Witnesses! nevermind

Good one! 👍🏻

Good One - 20f68v.jpg (click to show) Upvoted!

I will admit that not calling witnesses was stupid

They already had overwhelming video footage and contemporaneous statements by both the rioters and Trump.

They could have called witnesses, but it wasn't going to change anyone's mind.

If you watched the whole trial and still conclude Trump isn't culpable, then you are an Unpersuadable.

The point isn't so much whether he is guilty as it is; isn't any American entitled to a fair trial? If you watched the whole process and think it was fair; then you cannot be persuadabled.

Trump’s lawyers had 16 hours to make their case. They chose to use 3 hours.

In the space of that 3 hours they pitied themselves and raged and fumed and distracted and deflected and put on a PowerPoint presentation about our Founding Fathers and talked about anything but what actually happened on Jan. 6

Trump’s lawyers met behind closed doors with some of the GOP Senators. Can you imagine what would happen if defense lawyers met privately with jurors in the middle of a real criminal trial? I can tell you what would happen: A mistrial. Sanctions. Possible disbarment.

Several of the GOP Senators who voted to acquit Trump simply did not show up for most of the trial. Other GOP Senators were spotted in the gallery reading books with their feet propped up and making faces. Other GOP Senators tweeted about the “kangaroo court” that they themselves were doing their best to engineer.

Yes, this was no fair trial by any stretch of the imagination, but not for the reasons you think.

The fix was in. Everyone knew it. Calling witnesses to this tragic excuse for justice was irrelevant.

"Can you imagine what would happen if defense lawyers met privately with jurors in the middle of a real criminal trial?"

Yeah, I can imagine that KF.

What I can't imagine is you having the unbiased objectivity to also ask:

- Can you imagine what would happen if one of the biased jurors was also the judge in a real criminal trial?

- Can you imagine what would happen in a real criminal trial if the court was able to declare their actions "constitutional" as the senate did?

Impeachment is a beast unto itself. In no real-world trial would the jury be able to vote upon trial rules as it proceeds, or determine what witnesses to call or what evidence it gets to hear. The Senate is in a position of both judge and jury. And unlike even a judge, it’s not bound by any real laws or rules. Just politically self-interested arguments regarding thin “precedents” that are constantly changing and shifting. The Founders did not spell out how to run an impeachment trial, only said that the Senate should hold one. The Founders didn’t even say a President needs to testify, and as it turns out, Trump refused to testify both times. (Clinton gave a deposition in the context of his impeachment, which then resulted in the “perjury” charge. Trump under oath no doubt would have perjured himself over and over again.)

That said, there’s no excuse or justification for Senators meeting with the President’s lawyers to discuss strategy. That has nothing to do with the peculiar difficulties of running an impeachment trial the Constitution and was just further evidence that the fix was in.

This trial was for Americans watching from home and for the historical record. Everyone knew there was not the votes to convict, though this was the most bipartisan impeachment in U.S. History.

At this rate, if a sitting President cannot be convicted for provoking an attack on Congress on a critical day for our democracy and then being derelict in his duty to protect elected officials of the government and his own Vice-President, there never will be a conviction in any impeachment trial ever in our history.

The Founders evidently expected too much of future generations and set the bar to conviction too high.

"Impeachment is a beast unto itself"
exactly; with its own set of rules which according to the rules can be changed whenever they feel like it. It is ridiculous to get upset about what either side does, because the other side would do the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot and if it suited their interests

Well KF, your comment is as usual, laced with opinion stated as facts. Nicely done if you were a *journalist* working for MSNBC, or CNN, but here on the flip, nobody buys crap like that. Unless you're shoveling it over in politicsTOO.

For example:

"At this rate, if a sitting President cannot be convicted for provoking an attack on Congress on a critical day for our democracy and then being derelict in his duty to protect elected officials of the government and his own Vice-President, there never will be a conviction in any impeachment trial ever in our history."

Nobody said a sitting president cannot be convicted for provoking an attack on congress. What was not proven to any level was that Trump did that.

I suppose now is when you trot out what Mush Mouth Mitch said... right? He's as bad as Biden, Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi, and the rest of them. A career swamp rat with very little to redeem him, imo. The only good he's done as far as I can tell, were those selective times when he helped Trump push his agenda. But even that was steeped in political hackery and self-opportunism. I'm almost glad that Trump is out of office, so I'm not forced into finding myself on the same side of an issue as McConnel is pretending to be on.

Wondering; did you miss the part where the house managers were caught lying?

If the House impeachment managers misspoke once or twice, it was hard to spot in the midst of the fog machine of lies put out by Trump’s team of hacks.

If your takeaway from the trial is that the prosecution (and only the prosecution) lied, then you need a reality check

if your take away from my comments was "the prosecution and only the prosecution lied" you need to read more carefully.

"Misspoke once or twice"? you can't be serious. let me guess; you think CNN is real news. ?

"Unpersuadable"

That's you in a nutshell, KF.

No u

I'm tempted to reply in kind, but hopefully both you and I are above middle school tactics like that... at least for more than one post!

Oh look the resident shrill harpy shrieker is opposed to the meme. Hey Commiekaze you were on here for repeating that “ they beat him to death with a fire extinguisher” disproven hoax weren’t you? That is a hit on the credibility of any claim you make. Jumpting to conclusions and shrieking loudly don’t make you right no matter how much you close your eyes and click your heels 👠.

Kamikaze, like most SJWs / snowflakes will rarely, if ever admit when they're wrong, especially when they were exposed by regurgitating *facts* told to them (as what they should be thinking) by their media overlords.