Dems can't give it up: Surprise vote to call witnesses
House managers must be feeling the heat from the hard left, which firmly controls the democratic party and the Biden administration.
The reason for this Hail Mary?
Answer: Progressive anger
Was that video montage of prominent Democrats' shockingly violent rhetoric for much of the last four years so devastating?
If democrats want to call witnesses, which they should have locked testimony in during the House impeachment, Republicans must also be able call lots & lots of witnesses. We are making history though. Nobody has seen anything like this unfold in US history. As of last week the stock market was doing well under the assumption that this whole farce would play out in one week. As for Joe Biden, he will have to wait for his covid-relief package or any legislation as well as appointments. Merrick Garland will again have to cool his heels.
Many thought todays Saturday session would be the day the Senate voted on whether to convict.
However, Representative Jamie Raskin, the lead House impeachment manager, said he wants to subpoena Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler (R., Wash.) after she said in a statement Friday night that House minority leader Kevin McCarthy told her that Trump had sided with the mob during a phone call the two had while the January 6 attack on the Capitol was underway. Thus a juror could become a witness too!
Democrats always overreach
The vote to allow witnesses was 55-45 and the door is now open for a long, long process.
(Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined Democrats in voting to call witnesses)
Tags
Who is online
46 visitors
Are we changing the charges now as well?
The farce resumes at 12:30
I already have a seed on this topic. I guess you think the "truth" will emerge on your effort.
That's fine John, mine is an opinion piece as is yours. We can have an infinite number of them. NT is one of the few places that people like me can speak their minds.
I do not object to other seeds on one particular topic, however you know you could give your opinion on the other seed as well as on any other seed.
You mean on your seed?
I looked at it. You have three sentences framed like a news bulletin.
I think I've identified the spark behind this move.
You're right, I don't put right wing propaganda in the body of my articles.
No slant John. Look at my Post # 5.
Do you disagree with that?
[DELETED]
"You're right, I don't put right wing propaganda in the body of my articles."
I got a ticket for telling the truth like that
It ain't over till it's over. You'll know it is over when...
I'm sure Joe Biden isn't too happy to hear that.
I do not think Joe minds waiting for additional testimony which is extremely damning to Trump!
Joe cares more about tarring Trump that getting his covid relief out before benefits expire?
That's shocking.
There is no evidence to that. In fact, Biden has been very disinterested in the trial and has expressed that he was concerned that it is affecting him getting on with business.
Yes, I know Perrie. JBB is telling me that Joe is happy the trial is being extended. I'm sure Biden isn't happy about having covid-relief pushed to the back-burner.
No, you just do not want to hear the sworn testimony of the witnesses of Trump's behavior between one and four P.M. on January the sixth. Lying before a Senate impeachment trial is serious business.
"What did Trump know, when did he know and what specifically did he do and say about?
We are waiting for answers. All of us are.
What do you mean No?
You've repeatedly said Biden is happy with the trial extension. Read the article Perrie posted.
Just because they are sworn doesn't mean these cherry picked "witnesses" either know or will tell the truth. Trying to interpret someones state of mind or motives is not legally admissible
According to Herrera Beutler, a WA Republican, claims that McCarthy told her that when he spoke to Trump that day and asked him to “publicly and forcefully” call off the Capitol assault, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol. McCarthy supposedly refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters, which is when President Trump supposedly said ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.'”
It is damning testimony for Trump. Joe is HAPPY!
Lol, I don't think so. He may be cognitively challenged, but he's not totally retarded. His relief bill and his appointments are going to be delayed.
So, suddenly you are worried that Joe Biden's agenda is being delayed? I am not buying it...
You prefer to waltz. Ok.
What did Trump know and when did he know?
Please be specific!
I'm not a mind reader.
The Article charges inciting insurrection. I know that's a loser.
Witnesses verify Trump lead the insurgency!
They will show Trump was derelict of duty...
They will prove he organized, inciting and cheered on the insurgency and did nothing to stop it in process. Pence saved the day...
We were all thiscloseto losing our democracy.
What did Trump know and when did he know?
Where is their testimony?
This is the move of a team that's losing and has to start the game over. The Trump lawyers really housed the Democrats this week, and I guarantee in 20 years when the real story of what happened this week starts to get told, the Democratic Senators were pissed at what a half assed job the impeachment managers did and some grown up in the party told them to do what they should have been doing since day 1, developing fact witnesses about Trump's behavior.
Instead, of focusing on Trump's behavior, they bizarrely focused on sure loser of an incitement argument and "proving" how terrible the riots were. OF course, proving the riot was terrible only proves the riot was terrible, it doesn't make Trump responsible for it. All they did was gin up emotion, which was effectively neutered by Trump's lawyer's meandering opening argument. That was a brilliant tactic, even if Trump himself apparently didn't get what he was doing. With one speech, t"WTF is Trump's lawyer doing" became the dominate takeaway from the opening. Incredibly effective lawyering by that guy.
The the destruction of the "incitement" claim was like watching Tyson fight a tomato can in his prime. They could have quit after 10 minutes with that video of every Democratic leader and their brother using the same language that Trump supposedly used to incite the crowd. They did an amazing job (with lots of help from the House impeachment managers) of fighting the battle on the grounds most favorable to Trump.
The Democrats are lucky this isn't a real trial and their majority allows them a do-over.
I want to apologize to the Trump lawyers. They did close it out well.
The Democrats are lucky this isn't a real trial and their majority allows them a do-over.
There is nothing like being in control is there? Having the power to say we play another inning must be a great rush!
And now they backed down. No witnesses.
what a cluster fuck by the Democrats.
Bring her out, let her speak, let us hear her!
Just when we were preparing to depose Pelosi and Harris!
The trial judge & juror committed to voting "guilty"
I know that, what's your point? BTW, do you actually believe that Donnie's lawyers, Twit Twit & Sons, had any actual witnesses?
That Republicans called their bluff. If dems wanted a witness, Republicans would call many.
BTW, do you actually believe that Donnie's lawyers, Twit Twit & Sons, had any actual witnesses?
No, why would they? The dems had none.
Raskin wanted another bite of the apple. It's too little, too late.
Pelosi and what she knew ahead of time would have been disaster for democrats.
I doubt Nancy is going anywhere. Two botched BS politically motivated impeachments will not be enough to remove her or her hench-people.
She can point to Trump's and the Republican's low ratings and say that she "accomplished everything she wanted".
Of course dragging the Dems ratings down as well in the process won't even cross her mind. Until mid terms that is.
Dereliction of duty is not the charge in the Article!
Raskin read Beutler's hearsay statement into the record.
It's not hearsay Vic. If in my murder trial , a witness says that I told her I did the crime , it would not be disallowed. This type of evidence is allowed all the time. Beutler is not claiming first hand knowledge of what trump told McCarthy, she is testifying to what McCarthy told her.
That is by definition hearsay evidence. You would need to have McCarthy testify under oath to have direct evidence.
Many on the left appear to eschew both truth and credible evidence...
not to mention due process and the presumption of innocence..
Greg, they seem to think all they need do is write up articles of impeachment and impeach. Reason is always left behind.
History will record that these were faux political impeachments.
You're talking about a relevant, directly on point statement against self-interest (literally, an unprompted confession) and it would still need to be supported by corroborating evidence.
But here, we're just talking about incitement to insurrection (the incident charge) and not some vague accusation of him being a bad president. The statement isn't even relevant to the charge. Also, being hearsay within hearsay, it's unreliable. It's also clearly prejudicial. So much wrong this.
With a big bold asterisk.
It's like a Russian nesting doll of hearsay. We've got an out of court statement from Buetler, that we can't cross examine on. That statement is about what McCarthy told her, and we can't cross examine him. His statement is about what Trump said and we can't question him either.
And none of it - even if taken as 100% true - sounds like it's relevant to a charge of incitement to insurrection. The fact that everyone's response is now outrage about some dereliction of duty goes to how prejudicial and distracting such evidence is, making it inadmissible. I can't imagine a courtroom in this country where this would be admissible as evidence.
I think you nailed it.
From their point of view, the more they try and tar Trump the more that might stick should he ever run again. None of this makes sense otherwise.
If witnesses prove Trump knew about plans for the insurgency days prior then that is a new ballgame!
I expect ninety, or more, Senators vote to convict...
What witnesses?
I would like to hear from Melania, Mick Mulvaney, Don Jr, Eric, Ivanka any other witnesses to Trump words and behavior leading up to and during the insurgency. What did Trump know and when?
You can dream about that.
Then you should be very upset with the Democrats in the Senate who agreed to not call witnesses.
Van der Veen was much more effective in closing. No doubt about it!
Lies and smears are effective in this country.
Lies and smears were what the house impeachment managers were pedaling.
Thank you for proving my point...
You proved your own point by believing the Dems full blown BS.
57 - 43
That's a majority, lol
butt the game is rigged to never be won.
Should we just do away with that part of the Constitution?
The political left has hit a big beautiful wall of resistance. And it's not the anonymous passive-aggressive resistance of which the political left is so fond.
American democracy is much stronger than the political left have deluded themselves into believing. It seems the United States is not going to be subjugated without a fight.
And now the vote!
For the first time they show portraits along with the votes!
Lol...democrats!
Acquitted again and once again vindicated!
Vindicated is used when absolved does not apply.
Trump got off but the Republican scum that let this traitor go will face the judgement of history.
Scum? How about every one of those 50 democrat Senators who marched to Schumer's orders?
I only wish Schumer had tried to use the Reconstruction provisions of the 14th Amendment. Then he could have been acquitted three times!
Patriots all. Each and every one of them.
I consider the opinions of blind Trump supporters to be totally worthless on this subject.
And 🦅Trump🦅 is the greatest 🗽 Patriot 🇺🇸
And we really don’t care right now!
They still can, and they only need 51 of the 57 votes they had today. If they do that, lil donny will never hold public office again....thank God.
To make such a statement proves otherwise.
Really?
I find it amusing to see how far Democrats will go to ban a man they just beat at the polls.
Seems like they are scared of him.
Yup, they're all complicit. Everyone who voted to acquit.
Gee, maybe Pelosi will try to impeach those Senators next?
Her record on removal through impeachment is a perfect 0-2!
Not even one... all human debris pond scum. All 50 of them
They are tenacious.
Vindicated? Not for a second. The majority of the votes found him guilty.
Trump will be forever deemed guilty in the eyes of history.
Trump just made a statement - something about the final chapter of a 4 year witch hunt.
That sounds like it could be the title of an article.
I will quote the Bible
Forgive them (Trump supporters) father , for they know not what they do.
Trump = something vomited up by the Republican Party.
McConnell is delivering a scathing denunciation of Trump.
Yup - Post 16
Mitch McConnell just said that Trump is "practically and morally" responsible for the riot. He says Trump "provoked" the mob. What is that if not the equivalent to "incited" ?
He is doing everything to Trump but vote against him. They are gutless wonders.
Read McConnell's speech later. He is laying all the responsibility on Trump. You'd think he was the prosecutor.
But in the end he has no guts.
McConnell's view is that Trump was partly responsible and should have done more to stop it, but McConnell wasn't going to vote to impeach a private citizen.
"Trump = something vomited up by the Republican Party."
tRump = something shit out by Satan
According to the US Constitution, that's not how impeachment voting works in the US Senate. It needs a 2/3 majority, currently 67 votes.
57 - 43 will always be the majority, regardless of the rules which have prevented all Presidents, senators and Cabinet members from being impeached regardless of guilt, even when they admitted guilt.
It's just another exercise of an ancient tradition from when Parliamentarians had honor which no longer works.
It has never prevented anyone at any time from being impeached.
Come on, SP. You know better, and I know that you know.
In other instances, you are correct. However, you are NOT correct according to the US Constitution as it applies to impeachment.
We have 100 Senators. Two thirds of 100 = 66.66. Mathematics rules make us round UP when the tenths digit is >5, so that makes it a super-majority and the number needs to be 67.
Thanks for the general definitions of majority even though they're irrelevant to the US Constitution regarding Senate impeachment.
Got me.
57 - 43 will always be the majority, regardless of the rules which have prevented all Presidents, senators and Cabinet members from being impeached & convicted, regardless of guilt, even when they admitted guilt.
It's just another exercise of an ancient tradition from when Parliamentarians had honor which no longer works.
That sounds like sour grapes from someone who didn't like the outcome of the impeachment trials.
Thanks for your years of continuous insistence on always being correct about grammar, spelling and definitions,
but the original statement "The majority of the votes found him guilty." was absolutely correct
and did not mention the Senate rules I am sure everyone here is aware of.
Would you like the last word also?
Funny thing is that I predicted it weeks ago. The system is rigged and has been since we borrowed it from the English
who since the late 1700's have had similar results, all ending in acquittal, generally decided along ideological lines.
One case lasted 7 years...
Just like almost everyone else.
Easy to do once you realize impeachment is a strictly political process.
It’s only “honor” when the secular progressive elites get their way in a situation. Any other outcome is by default less than honorable because they said so.
That’s the argument that wil be used to try to do away with the filibuster because according to the left everything in that body must be 51-50. The requirements for 67 or 60 no longer apply when they are in the majority. Then the old constitution which protected them when they are in the minority no longer apply...
It is on several sites. Since Trump was acquitted it’s time Twitter and Facebook each restored his account...
The man depicted in the photo in Comment 15 = the face of evil.
Is Satan's asshole
No. We’d have a picture of Biden there if that was what we were portraying. That is what he is the face of to America now.
Just like Bill Clinton!
Funny, I don't ever hear the left or Democrats blast Bill Clinton; of course he was guilty as sin- but in the Democrats' opinion "It didn't rise to an impeachable offense".
Perjury and read obstruction not being impeachable offenses?
The Democrats didn't even come close either time of putting a real case together. The Republicans absolute evidence against Clinton; but the Democrats put party before country.
But Trrruuummmmppppp!!!!! Is not grounds for impeachment; which the Democrats were calling for before he was even sworn in.
Now we hear from Mitch McConnell who blames Trump for losing the GA Senate races. This may be the first stage in separating the party from Trump.
McConnell's speech sounds like he is delivering a closing argument for the prosecution.
Same circular argument in the end.
The House acted in time but did not deliver the Articles of Impeachment in time
( Because Mitch told them not to bother on January 13th until after Inauguration )
Exactly.
Yes Sir
Vic , no one wants to hear you try and split the baby in some way. You have bowed to Trump from day one.
John, let's get one thing straight, I've always said that Donald Trump did exactly what America needed in his 4 years as President. I'm proud to say I voted for him twice. McConnell is concerned about the GOP winning elections in the future. I'm all for that, however we get there.
The enemy of America is still, first last and always, that evil ideology which is now flexing it's muscles and taking away rights and punishing it's opponents.
I doubt if Trump could spell ideology, let alone define one.
I wouldnt support Charles Manson for president just because he supported liberal policies or liberal ideology. We have to have people of the best possible character running our governments. Of course few people in this world are perfect and we have many politicians with character flaws. Trump is a whole other level. The fact is it was known, BEFORE he was elected in 2016 that Trump was a serial liar, crook, bigot, moron and cheat. Yet people voted for him anyway. The sad truth is that this is a condemnation of the attitudes of about a third of the American people, and they havent changed in the ensuing 4 years. If anything that third has gotten worse.
And no, Hillary Clinton was not a worse choice. That is a lie, the product of 25 years of a right wing media demonization drumbeat into the ears of gullible "conservatives".
what rights have been taken away from you Vic?
Shame!
What rights are those Vic?
You have a job, right? Can you say what you want where you work? Could I, if I worked there?
It doesn't take much thought to figure it out. You know it, I know it and JR knows it. Let's not pretend.
No one is pretending except you.
McConnell holding up stimulus money hurt in Georgia more than Trump
By far!
It was Pelosi and she admitted it. She wasn't going to do anything to help Americans while Trump was President.
Nope, the former occupant of the White House said he wouldn't allow stimulus checks UNTIL AFTER HE WAS RE-ELECTED.
I don’t think that will happen. If anything it will separate Mc Connell from the party.
McConnell is suggesting that Trump should be subjected to criminal and civil prosecution.
They could, but my understanding of Brandenburg v Ohio would make a criminal case much harder than the Impeachment was. For a criminal case, prosecution would have to prove intent, ie would have to prove that Trump intended for the attack on the capital to occur. That is a very high bar so IMO I doubt if any additional charges come relating to this attack.
They would have to prove, "beyond a reasonable doubt", his guilt.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict.
It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The former occupant of the White House and his mob have provided all the necessary evidence. Those who voted to acquit are complicit, plain and simple.
They would have to prove that Trump was part of the planning of the attack that occurred days and even weeks in advance of the protest. (Since the FBI knew it was being planned; but botched delivering the information to those that needed it.)
Good luck with that. The secret service monitor the President at all times; including all communications. If the evidence was there they would have found a way to get it to the Democrats. They hate Trump even more than the Democrats do. Intelligence leaks abounded throughout the Trump administration; but on this nada.
The bottom line here...
Delusional!