DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 12, 2021 22:24:54 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 12, 2021 23:03:09 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 6:10:48 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 6:14:34 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 6:17:27 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 7:03:08 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
Member is Online
|
Post by Elvado on Feb 13, 2021 7:38:11 GMT -5
This seems to be very important evidence.
Why did the House Managers not include it?
This reminds me of Impeachment #1 where they closed their case and then wanted witnesses.
No snark here: what were they thinking in leaving this evidence out? What was the rush?
|
|
hoyajinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,365
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyajinx on Feb 13, 2021 9:02:35 GMT -5
This seems to be very important evidence. Why did the House Managers not include it? This reminds me of Impeachment #1 where they closed their case and then wanted witnesses. No snark here: what were they thinking in leaving this evidence out? What was the rush? A better question is why didn’t sitting members of Congress come forward with this evidence earlier? Maybe because they are more motivated by politics than actually getting the truth out there, being decent human beings, or doing what’s best for the country.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
Member is Online
|
Post by Elvado on Feb 13, 2021 9:06:36 GMT -5
This seems to be very important evidence. Why did the House Managers not include it? This reminds me of Impeachment #1 where they closed their case and then wanted witnesses. No snark here: what were they thinking in leaving this evidence out? What was the rush? A better question is why didn’t sitting members of Congress come forward with this evidence earlier? Maybe because they are more motivated by politics than actually getting the truth out there, being decent human beings, or doing what’s best for the country. Again. Why the rush? Since there is no imperative to remove anyone from office, they might have fully investigated the matter before starting the trial. With the media falling all over themselves about what a great job the House managers did, this seems like a tiny bit of a miss. br]
|
|
hoyajinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,365
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyajinx on Feb 13, 2021 9:20:55 GMT -5
A better question is why didn’t sitting members of Congress come forward with this evidence earlier? Maybe because they are more motivated by politics than actually getting the truth out there, being decent human beings, or doing what’s best for the country. Again. Why the rush? Since there is no imperative to remove anyone from office, they might have fully investigated the matter before starting the trial. With the media falling all over themselves about what a great job the House managers did, this seems like a tiny bit of a miss. br] I’m assuming it was tactical. They wanted to harness the collective outrage and knew that the more time that passes, the more that outrage diminishes. Turns out congressional Republican outrage was incredibly short-lived. They couldn’t hop back on Trump’s side quick enough. And are we going to pretend that any additional evidence would have actually made a difference? C’mon. You’re not that naive.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
Member is Online
|
Post by Elvado on Feb 13, 2021 9:25:42 GMT -5
Again. Why the rush? Since there is no imperative to remove anyone from office, they might have fully investigated the matter before starting the trial. With the media falling all over themselves about what a great job the House managers did, this seems like a tiny bit of a miss. br] I’m assuming it was tactical. They wanted to harness the collective outrage and knew that the more time that passes, the more that outrage diminishes. Turns out congressional Republican outrage was incredibly short-lived. They couldn’t hop back on Trump’s side quick enough. And are we going to pretend that any additional evidence would have actually made a difference? C’mon. You’re not that naive. If launching your case without having the best evidence at your disposal is a tactic, it is a bad one. As for the result being baked-in that is a sad reality. I don’t think for one minute that votes would be swayed; that said, the House Managers filled their pants here.
|
|
hoyajinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,365
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyajinx on Feb 13, 2021 9:43:35 GMT -5
I’m assuming it was tactical. They wanted to harness the collective outrage and knew that the more time that passes, the more that outrage diminishes. Turns out congressional Republican outrage was incredibly short-lived. They couldn’t hop back on Trump’s side quick enough. And are we going to pretend that any additional evidence would have actually made a difference? C’mon. You’re not that naive. If launching your case without having the best evidence at your disposal is a tactic, it is a bad one. As for the result being baked-in that is a sad reality. I don’t think for one minute that votes would be swayed; that said, the House Managers filled their pants here. Which brings me back to my original question: why didn’t the Congressmen involved come forward with this in the interest of the country? If they didn’t know this evidence existed, how would they k ow they didn’t have the best possible evidence? To any reasonable person not blinded by partisan idiocy, the House Managers absolutely proved their case in a pretty compelling way. Even Republican senators came forward and said so. They just relied on the excuse that the proceedings were unconstitutional, which was as absolute horsecrap.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
Member is Online
|
Post by Elvado on Feb 13, 2021 9:48:34 GMT -5
If launching your case without having the best evidence at your disposal is a tactic, it is a bad one. As for the result being baked-in that is a sad reality. I don’t think for one minute that votes would be swayed; that said, the House Managers filled their pants here. Which brings me back to my original question: why didn’t the Congressmen involved come forward with this in the interest of the country? If they didn’t know this evidence existed, how would they k ow they didn’t have the best possible evidence? To any reasonable person not blinded by partisan idiocy, the House Managers absolutely proved their case in a pretty compelling way. Even Republican senators came forward and said so. They just relied on the excuse that the proceedings were unconstitutional, which was as absolute horsecrap. Burden of proof was on House Managers. They went in with half a case. That is on them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2021 9:56:08 GMT -5
It’s definitely Democrats fault that Republicans are cowards.
So McConnell blocked consideration of impeachment before Trump left office.
And now he says they can’t convict because Trump left office, but sure, one more piece of evidence would have swayed him to not hide behind the constitutional argument that everyone knows is bogus.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Feb 13, 2021 10:17:14 GMT -5
This seems to be very important evidence. Why did the House Managers not include it? This reminds me of Impeachment #1 where they closed their case and then wanted witnesses. No snark here: what were they thinking in leaving this evidence out? What was the rush? A better question is why didn’t sitting members of Congress come forward with this evidence earlier? Maybe because they are more motivated by politics than actually getting the truth out there, being decent human beings, or doing what’s best for the country. I wonder what they would have done if Pence or a member of Congress was killed? I don’t think it would have made any difference.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,398
|
Post by SSHoya on Feb 13, 2021 10:28:22 GMT -5
Collins, Murkowski, Romney and Sasse vote with Dems to have witnesses as allowed for under the Senate rules in response to Raskin's call to depose Herrera-Buetler.
EDIT: Graham changes vote to "aye" to hear witnesses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2021 10:29:34 GMT -5
|
|
Massholya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,946
Member is Online
|
Post by Massholya on Feb 13, 2021 10:33:08 GMT -5
I don’t understand why the prosecutors don’t put down the “second impeachment charge” nonsense. The tweet that trump put out about pence was a continuation of the original incitement. Yes it was a dereliction but it was also FURTHER incitement.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,607
|
Post by DanMcQ on Feb 13, 2021 10:35:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Feb 13, 2021 10:36:12 GMT -5
Senate votes 55-45 to allow witnesses. Lets hope they call the right ones.
|
|