Would it be a good strategy to get the Chief Justice more involved with the trial?

[kentuck]

For example, by asking for a few more motions than the Chief Justice and the Republicans might be expecting? The element of surprise, from Sun Tzu.

This is maybe the strategy that McConnell might use?

[onenote]

1. I don't think you can make Roberts get more involved than he wants to be

He has the option of referring questions to a vote by the Senate. If he's flooded with motions, I suspect he'll simply swat them over to the Senate and the Republicans will quickly dispose of them.

Might it slow the process? Maybe. But it would be risky if the motions themselves start getting redundant. People will tune out if this becomes a boring process battle.

[kentuck]

3. You may be right... just brainstorming.

....and it was a very light shower.

But the idea was one related to warfare. Perhaps not the best way to frame it?

[kentuck]

2. Or maybe challenge a couple of their lead lawyers and put it to a vote.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Personal Attorney Jay Sekulow have conflicts and should be called as witnesses? Cipollone signed the statement that the President of the United States would not obey any calls for documents or witnesses. He signed it.

Sekulow has been brought up very recently by the interviews with Lev Parnas. None of Parnas' comments about Sekulow have been confirmed or validated. But, even the appearance of possible wrongdoing is enough to maybe step aside?

[AncientGeezer]

4. That's not how it works....you know that right?

[kentuck]

5. I was speaking of war from a viewpoint of surprise.

The worst that can happen is that it be ruled out of order.

The point is to disrupt and confuse your opponent.

[AncientGeezer]

6. Nobody is going to be disrupted or confused...it's a political process..NOT a War.

We're stuck with the Trumpanzee until Inauguration Jan'21....why you don't see that is beyond me.

[kentuck]

7. O' Great Ancient One...

We don't doubt your prognostication.

But we will go down fighting. We are not going to surrender.

Perhaps, you have heard the phrase? "All is fair in love, war, and politics"?

[AncientGeezer]

10. I know about the process....we win on election day

It's not a matter of surrender....it's a matter of math.
There aren't 67 Senate votes to remove the Dumpster....and never will be with a R majority Senate.......it's math...not love, war, and politics.....MATH.

[kentuck]

11. It's about much more than that...

It's about connecting with people, the public. If you can't communicate, you can't get their votes.

[AncientGeezer]

12. Which has WHAT to do with your OP...about the Chief Justice?

He's not going to communicate with the public....he's going to preside over the trial...not cut commercials

[LiberalFighter]

8. It may require the Democrats to word the motions clearly.

Like... A motion for witnesses to testify so it is a fair trial for Trump. The last eight words in one form or another added to the motions. Then when there is a vote, a no vote would imply that the Republicans don't want a fair trial for Trump.

[kentuck]

9. Very good!

Makes sense to me.

[AncientGeezer]

13. What if Dumpster's crew says...we want Hunter testimony to show it's fair?

[kentuck]

14. They must think it's FOX News - Fair and Balanced

Last edited Fri Jan 17, 2020, 10:46 PM - Edit history (1)

If you're going to charge Donald Trump, then it's only fair to charge a Democrat? No need to be relevant to the charges.