Hey Ari Melber... [View all]
...and all the other great legal minds who are castigating the House managers for not pressing to bring forward witnesses. You're missing what Jamie Raskin and the others realized: they were having a trap set for them.
The issue comes from that fact that a vote would be taken for any witness to appear. In a 50-50 Senate, under impeachment, a tie vote is a loss, so there was no danger of irrelevant people being issued subpoenas because Democrats would have held the line. And that was the trap. How could the five Republicans who voted for the first witness deny voting for Trump to at least have at least one or more witnesses? If any of those five votes goes over, the Republicans get that witness, and the trial becomes the circus the managers wanted to avoid. And if the Democrats are perceived to not want to be fair by all of them voting against any potential witness for Trump, do they lose some of those Republicans?
And what if a potential witness like Kevin McCarthy fights the subpoena? Does anyone remember Don McGahn ever showing up, despite a House subpoena? While the Senate has more experience and success with inherent contempt, that doesn't mean the process doesn't get dragged out.
This was a trap, and Raskin knew it.
Having Rep. Butler's unrefuted facts as part of the record and part of the evidence was a win, and it wouldn't have mattered if there were dozens of witness who would testify against Trump, he was not going to be convicted. To think there was more to be gained is disingenuous, foolish, and twitterbait, and it needs to stop.
= new reply since forum marked as read