I've had enough armchair prosecutors criticizing the House Managers for not calling witnesses.

[TomSlick]

Anyone who has ever tried a lawsuit knows there are difficult decisions to be made on the fly. You make the best call you can with the facts you are facing. It is altogether too easy for grumpy talking heads to come on television to say you made the wrong call.

The Managers got a stipulation to how the main witness would testify if called. They got the facts into evidence without having to worry about a cross examination. Would have calling the witness live been better? Maybe. Might the whole thing blown up under cross examination? Also, maybe.

Unless you have been required to make snap decisions in the middle of a bet-the-farm case, please keep your amateur Perry Mason opinions to yourself.

[jimfields33]

1. I think it's because they wanted them so badly last time.

[StarfishSaver]

3. What they wanted last time has no bearing on how this matter should be handled

[TomSlick]

6. Perhaps, but the Managers did an amazing job. There is no excuse for criticizing.

For once - just once - can be please not eat our own.

[jimfields33]

9. I totally agree.

Just threw out an explanation as a possibility the media is asking. The media needs to start talking up President Biden’s agenda. That’s where the media always screws us. They’ll talk about things but ignore our President. They did this with President Obama all the time. Frustrating!!!!!

[Thekaspervote]

19. +1000

[msfiddlestix]

57. This

[StarfishSaver]

2. I am right there with you!

Thank you for posting this!

[servermsh]

4. I don't think you've followed the story.

- No one could call witnesses until that Saturday morning, by rule

- Schumer repeatedly told the Managers they could call witnesses if they wished.

- The House Managers decided to call one witness AND get her notes. They also reserved the right to call more witnesses.

- The Senate passed that motion

- The Managers' aides were already in the process of scheduling the deposition.

- Then after Republican threats, Coons and Manchin, and possibly others, put pressure on the Managers to not call the witness.

- The House Managers backed down and just entered her public statement in the record.

- The Trump lawyer promptly said the statement wasn't true.

THAT is what happened. Could you please get the facts right?

You don't know what the witness would have said. You don't know what her notes say. You don't know the emotional impact it would have had. It likely would have caused further glorious public arguments among Republicans.

And for those who wanted to move on to Biden's agenda, the Congress is now in recess for a week! LOL

[TomSlick]

11. Not only did I follow the story, I watched the hearings.

What the lawyer said was disingenuous if not strictly a lie. The parties stipulated to how the witness would testify. There was no stipulation to the witness being truthful

There could never be a stipulation that a witness - and witness - was truthful in their testimony. Even if the witness had appeared in person, there would be no stipulation that the testimony was truthful.

If it is important to you that Democrats eat their own - bon appetite. Just don't be surprised when no intelligent Democrat will enter public service.

[soldierant]

49. AMEN!

Preach it!

[StarfishSaver]

12. We followed the story. We just aren't spininng it the way you insist on doing

First, the managers didn't "back down." They wanted to get the witness' statement in the record. They got it in the record. That's all they needed.

The notes were a separate issue. They would have simply confirmed her testimony if there was any question about what she said. But since her statement went into the record without objection, there was no need to put her notes in, as well.

And of course the lawyer said the statement wasn't true - after the fact and after he agreed to let it go into the record and offered absolutely no objection or contradiction to it. Had the witness testified in person with three angels on her shoulder, he STILL would have gone to a microphone afterward and claimed her statement wasn't true. So who cares what he said in a press conference after the fact?

And, fyi, recess is not a vacation and doesn't mean that Congress stopped working on Biden's agenda. There is more to legislating than standing on the chamber floor and voting or asking questions during Committee hearings. House and Senate work continues and Biden's agenda is being worked on even though the Members and Senators are in their home states and districts.

For example, the Senate will conduct several DOJ confirmation hearings next week, including Merrick Garland's. There is a HUGE amount of work that goes into getting ready for those hearings and that work is being done at the staff and principal level. In fact, it's much easier to do those preparations when the Senate is not in session because the staffs can focus on preparing for the hearings and not be distracted with the day-to-day madness of a session, as anyone who has worked in that space can tell you.

So, your criticisms and snark are misplaced.

[George II]

17. I'll never understand why people don't get the difference between a "recess" and a "vacation"...

Maybe some legislators look at a recess as a vacation, but most spend the time for it's intended use - go back to their districts and meet with or speak to their constituents or as you point out to prepare for hearings.

I got an email just yesterday, he's holding an online town hall (times are different these days) on Wednesday afternoon to discuss upcoming legislation, including the "The American Rescue Plan" (relief bill).

Very few Representatives/Senators consider it a vacation, but unfortunately some do.

[StarfishSaver]

18. One reason is that the press keeps lying about it

How often have you heard reporters and commentators berate Members for "leaving town" as if they are abandoning their posts to go to Tahiti for some me-time.

Funny thing - on the one hand, people complain that Congress has lost touch with their constituents and are caught in the "Beltway Bubble." But whenever they leave that "bubble" to go spend time in their states and districts, they're treated like they're committing a crime.

[Bobstandard]

30. Constituent meetings held? Or not

Follow up will tell us whether they’re abandoning the beltway bubble or simply going to ground.

[NurseJackie]

62. The difference is elementary...

... school.

[sheshe2]

20. I would say that I love ya.

To personal. I will give you this instead.

[StarfishSaver]

21. ...

[Gothmog]

56. I agree with your analysls

[Budi]

24. Here's the actual story. Better to be informed

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215114594

[Gothmog]

55. I followed the hearings/trial very closely and your analysis is wrong

Getting the depos you are talking about would take years

Link to tweet

[spooky3]

5. The stupidest thing to me is, Mitch couldn't have been clearer

that an overwhelming case was made without witnesses. This confirms the judgment of the House Managers.

If the armchair prosecutors want to stir up trouble, why not ask why Republicans weren't able to accept either the research of Constitutional scholars who determined that trying a President who has left office WAS Constitutional; why they weren't bound by the vote the Senate made that it was appropriate; why Mitch delayed the trial if he genuinely had the concerns he expressed, etc.?

[katmondoo]

7. The Managers did a great job, I am now screaming at the TV news to shut up!

There was enough evidence to convict and we all knew that wasn't going to happen witnesses or no witnesses.

[Budi]

8. Thank you

Armchair prosecutors & a damned thankless buch at that.

The House Managers were far superior than I've ever witnessed before.
Constitutional Scholars & brilliant in their data gathering, & presentations.

They made no errors to fault them with.

The "Expert Constitutional Armchair Prosecutors" should have even a smidge of the skillset of our flawless & meticulously well prepared House Managers.

They made No Errors in their trial presentation

Applause to everyone who contributed to this riveting presentation by our Democratic House Managers.


Thanks for your OP, TomSlick

[WHITT]

10. The Subpoenas

could have taken YEARS. They are still litigating the subpoena for Don McGahn from the first impeachment.

[onecaliberal]

14. This is where we would be tonight IMO if we had pushed it.

The witnesses were never going to be “friendly”

[BootinUp]

13. None from me. Only gratitude. Nt

[world wide wally]

15. If they showed a video of Trump directing their every move through a bullhorn,

Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz. Josh Hawley and the rest of the MAGA crowd would have voted not guilty.

[PutGramaOnThePhone]

16. Heavens to Betsy! How about...

you please keep your opinion stifling request to yourself? I image that there are plenty of people on DU that have, and are making difficult decisions on the fly, and making snap decisions in “bet-the-farm” situations. I’ll bet some of these situations are as, or more impactful on people’s lives than many lawsuits. The House impeachment and Senate trial are politics, and that’s basically why everyone is here

I’m not posting any opinions on this. I’m reading and thinking about it. However, I too have had enough. If you haven’t tried an impeachment in the United States Senate, please keep your opinion that other’s can’t express an opinion to yourself.

[TomSlick]

22. Welcome to DU.

You create an interesting logical dilemma.

Under your rule, any one should express their opinion about trial strategy in an impeachment trial, irrespective of whether they have ever tried a case of any sort. On the other hand, those of us with decades of trial experience should not express the opinion that only those that have seen the battle understand what it means to make strategy decisions in the middle of a trial.

There was no hope for a super majority conviction. Nevertheless, armchair prosecutors were certain to find fault unless a miracle was produced.

Armchair prosecutors come in after the battle is over and bayonet the wounded.

[PutGramaOnThePhone]

39. Thank you...

for the welcome, and your respectful response to my - granted - emotional and unsubstantial, response to your post. I seem to really have a problem with emotions driving me in any political discussion - an indication of one reason among many that I’m not lawyer material. I tip my hat to you for your achievements, and your service. Also a salute for over 5,000 posts.

Now that I see where you are coming from - some sort of narrow (harsh opinion 😊 warrior ethos, I see no point in continuing with any discussion of “my rule”.

I respect that you are contributing to DU. I feel good that I’m trying to be on the same side as you. I’m truly grateful for each and every warrior that’s a Democrat.

[TomSlick]

42. No worries. Practicing law causes you to grow a thick skin.

I tend to be very protective of our Democratic leaders and will rush to their defense.

[PutGramaOnThePhone]

48. I need to keep...

in mind there are people here at DU that really feel a drive to post to defend Democrats, from inside and outside the tent, to mellow my reaction to what they post 😊.

[PutGramaOnThePhone]

50. ...and on the thick skin...

I can only imagine, but I sure can imagine, wow

[TomSlick]

66. If you practice law you become accustomed to being called everything but a child of God.

If it's important that people love you, go to med school.

[treestar]

68. Probably as bad for doctors

In fact, any profession dealing with people.

Everyone loves teachers. But still parents blame them for things.

Everyone loves those who served in the military, maybe, other than the Orange Menace.

[Tommymac]

25. +1

[Autumn]

23. Your opinion is people shouldn't discuss politics on a political discussion board because you

don't like their amateur Perry Mason opinions? What exactly are your qualifications?

[TomSlick]

28. I have no objection to discussing politics.

What I resist is the Democratic tendency to eat our own.

As to my qualifications, I've been a trial lawyer for a few months shy of forty years. I've never had a trial on national TV but I make decisions of trial strategy of the fly all that time in cases that are every bit as important to my clients. One thing I have learned over those years is to not publicly criticize the trial decisions of others.

“Your lawyer in practice spends a considerable part of his life in doing distasteful things for disagreeable people who must be satisfied, against an impossible time limit and with hourly interruptions, from other disagreeable people who want to derail the train; and for his blood, sweat, and tears, he receives in the end a few unkind words to the effect that it might have been done better, and a protest at the size of the fee.”
William L. Prosser

I will not respond with my own snarky smilies.

[George II]

32. Bazinga! Good job. The funny thing is you weren't complaining about politics....

....you were commenting on people's legal naivety.

Makes one shake one's head, eh?

[PutGramaOnThePhone]

58. Geeze Louise George

Everybody’s got some naivety somewhere, legal or illegal. Soooo...hey, tell ya what - let’s shake our heads at Republications, instead of opinion shaming Democrats trying to respectfully engage in a challenging discussion. On the other hand, perhaps I missed the proclamation from the DU high council that only a chosen few of those posting here can begin to understand strategy around a political spectacle - NOT a real trial - that has only been put on a couple, three handfuls of times - all with witnesses, according to WaPo.

Anyway, let’s move on and push for some other way to get trump feelin’ some consequences.

[ShazzieB]

34. Fortunately, some of us here appreciate hearing from those who

Fortunately, some of us here appreciate hearing from those who have knowledge and personal experience that gives them additional insight that not all of us share.

Which is an indirect way of saying that your comments in this thread have been very helpful to me in gaining a better understanding of some of the decisions made by the impeachment managers, for which I am most grateful. So, thank you!

[PutGramaOnThePhone]

43. Yes, for sure...

I don’t think anyone is arguing with: “ some of us here appreciate hearing from those who have knowledge and personal experience that gives them additional insight that not all of us share.”

A hot button for me was reading a post complaining that people, that appear to be amateurs in armchairs, can’t understand what legal strategy is and thus should keep their opinions about decisions made in a POLITICAL “trial”, to themselves. By this logic concerning what one can or cannot understand, no one posting to DU about this can understand it, and thus should not make any critical comments.

I’m really writing about posting with respect in general, and not for myself. I’m just here to try to get some insight, and I appreciate everyone that comes to DU.

[Bobstandard]

37. Impeachment is not a trial as you know it, esquire..,

Today’s impeachment trials are, as much as anything, public spectacles. One competes for hearts and minds, emphasis on the former. The rules of procedure don’t apply outside the “courtroom”, and the spectacle in the chambers was anything but a courtroom. Instead it was a media space with two sides battling for the sympathies of the viewers-and there weren’t that many of them. In a sense it was a fight for the news bites, the news cycle on various outlets. The story to be told in two years, in four years.

On the one side, the inevitable conclusion of Republicans letting him off was a win for Trump. One way to make the proceedings a loss for Trump was to drag them out. To highlight his every violence against the constitution, and to highlight his incredible, mean incompetence. A longer trial with witnesses possibly emerging from the woodwork would have done that

And let’s not forget that Democrats had control of the process. They could have ended it whenever they chose. If proceedings threatened to retard Biden’s agenda, they could have bailed. Until then they’d have laid bare Trumps malfeasance.

Chance abrogated. Sigh.

Still, there is the lesson of Benghazi. Let’s keep those Trump hearings coming.

[PutGramaOnThePhone]

44. Yes! 😀

Articulated what I can’t seem to.

[treestar]

69. I love that quote!

So true! Not like it is on TV!

And most people realize they could not do what a doctor or an architect does, but every person is a graduate of the Law and Order Perry Mason School of Law!

[George II]

31. The people Mr. Slick was addressing are those second guessing our Democrats' strategy....

....during the impeachment trial of a president, like they're experts on impeachment trials of presidents (all FOUR of them in 240 years!)

I didn't see anyone complaining about "politics on a political discussion board". Who did that? Anyone?

[Autumn]

40. Nothing wrong with second guessing any politician. If one want to put down other peoples

"amateur Perry Mason opinions" then that person should be willing to openly put their credentials in front of their opinion. That way we know their opinion has validity and it's not just another "amateur Perry Mason opinion" There's an old saying, those who talk don't know, those who do know don't talk.

You didn't see a complaint about "politics on a political discussion board". George because no one complained about about "politics on a political discussion board".. No one. Now excuse me while I go laugh my ass off and shake my head.

[PutGramaOnThePhone]

47. Spot on!

IMHO...thank you for adding such a pithy, concise post, that hits a real sweet spot of agreement with me 😁

[Autumn]

67. The drama over Democrats being "picked on" is ridiculous. People are allowed to discuss

what our party members do whether what they are going is good, bad or puzzling to some. All to often people get attacked for voicing their opinion or asking questions. It's like people on FB who try to prevent discussion, I call them armchair control freaks.

[Gothmog]

60. A number of the attorneys on this board have expressed their opinion

These attorneys have agreed with the OP. The attacks on the decision of the House Managers to accept the statement of the representative in question was a good decision

Starfishsaver's post did a great job of explaining this decision.

[George II]

63. You're correct, "no one complained about politics on a political discussion board"....

Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2021, 09:07 AM - Edit history (1)

....but apparently you thought so when you said this, contradicting yourself:

"Your opinion is people shouldn't discuss politics on a political discussion board"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215114438#post23

Curious, eh?

It also should be noted that you didn't bother to comment on the extensive qualifications that you so eagerly questioned, i.e., "What exactly are your qualifications?" after insultingly characterizing them as merely "another amateur Perry Mason opinion".

So, you took the time to smugly respond to me but didn't bother acknowledging those qualifications that you questioned. Why is that?

However, you are correct. To use your own old words here, "there's an old saying, those who talk don't know, those who do know don't talk."

Quoting you again, " Now excuse me while I go laugh my ass off and shake my head."

[NurseJackie]

65. "Quoting you again" --- Haaaa!

Quoting you again...

Haaa!

[stillcool]

26. people can't wait to diss

I think there might be such a thing as reading abuse. When cacophony of surly voices, spewing crap they can't possibly know, is the majority of posts, it's check-out time.

[Steelrolled]

27. People mistook the impeachment trial as a legal proceding

when in fact it was just stupid, pointless politics. I was happy to see the "prosecutors" cut it short.

[cachukis]

29. I suspect the press is giddy at dealing with getting answers.

Personally, I'm liking the discussion. Progress only follows challenges.

[Prof.Higgins]

33. +1000! Nitpicking bellyaches by us against brilliant House Mgrs. gives Chuck Todd and

a plethora of political commentators the catnip they crave to concoct their favorite "Democrats in disarray" bulldust.

I challenge a single DU poster to make a sound argument that there has ever existed a sufficient % of Republican Senators who would have voted to convict Trump based on the testimonies of witnesses. Indubitably, these Republicans were locked into their bogus excuse for the acquittal of Trump ever since then Majority Leader McConnell refused to commence the trial while Trump was still in office.

Furthermore, I find it impossible to believe that any witness the House Managers had been able to call would have made as powerful an impact upon American voters as Minority Leader McConnell's excoriation of Trump's actions delivered soon after the impeachment vote and today in the WSJ.

Republicans in disarray!

[PutGramaOnThePhone]

51. Does discussion...

on DU by a bunch of amateur armchair Perry Masons, or armchair amateurs, or whatever, really give Chuck Todd anything? Me thinks what he and his ilk get comes from far dirtier places, starting with from their asses.

I think I’m newer here than you Prof. I sure hope I haven’t missed that I was supposed to pick up my DU talking points on the way in.

Genuine props for using “catnip” in your post - it makes me feel that the writing could only of come from a very nice person; and hesitant to give you a hard time 😊.

Peace and respect.

[flying rabbit]

35. Even with witnesses the American

public wasn't going to be glued to the TV breathlessly awaiting each contested subpoena testimony. Start a separate investigation, gather the facts that way and move on with Covid relief.

[TomSlick]

36. I concur.

[Bobstandard]

38. The steady drip of bad news for Trump..

Might be more important in the long run. So keep it up Dems

[StarfishSaver]

45. The testimony would have been taken by deposition and the transcript

would have been entered into the record. It would not have been seen live on television.

So all of the "if only people could have seen them testify" claims - as if seeing McCarthy and Butler testify about a phone call would have resulted in a seachange in public opinion sufficient to change any votes - are just pipe dreams based on a fantasy.

[monkeyman1]

41. republican party is now a communist party -period !!!

[Hermit-The-Prog]

46. I want daily televised hearings on the insurrection and everything going back to 1946.

[PutGramaOnThePhone]

52. 😀😀😀😀

[BobTheSubgenius]

53. Good call.

Also important here...the managers proved themselves to be VERY competent, organized and as confident as one can be under those circumstances. I, for one, am convinced they were in the best position(s) to make the call.

If any are aggrieved, maybe they can find some experts in their own home town they can observe and criticize, live and in person. I'm sure they will appreciate the advice.

[coti]

54. No, totally. It made total sense. To not call any witnesses. Yeah.

Yeah. I get it.

You gotta kind of look for the reasons not to do it, but they're around!

[PutGramaOnThePhone]

61. Hahahahahahahaha, nice

[USALiberal]

64. Lol, you had had enough? Then take a break! Nt