The democrats dropped call to have witnesses because of this?! WTF!

[triron]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sen-chris-coons-hounded-dems-to-drop-witnesses-because-people-want-to-get-home-for-valentines-day

[servermsh]

1. Yes, CNN reported as well. Coons and Manchin did not want witnesses

We don't know which other Democrats also put pressure on the Managers.

This was AFTER Schumer told them several times that they could call witnesses if they wished.

[triron]

3. Damn them!

Absolutely disgusting.

[Trueblue Texan]

2. I do not believe this. Nt

[elleng]

5. Ditto.

Baloney

Malarkey

[exboyfil]

4. No. One of the most historical votes in history

I can't believe it....

[Beaverhausen]

6. Witnesses wouldn't have changed the outcome

Sadly.

[Mr.Bill]

14. Trump could have walked in the room and shot Schumer in the head

and it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

[relayerbob]

8. I agree with what the mgrs said

They didn't need witnesses, they needed Senators with spines. Moscow Mitch wasn't going to vote to convict and without his cover ther was no chance of getting more votes. Just wasting time that can be better spent helping the country and prosecuting Trump and his associates. I hope the net catches Graham, Hawley, Cruz, at least

[elleng]

9. PLEASE CALM DOWN! Raskin's move was absolutely perfect. This was a win

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)

'Last night and this morning, many people demanded that McCarthy be called as a witness to force him to admit that he had the conversation with Trump on January 6 as described by Rep. Herrera Butler. They insisted that this information needed to be put in the record.

This morning, Rep. Raskin paved the way for Herrera Butler to testify. Trump's attorneys freaked out. Now, a few minutes ago, Schumer announced that Herrera-Butler's previous statements would be put into the record. And Trump's attorneys stipulated that he would not object to it going into the record.

This is a big deal. If the point of bringing in Herrera-Butler was to get her statement on record and the point of bringing in McCarthy was to get hm to admit to the conversation, then putting her statement in the record and having Trump, the other person in the conversation, essentially admit that the conversation happened achieves the goal of any testimony. And it does so without a lot of delays, distractions, drama, extraneous defense witnesses and other circus-like shenanigans.

I understand why some people may think this was a cave at first blush. But if you wanted McCarthy to testify to prove that this conversation occurred, Trump admitting that the conversation occurred takes care of that.

Now, if you were looking for some other kind of drama to come out of that, that's another thing. But the purpose most people claimed they wanted from McCarthy's testimony has been satisfied beautifully.'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215105683

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. I doubt very much that that was the real reason, but it makes for more

sensational journalism and gives the pearl-clutchers another excuse for whining about "weak" democrats. There are many good reasons for the decision not to call witnesses, not the least of which are that it would have drawn the trial out for weeks; the witnesses would have been mostly hostile and uncooperative and there was a serious risk that their testimony would have been unhelpful; the Trump team had threatened to call 300 witnesses themselves (and they would have, if they thought it would have made the trial look like a waste of time); it would have given the Trump lawyers an opportunity to further broadcast Trump's lies to the public when cross-examining the prosecution witnesses; and it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference in the outcome. Raskin got exactly what he wanted when he got the stipulation for Herrera's statement to go on the record. The House managers included some of the best lawyers I've ever watched, and I'm damned if I'm going to join the chorus of Monday-morning quarterbacks who have never tried a case and had to make a trial decision on the fly.

[StarfishSaver]

13. Hear hear!

Well said, as usual

[Pantagruel]

18. Lieu cited the McGahn subpoena

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215114355

[benld74]

11. Seriously doubt this was the reason

[StarfishSaver]

17. Isn't it interesting that people will believe a badly source hit piece in the Daily Beast

but won't believe what Rep. Raskin plainly to their faces?

It's almost like some people are just grasping at any excuse to trash Democrats ...

[Turin_C3PO]

12. I don't think witnesses would have helped.

They would have been exposed to ridiculous cross examination by bad faith Repubs and it wouldn’t have changed the outcome anyway.

[doc03]

15. It wouldn't have made an ounce of difference anyway. The claim the impeachment

was unconstitutional was their way out. If it turns out bad for the ones that voted to clear him they can claim they like turtle
thought it was unconstitutional.

[calguy]

16. I don't really care why witness call was dropped

I'm glad it was. I did not want to see this dragged out over several more weeks only to get the same result. The managers made a compelling and overwhelming case against trump as it was. Calling witnesses would only lead to diminishing returns at this point. The door is wide open to further investigation and prosecution by Merrick Garland's Justice Department. Congress's role in this is complete. Now Congress can get to more important things like passing President Biden's agenda to solve the problems that plague our nation.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Can you imagine how quickly this would have shifted if the trial went even another week

with the likelihood of dragging out further while the House managers haggled over witnesses?

People - including those who are now throwing fits because no witnesses were called - would be attacking the Democrats for letting this drag out, for losing the attention of the public, allowing the momentum to disappear, for destroying their case, etc.

[sweetloukillbot]

25. And complaining about them doing nothing for Covid relief

[calguy]

26. Absolutely

I think I remember Jamie Raskin saying at the press conference that the first witness the defense wanted to call was Nancy Pelosi. In other words, they were looking to turn the trial into a full blown circus.
I'm grateful they ended the trial when they did.

[onecaliberal]

19. If they were voting on the question, then yes, witnesses were necessary.

Mitch set up the trial so the republicans could acquit on a process they made up and not the question. They’re all saying trump did it today. The House managers did the right thing. They presented a damning account of the day in general.

[marble falls]

20. It is the daily beast. Does anyone believe Chris Coons by himself dropped the impeachment?

[FelineOverlord]

22. The democrats dropped call to have witnesses because of this?! WTF!

Link to tweet

[elleng]

23. Del. Stacey Plaskett: We didn't need more witnesses,

we needed more senators with spines.

CNN

[StarfishSaver]

29. What does SHE know?

Ari Melber and some people on DU say they should have called witnesses, so they should have called witnesses.

[elleng]

32. PLEASE CALM DOWN! Raskin's move was absolutely perfect. This was a win

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Last night and this morning, many people demanded that McCarthy be called as a witness to force him to admit that he had the conversation with Trump on January 6 as described by Rep. Herrera Butler. They insisted that this information needed to be put in the record.

This morning, Rep. Raskin paved the way for Herrera Butler to testify. Trump's attorneys freaked out. Now, a few minutes ago, Schumer announced that Herrera-Butler's previous statements would be put into the record. And Trump's attorneys stipulated that he would not object to it going into the record.

This is a big deal. If the point of bringing in Herrera-Butler was to get her statement on record and the point of bringing in McCarthy was to get hm to admit to the conversation, then putting her statement in the record and having Trump, the other person in the conversation, essentially admit that the conversation happened achieves the goal of any testimony. And it does so without a lot of delays, distractions, drama, extraneous defense witnesses and other circus-like shenanigans.

I understand why some people may think this was a cave at first blush. But if you wanted McCarthy to testify to prove that this conversation occurred, Trump admitting that the conversation occurred takes care of that.

Now, if you were looking for some other kind of drama to come out of that, that's another thing. But the purpose most people claimed they wanted from McCarthy's testimony has been satisfied beautifully.'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215105683

[orangecrush]

24. Trump is far from off the hook.

[sfstaxprep]

37. He's Off The Hook

The topic of this thread is about witnesses. I'm in the camp that says they wouldn't have made a difference. The game was rigged, with or without them.

But if you are still expecting him to be held accountable, you're getting your hopes up. Don't let me stop you, but I'm not holding my breath he'll EVER be held accountable for a single thing he's done during his miserable life.

[coti]

27. I suspected they were just tired.

The reasoning being offered for the move reeked of cognitive dissonance and was inconsistent with the purpose of impeaching Trump to begin with.

Seemed like they were just getting sick of dealing with the issue, wanted it to be over. And they're hoping he gets prosecuted.

[StarfishSaver]

30. I doubt they was no ways tired

[Trueblue Texan]

28. So...have we decided to help the party of Q now? Nt

[JI7]

31. Stop taking things so literally. What he means is

people want help in their lives .

Democrats made the case and most republicans admitted evidence meant nothing to them.

[JI7]

33. I can't believe how many people still can't see through Republican BS

They think Republicans are honestly misled or not informed and if Democrats just did this or that they would finally see Trump is a bad man.

[StarfishSaver]

36. If only the public who has until now not been convinced of Trump's criminality had listened to

a congresswoman they'd never heard of before testify about a phone call she overheard between Trump and McCarthy, they would have risen up and forced the at least 10 more Republican senators to vote for conviction.

[Bev54]

34. This is bullshit.

[JI7]

35. Did you not think Trump is guilty after the case that was laid out ?