Witnesses At Trump Trial To Testify Trump Approved Of Riot ?

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  39 comments

Witnesses At Trump Trial To Testify Trump Approved Of Riot ?


Do we have a brewing bombshell at the impeachment?

Trump's lawyer is currently blowing a gasket because the Democrats say they may call witnesses. 

His level of jackassery is soaring. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Raskin wants to call a House Representative with knowledge of McCarthy's phone call with Trump. Trump's lawyer went ballistic.  

Consciousness of guilt ?    Of course. 

Could be a long day depending on how the majority (the Democrats) want to handle it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  author  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

55 - 45 vote to have witnesses.  5 Republicans voted yes. Lindsey Graham being one of them. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
3  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

Has Ms. Lindsey grown a spine in the last 24 hours?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @3    2 weeks ago

One commentator said he may be angling to also get witnesses for the president allowed. Who knows? 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.1  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    2 weeks ago
Who knows? 

Who knows the identity of a witness FOR Trump? 

Is there ANYONE that thinks that if Trump's defense had exculpatory evidence that they chose NOT to present it? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

They want to muck it up by calling Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris.  I imagine their boss Donald Trump would like that. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
3.1.3  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    2 weeks ago
They want to muck it up be calling Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris.  I imagine their boss Donald Trump would like that. 

I'd buy tickets to watch that shit! Pelosi and Harris will eat them for lunch and spit out the bones...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4  TᵢG    2 weeks ago

I would like to see witnesses.   If there are indeed witnesses who can speak to Trump's pleasure at seeing the insurrection, that might make a difference.   Given we are in an impeachment trial and thus it is apparently constitutional, I would like to see a conviction because I am absolutely convinced Trump violated his oath of office by abusing the powers and influence of the presidency to fraudulently go against the government of the USA in order to steal an election or, at the least, as an emotional petulant response to losing an election and having an ego that is unable to cope with it.

No PotUS should be allowed to do what Trump did.   And Trump should never have an option for political power in the future.

I realize that he will almost assuredly not be convicted, but the testimony of persuasive witnesses might influence those who would consider voting for Trump in the future.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @4    2 weeks ago

By the way, the witness the prosecution wants to call is a Republican representative who says that as the riot was unfolding Kevin McCarthy told her about a phone call he had with Trump where Trump seemed indifferent to the danger faced by people at the Capitol, and said something to the effect of (the rioters care more about the election than you do), to which McCarthy replied to Trump "Who the fuck do you think you are talking to"?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 weeks ago

Thing is, I would expect that anyone with an understanding of human nature would be able to infer Trump's basic behavior in private.   To wit, there must be all sorts of potential damaging witnesses.   Will they step forward?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

Chuck Todd of NBC is saying right now that his sources say that Rep. Beutler took contemporaneous notes at the time and will be a very good witness. Ms Beutler has also hinted that there are others that have pertinent information. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

Hopefully more Rs will follow her lead.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
4.2  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @4    2 weeks ago
If there are indeed witnesses who can speak to Trump's pleasure at seeing the insurrection, that might make a difference.

There definitely ARE witnesses that can speak to that, the question is, will they call them. It's been reported that the Secret Service did in fact inform Trump that Pence was in peril. Rep. Beutler said that McCarty related the screaming match he had with Trump during the insurrection. 

Then there are the military and other officials that tried to contact Trump and were blown off by the WH.  There have to be quite a few that TRIED to get Trump to snap out of his thrall to the insurrection he was watching on live TV.  

Now there COULD also be an epiphany in the GOP and McCarthy et al COULD raise their hand and admit that they have relevant evidence and volunteer to testify.

Do I think that will happen? Hell no. We know that McCarthy begged Trump for help and Trump dissed him, yet McCarthy STILL voted nay on EVERYTHING in the House. If Trump leaving the entire GOP Federal legislature for dead didn't move McCarthy to vote for impeachment, what would? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @4.2    2 weeks ago

Kevin McCarthy is spineless. He cussed Trump out at the time of the phone call because he was angry Trump turned down his plea for help to fight the rioters. In the following days he lost his anger, lol.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
4.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    2 weeks ago

"Kevin McCarthy is spineless. He cussed Trump out at the time of the phone call because he was angry Trump turned down his plea for help to fight the rioters. In the following days he lost his anger, lol."

Yup, followed him down to Florida to kiss his ass . . . .

giphy.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
4.2.3  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.1    2 weeks ago
In the following days he lost his anger, lol.

Oh I doubt that he lost his anger. I think he just remembered that he couldn't burn his bridge to all that campaign MONEY!

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
4.3  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @4    2 weeks ago

That is the overarching point. Trump refused to accept the will of American voters while falsely accusing election officials of both parties in numerous states of serious malfeasances. He arranged, financed and lead his "Stop The Steal" rally on the day Congress was to certify the electoral college votes from the states. Then he explicitly instructed the mob to move upon Congress. Just like all of us he observed the riot live while doing nothing to stop it for hours. Start to finish it was like no other transition of power in US history. How can anyone close their eyes to what Trump did between November 3rd and January 6th?

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
4.4  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @4    2 weeks ago

I have been waiting for a couple of years for some type of 'Nixon tapes' to suddenly appear.

Then again, with the makeup of today's politics, it probably wouldn't matter at all.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Participates
5  Hallux    2 weeks ago

What are Donald's 'lawyers' mad about? At least another week of pro-bono work for Donald and their reputations sinking deeper into the mire.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
6  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

This is the Democrats admitting their strategy the first two days failed.  They wouldn’t be doing this if they were happy with where they were. Because incitement was a loser, they actually have to show what trump did during the riot, and witnesses were always necessary for that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago

No, they are doing this because a Republican member of the House of Representatives, a former ally of Kevin McCarthy,  made it known , on her own, that something wasnt right on Trump's part during the riot.  She got her information from McCarthy himself, who was friends with her at the time  (maybe they still are friends but that seems a little problematic after the last 24 hours. )

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
6.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    2 weeks ago

This call and it’s contents aren’t news. He told the republican caucus weeks ago and Republican representatives discussed  it publicly and with cnn. The Democrats just miscalculated about focusing on incitement and  Trump’s attorneys exposed its hypocrisy yesterday.
 
So now they pivot out of desperation to the case they should have been making the whole time.

This is common sense. If you’ve won aa trial, you don’t extend it and add uncertainties.  

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
6.1.2  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
This call and it’s contents aren’t news.

Some of it is.

The newly revealed details of the call, described to CNN by multiple Republicans briefed on it, provide critical insight into the President's state of mind as rioters were overrunning the Capitol.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

You sound like sour grapes that more of Trump's traitorous behavior will be exposed. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
6.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.3    2 weeks ago

There's so much of it that we have just hit the tip of the iceberg

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
6.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  pat wilson @6.1.2    2 weeks ago
"The newly revealed details of the call, described to CNN by multiple Republicans briefed on it, provide critical insight into the President's state of mind as rioters were overrunning the Capitol."

It gave him a hard on knowing that they were doing this 'in his name'

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
6.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @6.1.2    2 weeks ago
vealed details of the call, described to CNN by multiple Republicans briefed on it, provide critical insight into the President's state of mind as rioters were overrunning the Capitol.

But a competent impeachment  team would have had this locked down weeks ago. The call was public. The first thing you do when trying to make a legal case is figure out who the witnesses are to the conduct that will be the focus of the case. IT's indisputable Democrat's made no effort, until today, to develop evidence about what Trump was doing during the riot.  It was just an accessory, when it should have been the focus from day one. 

Is is that hard for Democrats to figure out that Trump's conduct during the riot was  an important issue to consider? Apparently.  Because the impeachment managers made no move to lock down fact witnesses on that issue until now, when they realized they had been kneecapped on the incitement charge they spent all their time focusing on.   The democrats cases speaks for itself. They, bizarrely, didn't think Trump's conduct during the riot was worth investigating or necessary tp thire case. 

The democrats arguments are public knowledge. You can't ignore what they decided was important. It's amazing how hard it is for the hardcore democrats here to even consider the house managers messed up,  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.7  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.6    2 weeks ago

Once again we get a defense of Trump that is a pure process argument. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
6.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.3    2 weeks ago
You sound like sour grapes that more of Trump's traitorous behavior will be exposed. 

Nonsense. I've told you specifically on more than one occasion this is what the Democrat's should have focusing on since Day 1. It was always the most potentially harmful avenue against Trump.  Incitement was always an idiotic   argument because there was no way an honest person could claim Trump's statements met the standard for incitement. 

What a world. I tell you what Democrats' should be doing. After blowing the trial, some of the smarter  Democrats came to the same conclusion and executed a drastic change in strategy, and now you are all atwitter because, now, you can agree with what I've been telling you for days.   Amazing how once the official democratic position became to call for fact witnesses about Trump's behavior during the riot, you suddenly embrace it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.9  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.8    2 weeks ago

Sean , I am a big picture guy. The evidence against Trump is overwhelming and the senate needs to banish him from American politics, not let him weasel out of justice on the basis of technicalities. 

Conservatives, who often decry lenient treatment of criminals who are acquitted or receive lesser punishments because of technicalities now they are ready to let Trump off on technicalities or process arguments. The hypocrisy speaks for itself. 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
6.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
6.3  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago

256

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
6.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago

They didn't fail, they are just making the vote more and more uncomfortable for a few republicans. We all know the GOP is going to let Trump get away with his bullshit, that has been obvious for awhile because with a select few exceptions EVERY congressional republican is a fucking coward. They are terrified of their base, legitimately worried that one of the lunatics they have enabled will kill them or their families. But hey, you lay with dogs you get up with fleas. 

At the very least this makes GOP Senators go on record as saying that all of this is perfectly okay and they openly support it. They have to go on record and say that they really aren't the biggest fans of this whole "democratic republic" nonsense. The more damning the Dems can make the vote, the better.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.4.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.4    2 weeks ago
The more damning the Dems can make the vote, the better.

Yep. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  author  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

I can see it all now. Eventually the Republican senators will say that yes, Trump is guilty of all charges but it doesnt rise to the level of meriting an impeachment conviction.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
7.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 weeks ago

Of course. It is okay if a republican does it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8  author  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

There will be no witnesses. The two sides agreed instead to enter Rep. Beutler's  statement into the record  and thus allow the Democrats to read it to the senators and thus use it in their closing argument. 

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
8.1  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @8    2 weeks ago

Yep. It should wrap up today.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
9  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

People need to decide what we are going to approve of or disapprove of and the standard needs to apply to everybody.

Trump sent federal troops to Portland to put down riots and Nancy Pelosi called them stormtroopers. The mayor of Portland and the governor of Oregon both condemned their presence.

On the suggestion that Trump might send troops to NYC, Mayor DeBlasio threatened to sue if he tried it.

When Trump sent a small force to Seattle, where protestors had chased police from their own building, the mayor said those troops would undermine public safety. Washington's governor said Trump was provoking confrontation.

All summer, the press and politicians openly questioned the president's authority to send any troops anywhere to put down riots.

But suddenly on Jaunary 6, it's all his responsibility to deal with the violence and he's a criminal if he doesn't deal with it immediately?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



38 visitors