Lordy, They're Going to Have Witnesses

Wait....What?!

You mean to tell me they couldn’t find a single person that Trump personally shoulder-tapped to spearhead the “violent and seditious insurrection”!

OR

They didn’t wanna get cross-examined and open that whole witness-calling can ‘o worms?

Say it ain’t so!

Woulda been fun?

Wonder why they wouldn’t?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Looks like they called off the witnesses and just agreed to let the statement be entered on its own.

Chickensh'it Democrats were never serious about any aspect of this banana republic impeachment.

a reply to: slatesteam

They got their vote to call witnesses because the defense challenged some of the evidence the House Impeachment officers presented. The defense agreed to allow the testimony into the record. So, the Democrats got their evidence validated.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: slatesteam

They got their vote to call witnesses because the defense challenged some of the evidence the House Impeachment officers presented. The defense agreed to allow the testimony into the record. So, the Democrats got their evidence validated.

Wait. How did the Dems, I mean “house managers” get their lies validated?

HEARSAY !! ROFLMAO 🤣💫🤣

OhOh !! ❗️🤩❗️

Senate impeachment trial: Final vote expected later Saturday after surprise witness fight resolved

That deal was reached several hours after the Senate had voted 55-45 to agree to call witnesses -- with five Republicans joining with Democrats to hear from witnesses -- throwing the trial briefly into chaos. The House managers had been expected to move past witnesses onto closing arguments and a final vote as soon as Saturday afternoon, but Raskin announced when the trial got underway that the managers wanted to subpoena Herrera Beutler about her knowledge of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's phone call with Trump as the riot unfolded January 6.

Can anyone provide testimony of this not being politically motivated and isn't an attempt at future election interference?

No evidence, hour blocks of idiots who are failing their states, unleashing floodgates of emotions?

How many have gotten up to speak, without going off on some tangent?

Jesus, ATS does a better job at preventing derailing then these idiots in one of the highest offices of the country.

(Not a jab at mods, just this trial is a joke)

Edit: Only way I could see them calling witnesses, is if Democrats are the only ones who can call witnesses.

I feel like they've done it in the past with Kava-whats his name.

a reply to: slatesteam

They got the Trump/McCarthy phone call entered, undisputed, into the record.

“When McCarthy finally reached the president on January 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol," Herrera Beutler said in her statement.

"McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said: ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,'" the statement added.

thehill.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha
I don't see how that is incriminating evidence.

Much less how it can hold up in a court of this level.

Try that at a civil level judge and watch it get dismissed.

How can you call this evidence, then agree with no witnesses?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You've been here a year longer than me and you don't recall? Those were all over the place when I started here.

I've been here longer than either one of ya's butts, and I had no idea WTF those were short for til you explained the two. I'm assuming GW is a reference to Dubya? Just say Dubya, I honestly don't think anyone used his first two initials or even all three, just Dubya.

a reply to: Nyiah

Lots of people did, and Dubya. But GW is shorter.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Nyiah

Lots of people did, and Dubya. But GW is shorter.

I'll give you "Ok probably, within the confines of the the 9/11 forum then", but that was totally not common vernacular outside it. I didn't poke around in there much at all, so of course the "street lingo" within might as well be Greek.

Edit: We probably should stop being OT, too

a reply to: Nyiah

Edit: We probably should stop being OT, too

Meh, the topic is over. The Senate isn't calling witnesses after all.

Meander all you like.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Nyiah

Edit: We probably should stop being OT, too

Meh, the topic is over. The Senate isn't calling witnesses after all.

Meander all you like.

That's a can of worms most don't want opened after an OP like that. Need a fork?

Look, the "agreement" here isn't a bucket at all, it's a sieve. The witness bluff was called, then they immediately turned tail.

THAT speaks volumes. They didn't have anything further to go with, and considering the false info they tried to submit before, I doubt there IS a witness. A real one not perhaps paid off to stay quiet and away from limelights for the foreseeable future, anyway.

It is any way in our real constitution that we the people can take all this swamp creatures in Washington call Politicians and take them to court and fired them out of their positions?

Really, we can crap for government.

a reply to: Nyiah

So far their only case is that the president just got the crowd mad enough to storm the Capitol by speaking to them and using his usual rhetoric.

There is enough evidence of forethought on the part of the group that did it that it is pretty clear they had made plans to go in before the president made his speech.

Not only that, but the president had offered extra security for the day to all parties which sort of indicates he wasn't expecting anything untoward or planned out.

In order to try to prove at this point that the president was trying to make this happen, they would have to have witnesses to the president contacting this group who had planned to do this and pre-arranging all this with them. Clearly, they don't have such a thing, and that would be evidence a real conspiracy because then all the proof of offering extra security, etc., would then be moves to make it look like the president was never intending for this happen when all along he was working with a deep shadow conspiracy to do it.

They don't have that. If they did, they'd bring witnesses. Instead, they're running because any witnesses for the defense can only embarrass them as they're forced to admit they were warned and turned down all the offers of extra security, etc.

a reply to: Nyiah

I don't think they turned tail. I think they got what they wanted. They got the testimony they wanted into the record.

What other witnesses do you think the House Impeachment team would/should call?

They wanted to prove that the president was aware hire dire the situation was, and choose NOT to call in The Guard for reinforcements. It was Mike Pence who called in the National Guard, hours later.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The president offered the Guard ahead of everything and was turned down.

a reply to: ketsuko
By that standard, all of congress should be impeached.

How many millions are brewing in dissatisfaction of an inept government?

How many are frustrated with the constant propaganda thrown in their faces, just to watch the butcher of NYC get back on TV and tell them no human life is expendable?

Sounds like incitement by their standards...