The Democratic party is like Oliver Twist. We’re so used to being homeless waifs and having to beg for another bowl of gruel, that we don’t know what to do when we’re running the orphanage. We’ve got a unified government right now, but that hasn’t helped our inferiority complex, or whatever mechanism it is that makes us back down when, if anything, we should attack. Today’s debacle at the impeachment trial, backing down on calling witnesses when we had just won a vote to do that very thing, is an eff up of pyrotechnic proportions. I am gratified that I’m not the only one who thinks so. The Hill:
“This is retreat. White flag. Malpractice. Completely unstrategic. They just closed the door on others who may have stepped out, as @HerreraBeutler urged last night,” Adam Green, who heads the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said on Twitter, referring to Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.), who had called Friday for Republicans to come forward with information about Trump’s actions on Jan. 6.
“Just when we thought Dems were being bold and strategic. This is grabbing lameness out of the jaws of boldness,” he added.
Markos Moulitsas, the liberal activist founder of Daily Kos, was more blunt. “It really all boils down to this: Hey Democrats, you f—ed up,” he said.
That’s the way it is. It was a perfect example of dragging defeat from the jaws of victory if ever I saw one.
Yet after a few hours of behind-the-scenes negotiations, the sides cut a deal: They would allow Herrera Beutler’s statement to become a part of the official trial record, but no witnesses would be asked to provide new testimony in the case.
The impeachment managers quickly claimed victory, saying it was a concession that Trump’s defense team would never have made without the threat of bringing new witnesses.
“Now that Trump’s Team has conceded to bringing this uncontradicted statement into the trial record, it can be considered by Senators along with the already overwhelming evidence about President Trump’s conduct on January 6, without the need for subpoena, deposition and other testimony,” said a senior aide on the impeachment team.
This commentary is so stupid to me, that it almost reads like satire. I don’t want to savage our elected leaders, God knows. I’m not a purist. I’ve always said our purity will render us extinct. But this isn’t about purity, this is pure common sense. The Republicans agreed to give us an extra bowl of gruel without too much hassle because we were about to have a banquet at their expense — and they knew it. If somebody can explain this to me, please do. Because I absolutely don’t get anything about what happened this morning other than it was a *%*#^$ stupid move.
Some Democrats on Capitol Hill were just as angry. One Democrat familiar with the witness negotiations said Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.), were ready to accept whatever decision the wavering impeachment managers made on the question of calling for new testimony — a message the senators delivered to the House prosecutors.
Yet after the Senate voted to allow those new witnesses, the source said, the managers botched the next steps.
“After the vote, it was clear the managers had no plan,” said the Democratic source. “Senate Democrats gave them the votes, but the managers didn’t know what their next step was.” […]
In the immediate aftermath of the vote, however, the Democrats’ liberal base is making sure to send party leaders an unmistakable message that they’re expecting more fight in the debates to come.
“Only Democrats can indisputably win a vote and then concede,” said Green.
What galls me about this is that we had the podium, we had the advantage, Trump’s lawyers were burying themselves deeper in caca by the minute — and we let it all go. We threw away publicity that we couldn’t buy for millions of dollars and the chance to expose the corruption of the Trump administration in the court of public opinion and in front of the world. And we just dropped it and walked away — and then enthused that the *%$# Republicans were so gracious as to allow a congresswoman’s testimony to be admitted into evidence, and declared it a victory. Unbelievable.
Once again the Dems manage to snatch a defeat from the jaws of victory……..
……the players change, but the song remains the same.
*shakes head*
Apparently it was the only way they were sure to get Herrera Beutler’s statement into the trial. Anything more, and the witness would be tied up in courts for at least a year (one of them still is, from the *first* impeachment).
You could be right that it was logistically a nightmare. My focus — and I would bet my bottom dollar this was Markos’ focus — was on the dirt that could come out and how people need to know it. And yes, the other side of the coin is this situation being dragged out endlessly.
I just would have done it differently. If I was there I would have begun the process and if it got unwieldy, fine, then you drop it later. But to not even begin it, I think was wrong.
It is not a defeat. It is a massive win for Democrats and massive loss for Republicans. I 5think this DK analysis is correct. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/2/14/2016027/-10-Reasons-Why-the-Impeachment-of-DJT-was-a-win-for-the-American-People-and-Democrats In addition, the GOP forfeited any privilege to be accorded any assumption of good faith going forward. They objectively showed that they are categorically not the party of personal responsibility or the rule of law, whatever they say. Dems never need to be on the defensive again.
There is a faction of Democrats who seem to be operating on two principles. 1) Dems are the only party with political agency. and 2) No matter what they do, they exercise agency is always bad. From this basic mindset flows some corollaries. 1) If the GOP does something bad, why didn’t Dems stops it? Dems bad. If the GOP does something good, why didn’t the Dems do it first? Dems bad. If the Dems do something good, why didn’t they do it sooner? Dems bad. This self-defeating mindset only makes everything more difficult. This faction of Dems might as well be Republicans. The effect is the same, and in fact sometimes their comments are indistinguishable from those of RWNJs.
Much as I hate to say it given the otherwise masterful job they did I don’t think the House Managers were prepped for calling any witnesses. I’d have thought they’d have gamed out some scenarios of who, IF they somehow got the go ahead they might want to call. They did after all game out various arguments they expected the defense to make and did a good job of pre-empting them which was evident when Castor took the podium and basically admitted the wind had been taken out of their sails. I’m not a lawyer and certainly have never litigated at a real trial (only some mock ones way back in school) but if I had to guess about any discussions amongst the House Managers about witnesses they might have had people they’d LIKE to have called but probably wouldn’t have been able to. At least not under the specific aspects of the one article of impeachment which didn’t contain details about the delayed response by the National Guard. That was one of the problems Democrats had in voting something through in time. An extra article or two (including one specifically on abuse of power for which there is precedent) with one addressing Trump not being the one to authorize use of the National Guard that addressed the pre Jan. 6 orders that handcuffed them and also the delay in activating & the limitations to their mission would have been a good thing.
At the time, with the knowledge of the transition issues and knowing how crowded the Senate calendar would be just getting key cabinet officials confirmed AND dealing with Covid the thinking was keep it simple – a “If GOP Senators won’t convict on THIS after their own lives were endangered then they sure as hell won’t convict on anything else.” I had mixed feelings at the time but to be honest leaned towards this view. Still, part of me wondered if that would really be enough. If they would need to see just how deep and pervasive Trump’s scheme was and just how much danger it put them in might be necessary. There was also the issue of timing, with the Inauguration coming up and if you recall they did attempt to walk the Article of Impeachment over to the Senate only to be rejected because McConnell had it in recess and stated they weren’t coming back until the 19th and then only for a pro-forma session on some inauguration housekeeping. Maybe at that point the House should have gone ahead and added more articles!
Still, between confirmations for the new administration and Covid relief the House was under the same pressure as the Senate would be in getting critical legislation going. So they planned for a quick trial from the outset. I think the got themselves hoisted on their own “be careful what you wish for” petard.
Anyway, back on the issue of witnesses I think the House Managers were caught off guard with the defense taking only a few hours of their allotted two days (16 hours) worth of time. Also, the House Managers probably were, when it came to asking for witnesses and hampered for reasons I noted assuming that the defense would raise something that would allow them to call certain rebuttal witnesses they might have been prepared for. Perhaps they didn’t count on the incompetence of Trump’s defense team, although I thought that misuse of the one law professor’s 2001 treatise would have been a good person to bring in to address not only the Constitutionality and precedent but expose the LYING manner in which his work was mischaracterized by the defense.
I also saw that the House Managers had reached out to at least one person (on Pence’s staff I think) and there might have been others. I’ve heard that good lawyers don’t call a witness or ask a question without knowing (or being pretty damned sure) of what the answers will be. Perhaps any such backchannel discussions led them to believe people they might have reached out to wouldn’t add much to their case and would only delay the proceedings. They seemed pretty insistent after the verdict that it wouldn’t have made any difference.
Still, I feel sick inside. They had five possible if not likely GOP votes going in and during their own presentation got a likely sixth with Cassidy of Louisiana who did wind up voting to convict. I think given the question he submitted and the piss poor response from Trump’s lawyers he could have been counted on as a guilty vote by the end of Friday’s session. I wish Burr had spoken up publicly, or at least privately indicated he was leaning towards if not intending to convict. I’m still stunned by hearing him say guilty and in a loud and clear voice. So they got TWO extra people. Who knows how many more they might have gotten? Other people might have been willing to go on the record if there’d been another day or two and that’s where the defense team cutting their presentation so short might have been a pretty good tactic on their part. Knowing they were in a good position due to the traitorous GOP and knowing the longer things went on the worse Trump (and they) would look they decided to fold and get the hell out of Dodge as quickly as possible. For all the bluster about the number of witnesses THEY might call it was bullshit. Nancy Pelosi? She have run circles around them! And I’d have LOVED to see them try to take on VP Kamala Harris! No, they were bluffing and even if they weren’t after getting their asses handed to them in depositions (remember, they’d only be an hour, split between both sides so minimal time for horseshit hypotheticals from the defense) as I said some of the people they threatened to call would have made them look even worse than they already did.
IF the defense had taken up yesterday, or at least five or six hours of it and then more time to day even if only two or three hours then the day would have ended with questions from Senators. Which may or may not have been completed. Either way the issue of witnesses would have had at least until late this afternoon to come up and maybe not until tomorrow. With the Congresswoman from WA making such a clear statement yesterday and her clear call to others, the “The time is now” statement who knows what might have unfolded during the day today? And that’s why I feel sick inside. I think perhaps the House Manager’s biggest mistake was asking specifically for just that one witness instead of, since the Senate was going to be in recess next week asking for her and any other witnesses that came forward to be deposed next week and the Senate could vote when they return on whether to admit their testimony. Again, given the stakes, and that Covid relief and nominations ARE moving along I think an extra day or even two of the trial would have been a good thing.
We still might not have gotten to 67 votes for conviction but I think we’d have cracked the 60 barrier and then some. Cassidy got censured today by the LA GOP as expected and his “I’m by god going to do the right thing” attitude would have I think influenced some others. Lankford of OK comes to mind. I remember his speech after the riot stating why he changed his mind about supporting an objection. And I think some of the others, the ones retiring might have looked back at giving Trump a pass the first time around and what it led to and thought maybe they’d want to be remembered well in the long term, by history instead of trying to curry short term favor with their state Party folks.
We’ll never know. And that makes me sad more than I can express. I understand the logic of the House Managers, and I’m even heartened that as it turns out Schumer didn’t pressure them to “get this wrapped up” (if reporting I’ve seen is true – haven’t watched much news this evening) but I still fell compelled to respectfully disagree.
The thing is, the process could have been begun and if it didn’t work out, it could have been dropped at the Democrats’ sole discretion. That’s what makes me psycho on this subject. We were in the driver’s seat, with nothing to lose. Why not proceed? if you need to bail later, you bail.
Swalwell said we didn’t need more witnesses but rathe for more Republicans to grow spines. He’s only partly right. I don’t think they were going to suddenly grow spines, but witnesses MIGHT have been our way of inserting one into them! (If only for a little while!)
Actually, by drawing this out and calling witnesses, I think we would have lost a couple of votes to acquit. Only political junkies would’ve been into this sideshow.
I think Daithi’s analysis is correct. We should really be wary of emotional knee-jerk reactions, no matter how justified we may feel. Perhaps we haven’t thought it all thorough.
I disagree. I think if it were dragged on, Cassidy and Burry would have defected, ad we would’ve ended up with only 4 or 5 GOP votes to acquit. There was absolutely nothing they could have done and no witness they could’ve called that was going to flip four more GOP votes.
I still think Jamie Raskin is far more brilliant than any “disappointed” commenter who imagined there was some magic they could pull out that was going to strengthen their case. There wasn’t. The video was the strongest witness they had and we already saw it. The rest is just blah-blah.
Like it’s been said. The democrats had the torch. Of course Lindsey Graham said he would call 300 witnesses. Let him. The vast majority would have testified that was god. So what. In the process you would trip them up and they would have shown that trump was guilty. I am sure Mike Pence would have something to say about trump putting a hit on him. And that’s the stupidity. Mike pence can’t lie. It’s not in his DNA. He would have made a star witness. And speaking of witnesses good old boy Lindsey Graham would have been something. Round them up. All the sedition stars. It was just plain lame. And once you exposed them, they wouldn’t be able to work against democrats or they would have to face their people back home. Hell what it’s like sixty percent wants trump convicted and thrown on a ash heap somewhere.
At the start, I was disappointed in the failure to call any witnesses, but in the cold light of reason, I think I can understand why it didn’t happen.
The question that arises is ‘Cui bono? – who stands to gain? (while I’m on the Latin kick, I winced at the pronunciation of ‘sine die’ – it’s sinn-eh dee-eh – not ‘sign dye’ but I digress)
Who gained? Look at it from the opposite angle: The result was a foregone conclusion – no matter who testified, the Trompador was going to be aquitted by the GQP and walk away without any other stain on his character. Witnesses woulds have been icing on the cake but ultimately useless. The Democrats would have gained nothing.
Who would have gained? – If witnesses had been called, Trump Ambulance Chasers Inc would have brought in witnesses by the bis-load – probably down to the Trompador’s manicurist who would swear “Honestly – there was no blood on his hands”. They would have simply grandstanded – possibly hoping for the nice fat fees for appearing for the Trompador in the inevitable civil and criminal cases that are in the queue.
Who would have gained? – Mitch McConnell and the GQP. If there was a long string of sitness hearings (which would have probably gone on for weeks as even more completely irrelevant ‘testimony’ was called), all senatorial business would have ground to a virtual halt – no confirmation of cabinet posts, no discussion or voting on the Covid Relief Bill, delays in the minimum wage voting – in short, Mitch would have undertaken the Scheherezade role and spun it out for a thousand nights and a night for the sole reason of stopping the Democrats from actually getting any work done.
In the end, Shumer was absolutely correct in what he did – the courts now have open season on the Trompador and the Democrats can get down to the business of trying to unsnarl the complete mess that the past four years have wrought
I think you got it exactly right. Evidently, a lot of the pundits on MSNBC including Neil Katyal and Joy Reid and several others also agree with you. There was nothing to be gained from dragging out the trial at this point. The fix was in to acquit Trump regardless of what the house managers did. Getting the testimonyRead into the record as a stipulation accomplished what needed to be done. There was nothing more to be gained from the Democratic side. Prolonging the trial would only benefit the Republicans and muddy the case that the house managers so brilliantly made. It would also have made it much easier for the Republicans to stall Biden’s programs.
I agree so much and I’m sick and tired of us shredding our own. THEY always have the backs of their worst people; we attack and undermine our best. There were no additional witnesses they could have called to strengthen their case — none. The videos spoke louder than any witness alive. They got Herrera Beutler’s statement and there was nothing else out there. Calling her in person might have resulted in her hedging or undermining her own statement.
The whole “they caved” narrative is flatly false and an insult to the hard work and deep knowledge of the impeachment managers. They didn’t “cave.” They just failed to give us more sideshow for our entertainment.
I could not disagree more & I’m tired of all these armchair lawyers thinking they’re smarter than Jamie Raskin. Calling witnesses would’ve been a disaster. No one wanted to see this drag out for weeks while Republicans made a spectacle. The public would’ve lost interest — heck, I lost interest by the end — because they’d already seen the most powerful witness — the videos. There was no one the Democrats could’ve called that would’ve made their case stronger, while the GOP ground everything to a halt by calling Hillary Clinton and grilling her about Benghazi. Meanwhile, the public would be asking “Where’s our pandemic relief?” This show was played out by Friday. And we probably would’ve risked losing a couple of votes to acquit. The impeachment managers played this beautifully.