Of course, that would be preferable. But it would come at a price – delay. Is that price worth it? I’m a plaintiff’s employment lawyer and I’m frequently in the position of hearing a client express a desire for enough money to retire on. Of course, but you know you could lose, right? Is the possibility of vindication worth the price? These are tough questions, and the notion of “backing down” is simply ignorant.
11 Likes
Two more weeks on the most hideous internal attack on our republic since the Civil War so that the terribly distracted American public really gets reminded of the full picture of the horror that occurred? Yeah, sign me up.
16 Likes
Ummm, why depose Herrera Beutler when McCarthy is literally right here?
9 Likes
Continuing this has no advantage. The only possible outcome was Trump acquittal. The only possible consequence is barring Trump from running again. Frankly there is almost no chance of him being nominated in 4 years (thanks in part to the damning evidence in this trial). The only reason to continue it is because it creates a political advantage for the Dems. The evidence is out there for history to judge and Republicans to stain themselves with. More political advantage will come from rapidly enacting Biden’s agenda. We had our say. We exposed the Republicans for what they are. Now it is time for the DoJ and various states to begin their work which have far more consequences and will reach more than just Trump.
34 Likes
Not Nancy, just Chuckie.
3 Likes
If you think they were opposed to Garland before…
7 Likes
What isn’t on record is the defense’s cross of that witness and how indefensible their client is in regard to his dereliction of duty. That would be nice to see engraved into the record.
6 Likes
Look, I’m listening to the arguments here about the wisdom of getting on with this, but so far I’m not convinced this is a great idea. Let me ask: who’s happier about not having witnesses called, Sheldon Whitehouse or Ted Cruz? Democrats have a weird way of winning.
15 Likes
Because he will lie.
7 Likes
Because we want someone who would tell the truth, right?
7 Likes
No. Schumer’s playing eleventy-dimensional chess and the rest of us are too dumb to understand.
4 Likes
Democrats need to think long-game. Calling witnesses would not have changed the immediate outcome, but it may have 2, 4, 8, 12 years down the road. It would have moved the needle of public opinion and provided fodder for House and Senate elections for cycles to come.
Just incredibly fucking stupid and incompetent.
15 Likes
I admire your optimism. Did you ever look in our and our kids’ history books for a real description of slavery or lynching. It won’t take long. It is hardly there.
7 Likes
Cheeto was going to be acquitted no matter what witnesses testified. Understood?. This was a smart move. They need to get Merrick Garland confirmed and the stimulus passed next week. Not wasting time on a done deal. Everyone get real.
23 Likes
I’m still leaning on the “should have called witnesses” side, but this is the most compelling counter-argument I’ve read here.
6 Likes
Republicans investigated Hillary over nonsense for years, and it helped put drump in office. Drump tried to kill them all and they just throw up their hands and say oh well.
8 Likes
WTF? I know there must be some strategy here (I hope) but, WTAF?
4 Likes
Good question. One possible answer is that she had already gone public so they had a pretty good idea of what she’d say (& could impeach her credibility if she said something different).
By contrast, nobody knew what McCarthy would say.
4 Likes
29 Likes
How is there no chance of him being nominated. The republican party I’d scared to death of him atm, if he runs in 2024 is anyone even going to run agaisnt him?
7 Likes