NYC Liberal]

8. This isn't a "gentleman legislator" thing. It's a strategy.

I personally am in favor of witnesses. But if this is true, it’s because they think witnesses won’t help sell the case and that videos will be more impactful, not because Schumer is trying to be nice.

[Squinch]

13. We'll need to agree to disagree. I will always vote for Shumer, but he does always favor

the less "tawdry" course of action. In this case that is not what we need. In this case we need to hang all the filthy laundry out in full view of everyone.

[Bobstandard]

7. Wasn't that the problem last time?

Trump’s last impeachment trial is dismissed on the right as trivial because there were no witnesses called. That time the lack of witnesses was imposed on us. This time it will be an unforced error.

I ll be especially pissed if the excuse is hurrying to make it easier for Joe to implement his agenda if that includes means-testing eligibility of COVID relief checks.

[CrispyQ]

10. Going along to get along is partly why we're where we're at today.

Some things are worth fighting for, even if they take valuable time. The American people need to see that there was a contingent within the bigger group who had a well-thought out plan with inside help.

[CincyDem]

11. To the degree that chuck tries to "stay above it all"...

Republicans will continue chewing away at our democratic (small d) foundation. This is no time to bring a knife to a gunfight.

[cbdo2007]

12. They should at least call Trump Jr, Guiliani, Hawley, Boebert to find out what they knew.

They public already thinks it is just partisan BS. We need the witnesses to show the conspiracy was far reaching, coordinated, and planned.

Then even if Trump is acquitted, we can go after the others separately for their roles.

If we don't call witnesses and Trump is acquitted, they will use that as their defense and won't be on the record in front of the Senate lying.

[Hortensis]

14. :) I'd like to think Spielberg and/or Scorsese were consulting.

Some people, hired/assigned by those in charge, are working on putting together a compelling show for the public.

Witnesses are needed to establish guilt or innocence for a good-faith jury. Trump will be acquitted by corrupt Republican senators. The witness who'd do us real good ("Pleease, Mr. Trump?" ) won't be available.

Witnesses have to be argued over, sworn in, etc, etc. Hurry up and wait, again and again. Slow down, lose momentum, drag out what will take days anyway. More isn't always more. Too much salt ruins the stew. Etc.

Otoh, a long video stream of deluded patriot after murderous patriot proudly declaiming from the scene that they'd answered Trump's call to insurrection...

I just hope talented people are putting it together.