In a surprise move, Senate votes to call witnesses in Trump’s impeachment trial

[Rogue Valley]

This OP may help explain the process regarding Senate witnesses.....

Impeachment Witnesses

Quite frankly, I think the House Managers request for witness testimony was a good move. I believe they want the testimony of Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R/WA) on the record. Rep. Beutler overheard a phone conversation between House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Donald Trump right in the...

debatepolitics.com

 

[JasperL]

Dang, I'd hoped it would be over today. I suppose this means this will continue into next week. Dumb move in my opinion by Trump's lawyers. A vote today would have acquitted Trump. I don't expect any thing to change whether the vote is held an hour from now, next week or next month or next year. It seems to me 95 senators have their minds made up, written in stone, why delay it?

Yeah, who cares Trump's lawyers lied? Why must the Democrats call witnesses to point out Trump knew Pence was in danger, and Trump's response was to paint a bullseye on his back, knowing Pence, the Vice President of the United States, was in danger. both sides, or something.

 

[Callen]

knowing Pence, the Vice President of the United States, was in danger.

.......and Pence had the nuclear football with him!!!

 

[Perotista]

To your fair point, however, as political justice goes, this further cements into history those who defend insurrection and loyalty to a mob boss who is only in it for himself. The Trumplicans may win this trumped up Senate battle, but the Democrats will stand tall for justice in America. Another way to look at this is that the more bad guys that are dealt during this extended impeachment trial, the larger signal to those who want to assault our Capitol and trash our govt from within will be front and center to pursue justice to all violators. There's no need to short change this process to seek justice. If it takes a month, so-be-it.

I'm a political realist which peeves off both sides a whole lot. Always looking forward to the next election. Indeed, Democrats may look good coming out of this trial. Historians might even give Democrats high marks, although we never know how historians look at things, we can only guess. They also tend to change their views from time to time depending on how society, which also changes at that time views events from the past. . Now I'm already looking forward to 2022. This trial will be ancient history by then. Replaced with much more important events and hot issues of the times, 2022 and not what happened in Feb 2021.

2022 will be decided on what President Biden and the Democratic controlled congress did or didn't do. Not on this trial. 2022 will all depend on how independents are angry at something Biden and the Democrats did or if they satisfied with how they're governing. As important this trial is to quite a lot of folks today, it'll be old news, ancient history 2 years from now. The first Trump impeachment trial wasn't even raised once in the 2020 general election. That happen only 9 months prior to the election, not 2 years prior as this one is happening.

I think Trump should pay a price, but he won't in the political arena. Now the legal arena, he stands a better chance of paying a price. New York DA investigating Bank, insurance and tax fraud. Georgia DA and AG investigating election interference, a felony here. DC DA is looking into charging Trump from the statutes on their book concerning insurrection and sedition. So time will tell.

 

[Donc]

This will be interesting and a majority vote is required for each witness called.
Graham changed his vote from no to yes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/13/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/

What's an "impeachment trial"without a witness ?


"

 

[Variant]

I think that the House Managers will limit the witnesses to those who will come willingly without a court subpoena. Witnesses like Herrera Beutler.

McArthy, Mark Meadows and Short would likely refuse a request and it would just be a time waster. As far as the Clown Train Trump's defense, who the hell could they possibly call that would have any evidence that could help Trump?

Unlike the last impeachment "trial" the president isn't using the oval office to keep folks from testifying and there isn't a republican Senate to allow it.

 

[Perotista]

Yeah, who cares Trump's lawyers lied? Why must the Democrats call witnesses to point out Trump knew Pence was in danger, and Trump's response was to paint a bullseye on his back, knowing Pence, the Vice President of the United States, was in danger. both sides, or something.

It's not going to make a difference. 95 senators know exactly how they'll vote and 95 senators have known that since 6 Jan before impeachment was even brought up in the house. This is purely a political process at the whims of very partisan senators and their political ideology and philosophy. This will be determine by the letter behind a senator's name. Perhaps if this trial took place in a previous or prior political era, not his modern one of polarization, divisiveness and mega, ultra high partisan which over rides everything and anything else. Trump might have been found guilty. But not in today's political era.

I'd go so far to say that if Trump did what he did in 1974, he'd be convicted by 75 or more senators voting guilty. If Nixon was tried in the senate today, he;d walk.

 

[JANFU]

That would seem to be a recipe for creating a very biased allowed witness list. The majority of the jurors (and the judge) have already decided that they favor the prosecution. If the majority demorat jury has the unilateral ability to ‘veto’ any witness (prior to hearing their testimony) then they control the ‘trial’.

You must be referring to the 1st Impeachment- 5 Rs voted for this

 

[MaryP]

The Dems may have asked for witnesses in order to get that newspaper article into the record.

 

[JasperL]

So...heresay is a thing again. I'm not surprised considering that's what the Trump haters based their last impeachment farce on.

I'm sure they'd love to have Trump and McCarthy come and give testimony under oath.

 

[TomFitz]

This will clarify the timeline, for Trump supporters that Trump was fully aware that Pence was in danger

They don’t care.

 

[TomFitz]

And just like that, the trap banged shut!

Trump’s team got hoisted on their own petard!

 

[JasperL]

Hmm... wouldn’t that apply to any and all who did not call 911?

Except that POTUS both has a sworn duty to protect and defend the U.S., including against an attack on our Capitol, and is in a unique position as head of the NG and our armed forces and all the other assets at his disposal as POTUS to act swiftly to make that happen.

Bottom line is no one can seriously argue Trump sitting on his fat ass while an insurrection is taking place, hearing that Pence is in danger, reacting to that news by tweeting out an attack on Pence's character, thereby putting a bigger bullseye on his back, is the president fulfilling his oath or the duties of POTUS in such a situation. That is obviously impeachable conduct, or nothing is impeachable.

 

[JANFU]

They don’t care.

True but al least it may be made public
1st they depose, next they vote on whether to allow the testimony

 

[zimmer]

They called their bluff. NO idea where it goes. And don’t care. I’m kind of enjoying the Dems actually doing stuff that makes sense and helps both the country and them politically. It’s refreshing!

I’m enjoying this too because the longer this crap takes, it’s Just another day of destruction delayed. I hope it goes on for months.

Won’t make a difference in the end... Da Democrats are so full of rage and anger they cannot see straight and ****ed up bigly yet again.

They’ve shredded the Constitution with their hilarious (insert drunken Pelosi voice) Impeaschments... no due process, no judge as per the Constitution, a henchman from the Partei acting as a “judge”... ROTFLOL... the only thing missing is for the feral Leftists to start shitting on the Senate chamber floor... just like their constituents do... ROTFLOL...

Meanwhile... back at the Red Ranch:

 

[zimmer]

Except that POTUS both has a sworn duty to protect and defend the U.S., including against an attack on our Capitol, and is in a unique position as head of the NG and our armed forces and all the other assets at his disposal as POTUS to act swiftly to make that happen.

Bottom line is no one can seriously argue Trump sitting on his fat ass while an insurrection is taking place, hearing that Pence is in danger, reacting to that news by tweeting out an attack on Pence's character, thereby putting a bigger bullseye on his back, is the president fulfilling his oath or the duties of POTUS in such a situation. That is obviously impeachable conduct, or nothing is impeachable.

What is the charge against Trump?

Yours isn’t the one.

Ever wonder why they wouldn’t go with your laughable fantasy? Because it’s more laughable than their current charge.

Back at Da Haus ov China:

 

[jpn]

The GOP is terrified of having Beutler testify. If witnesses are allowed, they threaten to "filibuster" the trial by calling hundreds of witnesses. That's probably why Graham voted yes on witnesses--gives him more standing to call countless numbers of them.

Now the Senate leaders are meeting to figure out rules for witnesses. Hopefully some reasonable number will be agreed on: two each or something like that. Will McConnell block that and make it virtually impossible to hear what Beutler has to say without dragging the trial on interminably?

Stay tuned...

 

[ttwtt78640]

Except that POTUS both has a sworn duty to protect and defend the U.S., including against an attack on our Capitol, and is in a unique position as head of the NG and our armed forces and all the other assets at his disposal as POTUS to act swiftly to make that happen.

Bottom line is no one can seriously argue Trump sitting on his fat ass while an insurrection is taking place, hearing that Pence is in danger, reacting to that news by tweeting out an attack on Pence's character, thereby putting a bigger bullseye on his back, is the president fulfilling his oath or the duties of POTUS in such a situation. That is obviously impeachable conduct, or nothing is impeachable.

I’m not arguing that Trump may not well have committed other impeachable offenses - outside the scope of the single article of impeachment charge. I’m simply arguing that what happened after X cannot be the ‘root cause’ (incitement) of X.

 

[Crosscheck]

Dang, I'd hoped it would be over today. I suppose this means this will continue into next week. Dumb move in my opinion by Trump's lawyers. A vote today would have acquitted Trump. I don't expect any thing to change whether the vote is held an hour from now, next week or next month or next year. It seems to me 95 senators have their minds made up, written in stone, why delay it?

I can't imagine the Republicans would want to bring witnesses in.

What we have learned is that Trump's response to Pence being in the Capitol Building during the riot equals his response to Covid. Just sit on his lazy ass and not do anything.

 

[jpn]

Welp, so much for that. No witnesses. I bet McConnell refused to agree to limit witnesses, which caused the Dem's to say to hell with it.

On to closing arguments.

 

[Helix]

subpoena Tweety, the viking stripper, and the "i wore my work badge to the insurrection" guy. i want to see them put on some fake beards and sing "Man Of Constant Sorrow" together. there's no way that the senate will vote to convict, so we might as well be entertained.

 

[sardonicsky]

Wake me when this farce is over.

Some choose to sleep for an entire lifetime but I encourage you to awaken.

 

[JasperL]

It's not going to make a difference. 95 senators know exactly how they'll vote and 95 senators have known that since 6 Jan before impeachment was even brought up in the house. This is purely a political process at the whims of very partisan senators and their political ideology and philosophy.

If your argument is that you agree with what Trump did that day and will welcome that same behavior with the next guy, say so. Otherwise, you're just running interference for the GOP under the guise of your supposed independence.

When you say, it's a "political process at the whims of very partisan senators" that IS your argument, that impeaching and convicting Trump for his behavior cannot be based on the merits, but only because the Democrats are partisan and are engaging in an illegitimate exercise.

So if you believe that, say it. If not then it seems to me right or wrong, the merits of the argument, should make some appearance in your analysis. That doesn't happen, so you both sides it which is just nonsense. Did the President's lawyer lie about Trump's knowledge of what was happening? You say, literally, who cares? Did the President react to being told, directly, that Pence was in danger by painting a bigger bullseye on Pence's back? You say, literally, who cares? And then you claim anyone who does care is just a "very partisan senators and their political ideology and philosophy" explains their concern. What "ideology and philosophy" says all that is OK for the POTUS?

This will be determine by the letter behind a senator's name. Perhaps if this trial took place in a previous or prior political era, not his modern one of polarization, divisiveness and mega, ultra high partisan which over rides everything and anything else. Trump might have been found guilty. But not in today's political era.

I'd go so far to say that if Trump did what he did in 1974, he'd be convicted by 75 or more senators voting guilty. If Nixon was tried in the senate today, he;d walk.

Yeah, and who cares about the merits, which side has the better argument? It's irrelevant, because both sides!

This is what fuels the GOP.

 

[uptower]

This will be interesting and a majority vote is required for each witness called.
Graham changed his vote from no to yes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/13/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/

Graham's move is a surprise but it's no surprise the flow of the trial is owing a against trump. They need a two thirds majority to convict and that's a tall order given the number of senators who fear a primary from the right. But for everything else they only need a simple majority and the majority are not in trumps bed.

 

[zimmer]

This whole process feels like watching someone rub a dog's nose in its poop to teach it a lesson, despite knowing the dog doesn't really mind having its nose rubbed in its poop.


By the same token, I don't see how Congress can let a situation like what happened on 1/6 go without some kind of repercussion.

ROTFLOL...

You need a case first... except for the 3rd world banana republic shitholes, which is what the Dems have turned Congress into... only thing missing is for them to start physically start acting like their constituents and lay down some smelly logs inside the walls on Capitol Hill.

Congress does not have to respond when they have nothing to respond to.

That is the job of the criminal justice system... when crimes have been committed.

There is no case against Trump... if there was, the Democrats would have:

1. given due process in the House, and

2. the Democrat Managers would not have to falsify documents and fabricate lies.

3. nor would they have had to chop up statements to misrepresent what was said.

I enjoy watching the Left implode and make total morons of themselves...

Meanwhile, back at Xi’s Buddy’s place: