Why no witnesses

[choie]

Could somebody please explain to me why the Dems aren't calling witnesses? Without witnesses, there's no chance of a guilty vote, and all this will be an exercise in futility. An insurrection incited by a president will go unpunished.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. There's no chance of a guilty vote anyhow.

[Lord Ludd]

5. Doesn't matter

D's must present the strongest, most compelling case for conviction they possibly can, so that history will show the enormous miscarriage of justice in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt.

[triron]

11. Yep.

[StarfishSaver]

17. It doesn't matter whether they do or not. The keyboard experts know better than they do.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. I think Raskin and his team are doing a brilliant job so far,

and the decision whether or not to call witnesses is way above my pay grade. If they decide not to, I have to assume they have good reasons.

[StarfishSaver]

23. Exactly. It's above mine, too

But apparently not above some folks' who obviously know better than Raskin and the House managers how they should handle the case and what the stakes are.

[Lotusflower70]

2. Hmmm

There is no chance of a guilty vote. He is not going to be convicted.

[Bev54]

3. The final decision has not yet been made

They will decide later if they want or need witnesses.

[marble falls]

4. We don't do these things to win. We do these things because it's what we do in this situation ...

... even if it's the equivalent to calling the fire department to a house that's clearly burning down.

At least make it clear what happens when they go for it. Make "getting away with it" not worth the effort.

[StarfishSaver]

18. Maybe you should sent Rep. Raskin an email explaining this.

This probably never occurred to him.

[maxsolomon]

6. Like, why didn't they call them TODAY?

I don't know that it's a foregone conclusion. Can you provide a link?

[Hamlette]

9. today was an argument and vote about a procedural matter, "it a trial constitutional"

it's like pre-trial motions in a court of law. They are deciding a issue of law, not of fact. You only call witnesses to show facts.

The trial starts tomorrow. As I understand it they have 8 hours per side for opening statements. Just like in a trail. After that they will decide if they need witnesses.

I'm not sure what witnesses they would call. For instance. if a witness would say that Trump knew the crowd on Jan 6 planned to force themselves inside the capitol building and do damage or even hang Pence, that person would be a good fact witness but I doubt anyone at the Jan 5 meeting would be willing to testify.

Witnesses address facts. We have most of the facts on tape.

[maxsolomon]

13. the OP was implying it was a foregone conclusion.

I was challenging that.

I think a few Capitol POs might be effective witnesses. Call in the FBI as "expert witnesses" and have those fuckers earn their keep for once. Or some of the Rabble if they're recalcitrant.

[StarfishSaver]

19. As I told someone else, perhaps you should send Rep. Raskin an email explaining this to him

Since he probably hasn't thought of this.

[maxsolomon]

20. I am not paying enough attention to know what you mean.

I'm sure it's occurred to the Managers.

Raskin's not planning to call witnesses?

[StarfishSaver]

24. I read your comment as second-guessing the House managers

If I read I misinterpreted, my apologies.

[Poiuyt]

7. Are Democrats making a huge mistake if they don't call witnesses at Trump's second impeachment trial

-snip-

It appears that Democrats in the Senate are more interested in the possibility of wrapping by Monday than having heart-rending testimony from congressional staffers and Capitol police that underscores Trump's guilt and GOP complicity. They just want to take all that possible new footage that could be used and reused for ads and viral content ... and just toss it in the trash?

---

Forgoing witness testimony is the kind of rookie error Republicans would never make.

---

Trump did cause an insurrection. Republicans have been shielding him from responsibility because ultimately, their only problem with him is that he failed. The rise of American fascism is a major problem facing our country, one that the majority of Americans who disapprove should be riled up about. Hastily getting this over with so it can be forgotten in a month's time is a terrible mistake.

---

There is no chance Senate Republicans will be swayed to convict Trump because no matter how painful this is to accept the vast majority of the GOP has become radicalized against democracy and will do whatever it takes to protect the openly fascist leaders who are emerging, including Trump himself. So the only value of this trial is to make the case to the public — and doing so requires witnesses. As Paul Waldman of the Washington Post writes, "Insulating the GOP from its extensive entanglement in Trump's effort to subvert our democracy — at exactly the moment when Congress is focusing maximum public attention on it — would seem like a missed opportunity."

That is an understatement. Right now, Democrats have a real chance to outline for the country not just Trump's guilt, but the stakes if we continue down this path of having one out of two political parties increasingly reject democracy. Whatever silly rationalizations Democrats come up with, the fear of really taking the fight to the Republicans appears to be based in a genuine fear of conflict with their colleagues, one rooted in the same ridiculous D.C. obsession with "bipartisanship" that is only and ever the responsibility of Democrats to maintain.

Democrats need to stop being such cowards. The very fate of our nation rests on their ability to show courage in the face of creeping fascism, and to marshal every tool they have towards beating it back. Democrats may fail — fighting fascism is often an uphill battle — but it shouldn't be for lack of trying. Calling witnesses is a no-brainer, a way to help draw media attention and make the case to the public about why violent authoritarianism and the party that supports it, the GOP, should be wholly rejected. If Democrats fail to make that case out of a fear of offending Republicans, they share in the complicity of letting Trump pull our nation further into darkness.

https://www.rawstory.com/impeachment-witnesses/

[H2O Man]

8. +1

[Hamlette]

10. who is your witness? Does Raw Story say?

[triron]

14. WTF is this comment for?

[triron]

12. +2

[StarfishSaver]

15. Oh, good Lord

If only the Democrats knew as much about how to do their jobs and cared as much about democracy and justice as Amanda Marcotte, blogger, we'd all be better off.

[Demsrule86]

26. +10000 What those who demand witnesses don't get is if unemployment ends and we don't have the

Covid bill passed, we are screwed politically ( also real people will suffer), and there is no chance the GOP will convict anyway. I heard the same song with the first impeachment...' the evidence will be overwhelming and they will be forced to convict.' But they didn't and won't this time either. We present our best case ASAP and move on with governing - sending help to the American people. Trust those we elected to figure it all out.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. The writer of this article clearly knows much more about these things

than Jamie Raskin and his team. They should immediately offer their services to these "silly" and "cowardly" Democrats who obviously don't know what they are doing and should step aside and let this far more knowledgeable Salon blogger take over.

You know what they say about opinions...

[StarfishSaver]

16. They said they will decide as the trial proceeds whether they need witnesses

They had a great, impactful day today, but some people can't seem to take any comfort in that but instead insist on getting themselves upset assuming that they're doing it all wrong.

The House managers know far better than you or I what they need to do. I'm willing to let them do it, rather than second-guess them at every turn.

[oasis]

25. "I lost the election, Joe Biden had the most votes". That's all Trump

had to say to stop the insurrection by the mob. Trump knew he could limit the damage, but he insisted on holding his "stolen election" position.

Trump should get a subpoena to be a witness.