Go back to previous topic
Forum nameGeneral Discussion
Topic subjecthow is getting her testimony on the record right before acquittal
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13419895&mesg_id=13423973
13423973, how is getting her testimony on the record right before acquittal
Posted by Stadiq, Sat Feb-13-21 06:17 PM
a win?

I'm honestly asking- what does that do?

>All the managers hoped to get was the testimony of Jaime
>Herrera Buetler. They got it in the record, they just didn't
>get it repeated live.

Which I think could have been fairly powerful. Enough to sway 10? Probably not. But it could still be powerful going forward.
>
>If they'd insisted on her testifying, then the senate would
>have needed to get 50 votes on a plan for that (the vote that
>they won today was just in the question of whether to debate
>the calling of witnesses, not any specific plan). According to
>reports, they didn't have 50 votes for JUST Herrera Buetler.
>The deal that they could have gotten would have required an
>equal number of witnesses from both sides.
>
>After the Trump team got their shit together,

See, I saw nothing that would make me think they would ever get their shit together.

it's obvious
>what they would have done. They'd say Herrera Buetler was
>talking secondhand about a call between Trump and Kevin
>Mccarthy. So they'd call Kevin Mccarthy. He'd refuse to show
>up, on the (specious) grounds that the senate supposedly
>doesn't have jurisdiction now that Trump is out of office.
>That would hold up the case indefinitely -- literally years if
>he exhausted his appeals.

Hmmm if McCarthy refused to show, couldn't they just say "okay, lets vote then"?

Regardless, couldn't Dems just say then "what is the GOP/McCarthy hiding?"


And even if it did get delayed for years, what is the difference then now? He was acquitted.

>
>
>In the end, the managers got what they wanted (Buetler's
>statement added to the record) by playing hardball and asking
>for more than that. If they'd just asked to amend the record
>of the case, they likely would have lost that battle.

I'm struggling to see what the victory was in getting it on the record right before he was acquitted.

At that point, whats the difference?


Seems like the Dem plan is to hang this on the GOP's neck for years. Especially if the argument is/was that the senate will never convict, it seems like this was a political play.

I don't see how calling witnesses, even if it means the GOP plays some bullshit, is any less of a political play.

If literally all it does is provide soundbites for commercials, seems like a better play.