|
generic one posted:Trump’s attorneys were basically egging them on about not having any witnesses. If that doesn’t make them wanna call some god drat witnesses, I don’t know what would. Even if they try to call witnesses... I mean, can they actually get them to appear or testify? It seems like a Congressional subpoena is ignorable. The only way actual punishment possible for ignoring it is the chamber chooses to hold the subpoenaed person in contempt, and if I recall correctly, the last impeachment trial showed that they won't do this for some reason.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
Thom12255 posted:McCarthy would not cooperate as a witness. it's not like you just tell them to show up in the Senate sunday, they'd take depositions then have additional vote about whether to call them as live witnesses (e.g.: at this point in the Clinton trial, they chose to play video of depos) quote:It seems like a Congressional subpoena is ignorable. The only way actual punishment possible for ignoring it is the chamber chooses to hold the subpoenaed person in contempt, and if I recall correctly, the last impeachment trial showed that they won't do this for some reason. and re: contempt 1. You probably simply wouldn't call uncooperative people because it's not worth the hassle, there's plenty of people who WILL obey a subpoena. 2. If there was an actual contempt referral made, there's a different person running the DOJ than did in january of 2020, that's the actual other way you can enforce contempt that they could not do previously eke out fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Feb 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
eke out posted:no one said it was going to magically change votes to acquit, people are saying it could affect the democrats' calculations about calling witnesses, which they absolutely can do if they choose to
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
eke out posted:no one said it was going to magically change votes to acquit, people are saying it could affect the democrats' calculations about calling witnesses, which they absolutely can do if they choose to Well this seems to be planned to be done by the donor side of the GOP. It is forcing those in the party to either throw Trump under the bus or have Trump throw them under the bus. Calculated as gently caress and I am sure has blindsided a lot of people. Xaiter posted:Even if they try to call witnesses... I mean, can they actually get them to appear or testify? Well many people that would get called are current members of Congress which would be kind of awkward for them. I assume the Trump would be forced to be called at that point as well which him refusing to show up would not go over well. Also there is a Democratic DOJ that would likely help motivate those wanting to not show up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
SubG posted:I understand that, my point is it doesn't change anything. It isn't as if the House Managers were previously unaware of the availability of witnesses. Seriously: you're one of the Managers. How does this change your calculus? And I'm not asking as a zinger here, but an actual question. If you're one of the Managers, what were you trying to accomplish over the past several days that this piece of evidence suddenly changes? the question is does the potential upside to extending this exceed the consequences, namely: (1) republicans will at least call some witnesses and also force you to vote against them calling irrelevant ones like Hunter Biden, and (2) it'll further slow down the Senate's ability to do anything else for the period i don't think either are actually really bad consequences, especially since Schumer has other business going in the mornings and likely could avoid unduly delaying covid relief. what it changes is the upside: there's people you can actually use to prove that Donald Trump knew Mike Pence was fleeing from the mob he incited while Trump tweeted more things inciting the mob against Pence! people who're already on the record telling media this can directly prove his state of mind with firsthand knowledge in a way you can't dishonestly dismiss as just hearsay to me, the damage that does to the republican party is probably worth an additional week's delay eke out fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Feb 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:18
|
|
|
Xaiter posted:Even if they try to call witnesses... I mean, can they actually get them to appear or testify? Some of the witnesses would be actual members of Congress. I don’t know what ramifications there are for members of Congress ignoring a congressional subpoena, but I have to imagine it would get really weird?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
eke out posted:the question is does the potential upside to extending this exceed the consequences, namely: (1) republicans will at least call some witnesses and also force you to vote against them calling irrelevant ones like Hunter Biden, and (2) it'll further slow down the Senate's ability to do anything else for the period That’s kind of my opinion as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
also, i forgot: today we saw that a surprising amount of republicans actually seem to care about the part where Trump knowingly incited a mob against their friend, Mike Pence. calling witnesses about the topic presses the obvious advantage there, even if it doesn't affect the ultimate outcome (since nothing ever will get you to 67).
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
SubG posted:I understand that, my point is it doesn't change anything. It isn't as if the House Managers were previously unaware of the availability of witnesses. Seriously: you're one of the Managers. How does this change your calculus? And I'm not asking as a zinger here, but an actual question. If you're one of the Managers, what were you trying to accomplish over the past several days that this piece of evidence suddenly changes? It does impact the democrats as there were definitely senators who had a "let's just get this over with" attitude. Trump's defense has made a very good case that they need to extend impeachment and get witnesses. And with democrats in charge of the senate and a Biden justice department to enforce them, there's no ducking subpoenas this time. And this is mattering. Not to the people sitting in that chamber and not to Trump himself, but I am hearing from people who aren't liberal firebrands who are getting angrier and angrier through this. The public is noticing republicans being total dog poo poo in this impeachment and are losing the messaging war outside of their echo chamber. Witnesses will keep hitting things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
eke out posted:what it changes is the upside: there's people you can actually use to prove that Donald Trump knew Mike Pence was fleeing from the mob he incited while Trump tweeted more things inciting the mob against Pence! people who're already on the record telling media this can directly prove his state of mind with firsthand knowledge in a way you can't dishonestly dismiss as just hearsay We already knew McCarthy was on the phone with Trump during the insurrection and that the call was "heated". I guess getting a specific quote makes it easier to hammer on as a rhetorical thing, but I don't know how it changes the calculus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:36
|
|
|
I think the key thing is not that pence was their friend, is that everybody knew that pence was absolutely the most loyal person. So they were seeing what the standard was for loyalty, and it's higher than even Pence could achieve, which means certainly nobody else would achieve it, which means Donald Trump would gladly see them loving dead to a letter
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
Lol "who the gently caress do you think you are talking to" Just lmaooo
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
SubG posted:Why is this more true of McCarthy today than it was of Lee and Tuberville previously? Or for that matter McCarthy previously? Again, serious question. I'd say it does. For anyone that any facts matter at all hearing the actual words, whether from the tape or the person testifying in court, is always going to be much more substantial than simply "there was a call, it was heated, X was angry". Getting the actual words lets people figure out for themselves what is relevant, rather than just getting an opinion on the incident handed down to them. Since this is all just a political event anyways, that should have more of the intended effect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:42
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:McCarthy would not cooperate as a witness. You call the people McCarthy told and have them testify to what they were told and then when you call McCarthy he either has to say they lied under oath leading to a criminal trial or they told the truth but he was lying, which would be damaging to him, and it was a made up story or he has to say their account was correct.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
CNN said they're close to the final vote. Has there been a decision about no witnesses?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:45
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:CNN said they're close to the final vote. Has there been a decision about no witnesses? who knows. i suspect the house is weighing up how much effort it would be worth forcing trump or mccarthy or whatever espcially if its clear the GOP will just refuse or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:48
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:who knows. i suspect the house is weighing up how much effort it would be worth forcing trump or mccarthy or whatever espcially if its clear the GOP will just refuse or some poo poo. It just takes a simple majority to get witnesses right? If that's the case I can't imagine they don't have the votes, since I'd bet even a few Republicans (namely Mitt) would be onboard with that
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:I'd say it does. For anyone that any facts matter at all hearing the actual words, whether from the tape or the person testifying in court, is always going to be much more substantial than simply "there was a call, it was heated, X was angry". Getting the actual words lets people figure out for themselves what is relevant, rather than just getting an opinion on the incident handed down to them. Since this is all just a political event anyways, that should have more of the intended effect. I mean I actually think the US needs a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and/or a trial in front of the fuckin' Hague. So I'm in favour of getting as many of the bastards on record as possible. But I just don't see what play the House Managers have today that they didn't already have before the McCarthy quote dropped.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:It just takes a simple majority to get witnesses right? If that's the case I can't imagine they don't have the votes, since I'd bet even a few Republicans (namely Mitt) would be onboard with that i believe so. the issue is neither side havent really talked about it, outside trump a little bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
The final vote is theoretically tomorrow, yes. We still don't know for one hundred percent certainty if witnesses will be a thing or not - we'll probably learn that just before resuming tomorrow. It certainly sounds thus far that they do not intend to, but they've also stressed at keeping the option open. And, I dunno, especially after today, I would think that maybe changes the calculus a little on weighing the witness call, but that's just imo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 02:10
|
|
|
I imagine it comes down more to Democratic calculus regarding confirmation and whatever the Senate needs to do regarding COVID relief. If they still need to crank some things out behind the scenes you could probably kill another day or two with witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 02:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/1360396368892805122?s=19 Whitehouse thinks no witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:I imagine it comes down more to Democratic calculus regarding confirmation and whatever the Senate needs to do regarding COVID relief. If they still need to crank some things out behind the scenes you could probably kill another day or two with witnesses. it also depends on if it would accomplish anything either somehow pulling off a miracle or would a much closer acquittal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 02:18
|
|
|
Hayes asking Chris Van Hollen about calling witnesses, says that's something the House managers will have to decide sounds like no one wants to say anything right now except they agree with them -- "if they make a decision to call witnesses, we will welcome it, but it's their call"
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 02:18
|
|
|
eke out posted:Hayes asking Chris Van Hollen about calling witnesses, says that's something the House managers will have to decide yeah, i think its a 50/50 at this point, lots of poo poo behind close doors tonight i assume.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
generic one posted:Some of the witnesses would be actual members of Congress. I don’t know what ramifications there are for members of Congress ignoring a congressional subpoena, but I have to imagine it would get really weird? I mean Cruz and Graham can be hidden members of the Defense team, so why can't the jury also be witnesses? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
If you just utter the word "heresay" enough times it means that I'm rubber and you're glue, no take backs, etc. The House hasn't produced any evidence besides hours of video and audio so, really, what's this whole thing all about? I mean, he's not even the president anymore. (Because of mass voter fraud) nine-gear crow posted:IT'S TIME TO PRE-RETROACTIVELY IMPEACH ETERNAL WOULDBE PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON BOYS! Jesus. OK, let's do that. Right after Trump faces 11 hours of grilling like Hillary did. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Feb 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 02:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AnaCabrera/status/1360393866663374849?s=19
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 02:28
|
|
|
If only it mattered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
generic one posted:Trump’s attorneys were basically egging them on about not having any witnesses. If that doesn’t make them wanna call some god drat witnesses, I don’t know what would. "Democrats cowardly decided to wait forever to call witnesses and we've had no time to prepare" eke out posted:There's people you can actually use to prove that Donald Trump knew Mike Pence was fleeing from the mob he incited while Trump tweeted more things inciting the mob against Pence! people who're already on the record telling media this can directly prove his state of mind with firsthand knowledge in a way you can't dishonestly dismiss as just hearsay If you say so. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Feb 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 02:36
|
|
|
This seems fun  Sure seems like we need some witnesses if the Vice President is claiming the President's defense is lying
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 03:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1360420692794232832 A cavalcade of clownshoes
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
Subpoena the Secret Service. I bet they reported Pence’s situation to Trump from the reports of the agents with him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 04:51
|
|
|
So is no one who matters going to point out that Trump’s videos had a musical score and how absurd that is? Or are we just gonna pretend that it’s cool and normal?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Even Boehner described Cruz as the worst son of a bitch he'd ever worked with. Do not insult Grandpa Munster with that comparison. Al Lewis was a socialist and a legit good person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 06:08
|
|
|
Rabble posted:So is no one who matters going to point out that Trump’s videos had a musical score and how absurd that is? Or are we just gonna pretend that it’s cool and normal? It's all loving theater you might as well just embrace it. Plus it plays to the chuds, they see trump as a super hero straight out of a marvel movie. Might as well lean in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 06:25
|
|
|
When is the new FCC chair getting confirmed? Besides evicscerating Comcast/AT&T out of their garbage net speeds, we need a poo poo ton more legal accountability slapped onto big media and big tech.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 06:37
|
|
|
SubG posted:Why is this more true of McCarthy today than it was of Lee and Tuberville previously? Or for that matter McCarthy previously? Again, serious question. We knew it, as in the terminally online who pay attention to politics far, far more than the average American, even during something like this. But that information dropped in the absolute frenzy that was reporting immediately during and after the attack. Now it's slightly more detailed, with a number of Republican sources pointing it out (and at least one on record), and, most important, it dropped prime time on the day Trump's clownshow defense rested after three hours of blatant lying, and then spent the next four somehow making even bigger asses out of themselves while directly contrasted with the House's response, with the next thing on the impeachment schedule being a decision on whether or not to call witnesses, and the sole focus of news coverage tonight, minus Fox morons, was about 70% this and 30% Trump's defense being really, really bad. Basically, it reintroduces something that a lot of people probably missed, or forgot about, with a few additional details and a quote, set against the backdrop of the House management team hammering pretty hard on the "here are a bunch of Republicans who called to beg Trump to stop the mob, and he wouldn't" point, and directly conflicting with what the idiot brigade said today. And it was the center of attention. Won't make a difference, but adds to the pile of making the vote to acquit look as cowardly as possible in the eyes of the public.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 06:38
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:We knew it, as in the terminally online who pay attention to politics far, far more than the average American, even during something like this. But that information dropped in the absolute frenzy that was reporting immediately during and after the attack. Now it's slightly more detailed, with a number of Republican sources pointing it out (and at least one on record), and, most important, it dropped prime time on the day Trump's clownshow defense rested after three hours of blatant lying, and then spent the next four somehow making even bigger asses out of themselves while directly contrasted with the House's response, with the next thing on the impeachment schedule being a decision on whether or not to call witnesses, and the sole focus of news coverage tonight, minus Fox morons, was about 70% this and 30% Trump's defense being really, really bad. This is an important point, I was - like many of us - watching everything I could on Jan 6th about as intently as I could, and I vaguely remember the information that the call happened, but before today I doubt I could have actually said it was McCarthy and Trump rather than "Trump and... some Republican" which for all I remember could have been a co-conspirator saying "Oh it's going great here chief, we're about to execute the Vice President!" So for people who missed something on that incredibly fast moving day or caught up later after they finished whatever fires needed putting out in their own life or whatever, this is a powerful focusing of the mind. There's no way to get to 2/3rds and make a real difference but I can't think of much that would be more likely to move one or two GOP senators into convicting, and it's surely solidified the small handful who already felt safe convicting him; plus Bill Cassidy, if he's telling the truth about still being undecided.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 07:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
kartikeya posted:Won't make a difference, but adds to the pile of making the vote to acquit look as cowardly as possible in the eyes of the public. I think things will continue to look worse and worse as more details come out--both from the inevitable leaks like this one, and as the insurrectionists make their way through the courts--but that doesn't change the calculus involved in the decision whether or not to call witnesses before the vote in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2021 07:24
|
|