Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

The Velveteen Ocelot

(128,751 posts)

6. This question has been rehashed all day ad nauseam, but once more, in a nutshell,

Reply to PubliusEnigma (Original post)

Sat Feb 13, 2021, 06:43 PM

Feb 2021

it's because Raskin decided they weren't necessary because he got what he wanted with the stipulated statement of the Congresswoman re: McCarthy's conversation with Trump. And it wouldn't have made a damn bit off difference in the outcome.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why no witnesses?? [View all] PubliusEnigma Feb 2021 OP

Some suggest that witnesses are best saved for upcoming criminal trials nt intrepidity Feb 2021 #1

Good threads on this . Here's one soothsayer Feb 2021 #2

Foregone conclusion. The fix was in pfitz59 Feb 2021 #3

Some reporting is saying the witnesses were going cold. Irish_Dem Feb 2021 #4

I was a bit taken aback by that jimfields33 Feb 2021 #5

This question has been rehashed all day ad nauseam, but once more, in a nutshell, The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2021 #6

That explanation leaves a lot to be desired. I don't buy it. PubliusEnigma Feb 2021 #9

Several Reasons leftieNanner Feb 2021 #7

Witnesses would have made no difference. Trump could have done a video admitting his guilt. Autumn Feb 2021 #8