Whose idea was it not to call witnesses

[Springerjjhicka]

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. Frankly, I don't care. There were few easy calls to make, other than to impeach in the first place

and some Democrats even fretted over that, fearing it would cause Biden's first 100 days to lose momentum. Every way forward from there came with pluses and minuses. I'm not going to Monday morning quarterback. Our team did a superb job and I am proud of them.

[StarfishSaver]

10. Thank you

This is getting ridiculous.

It's as if some people just can't stand the fact that the Democrats performed brilliantly, exceeded expectations, and made most of us proud, and just have to find SOMETHING to attack them for. If it wasn't witnesses, it would be something else.

It's bad enough that the media's doing this armchair quarterbacking, but seeing people on our side joining in and pushing this crap is really tiresome.

[NurseJackie]

17. Thank you. (Yes, it is tiresome.)

[Dem4Life1102]

22. It just gives some in the media to call

Democrats weak, one of their favorite false memes.

[StarfishSaver]

26. It also gives some people here the same opportunity

which they're all too willing to do with great enthusiasm.

[11 Bravo]

33. THIS

The "More Righteous Lefty Than Thou" crowd, along with the concern trolls, have been chapping my ass here for almost 20 years.

As a former competitor and long time fan, I can comfortably state that the loudest noise always comes from the cheap seats.

[NurseJackie]

16. Thank you.

[betsuni]

41. I don't care either, don't understand the obsession with witnesses.

People aren't going to remember, anyway. Just heard a pundit say that six months down the road impeachment will be as dim a memory as Trump's other impeachment was last November.

[sagesnow]

2. I imagine it was a general consensus of the Dems in the House and Senate.

The argument against witnesses was
1. Calling witnesses would cost a lot of political time and energy that would be better used to promote Biden's agenda.
2. It would open the floodgates for Republicans to call in a 3 Ring Circus of alternative witnesses
3. It would not change the outcome. tRump was going to be acquitted from the outset.

Chances are much greater of tRump's conviction in criminal court.

[sagesnow]

3. Also remember that Impeachent dragging on and on during Clinton's Presidency

only made him more popular with his base supporters. The same would be true of tRump. Trials will make a martyr of him.

[yardwork]

5. That's my assessment as well.

Nothing was going to change the outcome.

[uponit7771]

7. +1,

[Ferrets are Cool]

9. #3 is the winner.

[coti]

23. #3 is what made the whole point of impeachment

the presentation of what happened- like with witnesses.

If we weren't going to publicize the facts of what happened as best we could, why bother at all?

[StarfishSaver]

27. Because without witnesses, no one has any idea what happened

since the impeachment managers never offered any evidence about it at all in their presentation.

[coti]

28. Only slightly more people actually know what happened now.

What would have been better, and in line with the whole purpose of conducting an impeachment when you know darned well the Repukes aren't going to go for it, is for a whole LOT of people to find out what happened, in much more dramatic fashion.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

36. +1. It's very hard to prove a negative. We will never know

unfortunately. Not a good logical argument though that it wouldn't matter because we were going to lose anyway. That die was already cast when they invented their own "out" by delaying until after he was out.

Unless they had witnesses that would hurt our side significantly more, then it's Media 101 to know that words spoken by real witnesses live are more impactful than someone telling you what they said.

Like someone said on Twitter, the news would have been playing it over and over again all weekend.

[kentuck]

4. McConnell threatened to put a hold on the Coronavirus legislation if they called even one witness.

That was my understanding.

That is why they agreed to the Washington Representative's statement in writing into the record.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. That's interesting .. hadn't read that. If that's the case, then

why couldn't our side tell that to the public?

[bottomofthehill]

6. Mr Raskin said "his and his alone"

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2021, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)

He made the call, it was the right call, witnesses were not going to change a thing and it was the opening of Pandora’s box of bullshit. I am going with Mr Raskin knew what he was doing and am not “ Monday morning Quarterbacking” his strategy.

[StarfishSaver]

11. Thank you

[bottomofthehill]

12. From The Hill

The lead prosecutor in the impeachment case against former President Trump is defending the decision to agree to a deal that resulted in no witnesses being called for the trial just after a Senate vote that allowed them.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the lead impeachment manager and a constitutional expert, said he alone made the decision not to press for new witness testimony in the case, even after the impeachment managers had forced the Senate to vote to allow that very thing.

But Raskin said he had no contact with President Biden, Vice President Harris or anyone else in the White House before the impeachment managers agreed to a deal with Trump's defense allowing a new statement to be entered into the record, but no new witness depositions.

"I made the call," he said. "So you want to blame somebody [it's me]."

[justhanginon]

14. Agree withone hundred per cent. Witnesses would have been

badgered unmercifully with questions far afield of the subject at hand and they would have called many inappropriate witnesses etc. and just turned it into even more of a clown show.

[bottomofthehill]

15. Not only no blame

I can not thank Mr Raskin and the other Managers enough. They pressed their case to a room of people who were both jurors and witnesses to the crime, those who had already made up their minds and stated so, those who actively worked with the Defense and still they persisted. They pressed their case, established a factual record of the events, brought forth before unseen and heard information and got 7 Republican votes. All amazing, THANK YOU Mr Raskin and the House managers.

[coti]

25. Rationalization.

Sounds like Raskin got tired. It's understandable.

[Raven123]

8. Actually this may have turned out ok. They got Lee's phone records. Payback for his antics

McCarthy’s conversation Entered in the record. They were never going to get 17 votes. Will be interesting to see what happens. Trump’s lawyers may have some explaining to do in the future, if they are shown to have lied.

[former9thward]

20. McCarthy's conversation was not entered into the record.

Someone who was not on the call recounted what she says McCarthy told her. In the legal world that is called hearsay and would not be admitted elsewhere.

[StarfishSaver]

29. This was entered into the record of the trial.

This is not a legal proceeding, so hearsay rules don't apply.

If she had testified in person, she still would have been presenting what would be hearsay in a legal proceeding.

[Raven123]

42. Sure but I am sure it got Trump's blood boiling and perhaps will land them both in court later

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. Joy Reid's take on not calling witnesses

Link to tweet

?s=20

[StarfishSaver]

30. Joy Reid spent more time complaining about witnesses than she did on the fact

that a significant majority voted to convict and 43 Republicans voted for acquittal and would have no matter what the evidence was.

[cwydro]

32. Not surprising. nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

34. Not surprising, she was mad

[Rice4VP]

18. There are more important things to deal with like

confirming the cabinet and passing COVID relief. I’ve always thought that this impeachment was necessary but a total waste of time. Unless they had the witnesses in the building yesterday ready to go, what’s the point? Waste weeks and months with subpoenas? Everything was on tape and that one Republican was on record. McCarthy and Turberville and Pence would’ve pled the 5th or something. They got 7 republicans to cross over and Moscow Mitch admitted that Trump is guilty. Time to move on

[OnDoutside]

21. I was of the same opinion. I didn't want it to take away from Biden's first 100 days, so it has

probably worked out for the best, the 43 Republicans are on record, the truth is out to a wider audience and the Covid Relief Bill is trundling along.

[mcar]

19. Why do you ask?

[malaise]

24. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

I see and I pass

[cwydro]

31. Why? Did you not watch?

And what is your plan once knowing?

[Beringia]

35. I think it is a good idea, personal testimony is very moving

Nader thought it was Pelosi's idea. But I see it was Rep Raskin, the lead prosecutor to not call witnesses.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

39. Makes sense

[StarfishSaver]

43. There wouldn't have been "personal testimony"

This would have been done by deposition, not on live television, and the depositions would have been entered into the record.

The idea that witnesses would have marched onto the floor of the Senate, swore in while cameras clicked loudly and then sat down to tell their story on live television just doesn't comport with the actual procedure that would have been followed.

Depositions entered into a record aren't the dramatic, earth-shattering must watch teevee some people assume they would have been.

And then people would have complained about how boring the testimony was and demanded to know why the managers didn't end the proceedings on a high point right after their arguments.

[Blue_true]

38. It would not have made a difference.

Trump himself could have taken the stand and admitted that he fully intended for the crowd to kill certain congresspeople on Jan 6 so that he could stay in power, republicans would have still voted to acquit him.

[gollygee]

40. In some situations, there are no perfect answers

Witnesses would have been fascinating, but would have caused other things to slow down, and wouldn't have made a difference as far as the chance of getting a conviction. They did a great job and made the best call about what to do they could, and they're pros at this and I'm not so I'm not going to second-guess them.