No Witnesses?

H/T Scissorhead Skinny-D

I don’t know if this is a good idea or not (and I suspect it is not a good idea), but the House Impeachment Managers are considering NOT calling any witnesses. Their thinking is that everyone in Congress IS a witness:

Democrats made a push for witnesses central to President Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial. But not this time.

Senate Democrats are making it clear they’re taking a different approach than they did for Trump’s infamous Ukraine call. Now, they say their experience as witnesses to the Jan. 6 insurrection is enough.

“This is based on a public crime,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “His intent was unhidden and so I think there’s a danger as there always is for a trial lawyer and prosecutor to over-try, to add more witnesses that prove the obvious.”

While true, it also leaves out the Court of Public Opinion: if they want some of the intransigent Republicans to vote to ITMFA, they are going to need their constituents to raise holy hell, and while we Scissorheads are above average (and hot damn! Good looking), I’m wagering that some low-information types need to see exhibits and hear testimony before they will apply pressure to their Senators.

(Personally, I would put Republican Senators under oath and have them testify what they were thinking when it happened A MONTH AGO yesterday, but that’s just me. Also: give ’em a secret ballot. It saved Liz Cheney afterall, and probably would have removed the Greene menace from the GOP caucus, but I’m only speculating wildly.)

Unless, of course, the whole thing is performative, Kabuki theatrics. Anyway, to me it smells like pre-emptive defeat.

Meanwhile, ABC News/Ipsos poll finds 56% of Americans say Donald Trump should be convicted at his second impeachment trial and barred from holding office again.

This entry was posted in dim-o-crats, ITMFA, Lord Damp Nut, The Russian Usurper, The Coup Klux Klan (Republicans), The Stupid Coup. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to No Witnesses?

  1. osirisopto says:

    No witnesses? Then how about not televising the proceedings, or allowing the press in and turn off the CSPAN cameras.

    8 think they’re following the Obama playbook. You know what they want most so give it to them right at the start, then ask them to compromise.


  2. Martin Pollard says:

    Unfortunately, it seems like the usual pattern is asserting itself: the longer something drags on, the colder Democrats’ feet get.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. pwarten says:

    I would call witnesses, primarily any Capitol personnel who were present at trump’s speech to verify what was said and shown to rile up the seditious mob.


    • tengrain says:

      Pwarten –

      Terrific point. Their staffers have to live with the work-place violence. There’s a certain amount of courtesy they are owed.




  4. roket says:

    Bummer. I was wanting to hear Q Shaman testify.


  5. Ten Bears says:

    EYaup, first step to just letting them all go in the interests of “moving on”.

    We have to stop doing what we’re doing. It isn’t working.


  6. Bruce388 says:

    More evidence of Lord Dampnut’s involvement appears every day. Let’s have some witnesses testify just to make the case stronger.

    This article from the NY Times can’t hurt:

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Dennis Cole says:

    Coupla “sticky widgets” that are causing Dems in Disarray:
    The trial, by necessity, will slow to a crawl the approval process for Joe’s Cabinet appointees, while also distracting all the non-ambulating gum-chewers from finishing up the Stimulus Pkg. and sidetracking the voter’s attention to his accomplishments so far.

    I woulda waited for the first 100 days, to build up an unassailable amount of political capital, coz we’re on a clear trajectory to do so, but then I don’t have POTUS in front of my name.


  8. Pingback: ITMFA Week! | Mock Paper Scissors

Comments are closed.