General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRe. witnesses, Raskin said McConnell's statement shows they wouldn't have made a difference
Since McConnell had decided the case on jurisdictional grounds (the January exception), Raskin said we could have produced thousands of witnesses and it wouldnt have had an impact on his vote to acquit.
He seemed as at peace with the outcome as one could expect. I hope Im right about that because he left it all on the field as did the whole impeachment team.
Also, if Raskin is reading this correctly, as Im sure he is. Trump and his defense team made a huge unforced error by insulting the intelligence of the rioters, many of whom are already feeling left high-and-dry by him:
Link to tweet
Getting back to the jurisdictional issue, if the facts of the case were basically irrelevant, why burn a bridge to score a dubious evidentiary point? The constitutional vote on Tuesday should have told Team Trump they didnt need to go there.
servermsh
(913 posts)Just spend ONE second thinking about how this would have been run if the parties were reversed!
Go ahead! Do it!
Everyone knows Republicans would have HAPPILY run an impeachment committee for MONTHS, bringing out one embarrassing witness after another. They would have coordinated their message for MONTHS! They did it with the fake Benghazi!
Callado119
(171 posts)You really wanted a months long trial derailing Bidens agenda that would still end in acquittal just for some ridiculous goal of embarrassing republicans?
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,320 posts)central scrutinizer
(11,646 posts)Or doing anything constructive but protracted hearings and innuendo and smearing make them wet.
sfstaxprep
(9,998 posts)They will gladly go to prison for him, if they must.
He didn't throw them under the bus. He invited them to go there, and they went willingly, and would again.