Trump counsel just said they did not stipulate to the truthfulness of @HerreraBeutler's statement.

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

So what exactly did we get?

[Stallion]

1. He Didn't Stipulate to Truthfulness-He Stipulated to the Admission of the Evidence

the jury is the final judge of credibility and the weight to be given to evidence and may accept or reject any piece of evidence. But I have heard no contradictory evidence which generally means the truth of such evidence should establish the fact as a matter of law but only if the jury considers the witness credible

[bigtree]

3. it's practically double hearsay

...it's value is what?

[Stallion]

11. Its Not Double Hearsay Because it was Admitted without Objection

its evidence admitted into the record for the jury to weigh and determine its credibility

[Nevilledog]

4. So we got nothing.

And I was a trial attorney for 27 years.

[MelissaB]

8. Oh!

Sucks to be us today.

[Arazi]

17. Yup. I'm aggravated at the gaslighting. We got nothing. Schumer needs to go

[brooklynite]

22. What did you want to GET?

If the Congresswoman had been questioned, she would have said the same thing, and Trump's lawyers would have disputed it.

[Nevilledog]

25. I wanted more witnesses than that.

This was not the only issue I thought deserved witnesses. Just now CNN reporting that Trump was briefed on Pence.

[StarfishSaver]

35. What would the witnesses have producedm

[Nevilledog]

38. We'll never know.

[StarfishSaver]

39. So we should just keep putting on witnesses in case someone said something useful?

[Nevilledog]

40. No. We take a breath and interview people during the recess next week.

And during that week people get scared about what other people are saying, so they speak up. And during that week the newscycle focuses on all the bad things that are sure to come out, dissecting over and over the lies spouted by Trump's attorneys.

Nothing is getting done with Biden’s agenda next week, they're on recess. And if nothing panned out we'd be in no worse a position than we are now.

[StarfishSaver]

42. And then what?

They start the trial up again after most of the public has moved on to something else and hope they pay attention. The witnesses testify. And then the senators vote. And the vote is 55-45 for conviction, just like it was today.

You and some others here seem to think that this impeachment trial is the end all and be all, the final chapter and only possible opportunity to hold Trump accountable. Everything you want done can be done outside of the impeachment process - and more effectively.

The House and Senate will be gearing up for hearings, Pelosi is already announced she wants a 9/11 style commission, and DOJ has probably already started criminal investigations - and I wouldn't be surprised if a few grand juries already are considering this matter.

Behaving like this is the end of the world because a couple of witnesses didn't testify at an impeachment trial in which not a word they say would affect the outcome makes no sense.

[Nevilledog]

44. I never implied this was the "end all and be all, the final chapter and only possible opportunity"

It was a big missed opportunity. Screw how the final outcome would have been impacted, the American people deserve and want to know what happened. I understand your view, it just happens to be different from mine.

[StarfishSaver]

28. We got plenty

Their stipulation to its admission without objection is tantamount to an admission - and can be used as such in the future.

They screwed up.

[Nevilledog]

29. I want to see the exact wording of the stipulation.

Unless it contains language that both sides accept the facts, it was a bad deal.

They're arguing that they only agreed that "Yup, that's her statement," as opposed to the facts set forth in her statement are true.

[StarfishSaver]

34. You surely know that if a party stipulates to the admission of evidence without objecting to its

veracity, yhat evidence is considered uncontroverted and the fact finder can and will likely accept it as fact. And in future proceedings, the failure to object is a strong inference of admission.

And issuing a tweet after the fact (probably after a decent lawyer explained the ramifications of the stipulation to their client and he blew a gasket) insisting they didn't cop to nuthin means nuthin.

But that's really beside the point. The purpose of the witness was to get the information into the record. That was done. The fact that Trump didn't object is a bonus.

[Nevilledog]

41. This isn't a criminal trial.

There are no jury instructions and there certainly is not an impartial jury. And in a criminal trial a party to a stipulation could not then argue in closings that there really wasn't a stipulation as to the facts.

[StarfishSaver]

43. Of course it's not a criminal trial

But this stipulation can be used against Trump in a criminal trial in the future. That's why his attorneys scrambled - too late - to backpedal.

[bigtree]

2. .

...oh, man.

[Mossfern]

5. OK, I'm watching

Where's the fucking defense?

Whataboutism is not a defense.

[Bettie]

19. They don't need a defense

they have a jury of his henchmen.

[Mossfern]

21. Then let the defense rest and save us

from this tedious screed.

[Mossfern]

24. He did!

Yay!
Now Raskin...

[Mr.Bill]

23. Trump's attorneys could have stood there

and read from a comic book and the results would be the same.

[Bettie]

30. Trump's attorneys could have simply walked out of the room

or never showed up and the result would be the same.

[Mr.Bill]

31. I'm surprised they even bothered to present a defense. n/t

[Bettie]

32. To be fair, it wasn't so much a defense

as a whole lot of whataboutism.

[Mr.Bill]

33. I know.

Considering who presented it, it was actually risky.

[servermsh]

6. We got nothing. n/t

[FM123]

7. But "Kevin" himself talked about it after it happened

he even said he heard "shots fired". Trump knew exactly how deadly things were getting.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said on Fox News on Wednesday that overheard police saying there were shots fired inside Capitol.

"People are being hurt. People are being, people are being hurt, there's been shots, this is unacceptable," McCarthy said.

Asked whether he could confirm "that shots have been fired inside the capitol or outside," McCarthy said he was with Capitol Police officers and that he "heard on the radio, 'shots fired.'"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/blog/electoral-college-certification-updates-n1252864/ncrd1253092#blogHeader

[Nevilledog]

10. And here's what we got

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Jonathan Karl
@jonkarl
Trump’s counsel has now twice suggested that @GOPLeader McCarthy has denied @HerreraBeutler’s description of what McCarthy told her about his call with Trump on 1/6. McCarthy has said nothing publicly to disagree with what she has said about the conversation. Nothing.
1:00 PM · Feb 13, 2021

[Stallion]

15. Defense Counsel Has failed to Present this alleged Contradictory Evidence

...so it should not be considered by the jury

[Nevilledog]

18. Right.

Link to tweet

[Atticus]

9. They agreed that her statement would be considered as "under oath". That statement has not been

contradicted by any of Trump's evidence.

In any kind of Court I am aware of, that is considered an "uncontradicted fact".

Van der Veen is a pusillanimous poltroon.

[Nevilledog]

12. They're saying McCarthy disavowed her statement

[Atticus]

14. Shocker! THEY ARE LYING! nt

[Nevilledog]

16. I'm sure the media will clear that up for people.

Link to tweet

So I'm back to we got nothing for giving up the bipartisan agreement to call witnesses.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. -:)

The MAGATS were never going to convict their GOD-EMPEROR. That was never the point of the trial. The goal of the trial was to dirty up Trump and his supporters and separate them from everybody else. Witnesses would have served that goal.

[StarfishSaver]

36. If only she had testified, McCarthy would not have been able to disavow what she said

Oh, wait a minute. That's not how it works. He would have still disavowed it.

[Nevilledog]

37. And would have squirmed and looked guilty.

And would have lied under oath.

Plus, we don't have the disavowal from McCarthy’s lips, that came from the truth-impaired impeachment lawyers. Guess we'll never know unless he interviewed pursuant to criminal proceedings.

[rickyhall]

13. Whatever happened to "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"?

Oh, that's right, this is a political trial, not a criminal trial, so the defense can coach jurors.

[abqtommy]

26. It's important to remember that when you're dealing with ratfuckers you get ratfucked.

[StarfishSaver]

27. Well, they shouldn't have agreed to its admission without objection, caveat or conditions

Whoops