So we going to get Trump called in?Castro just asked how many witnesses are you going to call? “Lots”.
This could go on for a while.
Correction: that was Caster. Makes more sense.Castro just asked how many witnesses are you going to call? “Lots”.
This could go on for a while.
yeah man. even my kids get it. but these are Q believers we're talking about.Even if that happened the house controls impeachment.
Senate wasn't done much of anything meaningful for the American people in years so why start now. Covid and the stimulus are what's needed now and can be done without the Republicans. So just keep moving on without them.OK what a circus this is going to be.
There’s going to be a resolution about the witnesses to be voted on. But any senator can offer an amendment adding a witness and each one must be voted on separately. So this alone could take hours if somebody like Hawley or Cruz proposes one witness after another.
Once that is done the witnesses have to be deposed privately and then they vote again on who to hear.
Not sure why Dems would vote to let lawyers who've lied during their defense do anything to further muddy the waters. Seems easy enough to allow Herrera to testify and vote down anyone not relevant to Trump's incitement (which is what's on trial here).anywhere taking bets on witnesses? curious what the odds on the Q Shaman in full beastiality drag is fetching.
He’s a Raiders season ticket holder right?anywhere taking bets on witnesses? curious what the odds on the Q Shaman in full beastiality drag is fetching.
Hell yes.Did the House Managers make the right decision here by asking for witnesses? No idea.
Didn’t the Senate vote on jurisdiction? So he’s ignoring that Senate vote? Just clarifying.McConnell’s letter makes it clear that his decision is all about jurisdiction. He won’t touch the question of what Trump did or did not do.
There will be perhaps 3-4 Republicans that will vote to convict, perhaps 5.
Looking forward to it. As they say, be careful what you wish for...They’re serious about calling Pelosi. Damn
Sydney Blumenthal, Monica Lewinski, Vernon Jordan.I’m trying to remember if there were witnesses in the Clinton trial. I don’t think so.
He doesn't have to cast a vote in line with the Senate's findings. For example, the Supreme Court can say definitively that something is constitutional. It doesn't mean that one is bound to vote affirmatively yes or no on legislation regarding that question of constitutionality. One can exercise discretion and say, "as a representative, I find this unconstitutional and therefore will not vote on it either way because I don't think we have jurisdiction or a constitutional role to play."Didn’t the Senate vote on jurisdiction? So he’s ignoring that Senate vote? Just clarifying.
Correct.Didn’t the Senate vote on jurisdiction? So he’s ignoring that Senate vote? Just clarifying.
Yay!!!Castro just asked how many witnesses are you going to call? “Lots”.
This could go on for a while.
It won’t happen. The Senate has to vote on every witness. There isn’t 50 votes for this.Looking forward to it. As they say, be careful what you wish for...
Incorrect, actually. That states too much. He's not ignoring the fact that the Senate voted that they had jurisdiction. He's dissenting from that vote in the impeachment vote, as I explained in the post above.Correct.
If wasn’t Castro it was Caster on Trump’s team.Yay!!!
More time and money wasting and DRAMA!!!
We payed the Senate to set on their asses the last 2 years. Might as well let them fight in public for our entertainment.Yay!!!
More time and money wasting and DRAMA!!!
Fixed that. This could go on quite a while.This is quite fascinating. Witnesses will make this very dramatic despite the fact that the conclusion is still predictable.
Biden won’t be happy, because this means that the trial is going to stretch into nextweekmonth.
He's right, though. Nothing like a pop up trial.and go to philiahdelphiah or however he said it. Senate laughed at him and it looked like he was going to cry.
Of course they are. It's been the #1 Benghazi talking point on Fox for the past 3 weeks.They’re serious about calling Pelosi. Damn
No because the Senate will vote down almost all the witnesses the defense calls for. So none of that threat will happen.Fixed that. This could go on quite a while.
He's right, though. Nothing like a pop up trial.
Right.No because the Senate will vote down almost all the witnesses the defense calls for. So none of that threat will happen.
Machiavelli would be so proud.No because the Senate will vote down almost all the witnesses the defense calls for. So none of that threat will happen.
Optics of doing so will not look good. Even if they are blocking irrelevant witnesses like Nancy Pelosi. They don’t have the votes. I don’t think this is a good idea. They’ve won the case in the public square, which is the only place it is meaningfully being tried anyway.No because the Senate will vote down almost all the witnesses the defense calls for. So none of that threat will happen.
It won’t happen but I really hope it does. It would be terrible for your cause (not that it isn’t terrible already)Need to get lying crying Pelosi on the record under oath.
Pelosi is relevant, shes in charge of Capitol police who were woefully unprepared. And she refused help from the national guard.Optics of doing so will not look good. Even if they are blocking irrelevant witnesses like Nancy Pelosi. They don’t have the votes. I don’t think this is a good idea. They’ve won the case in the public square, which is the only place it is meaningfully being tried anyway.
This sounds familiar.This is quite fascinating. Witnesses will make this very dramatic despite the fact that the conclusion is still predictable.
Biden won’t be happy, because this means that the trial is going to stretch into next week.
My cause? You're a weird dude.It won’t happen but I really hope it does. It would be terrible for your cause (not that it isn’t terrible already)
Hey man if you don’t support Trump, if you think he should be convicted here, just say so. I’ll apologize.Oh boy!
Taking up a cause and making fun of someone else's cause that was doomed to fail before it started are two very different things.Hey man if you don’t support Trump, if you think he should be convicted here, just say so. I’ll apologize.
McConnell has as much control of the capitol police as Pelosi. Which is close to zero control. But you know thisPelosi is relevant, shes in charge of Capitol police who were woefully unprepared. And she refused help from the national guard.
No, she isn't.Pelosi is relevant, shes in charge of Capitol police who were woefully unprepared. And she refused help from the national guard.
Thanks, but we'd like to hear it from her.McConnell has as much control of the capitol police as Pelosi. Which is close to zero control. But you know this
Thanks. Good to know the background on the far-right conspiracy theories being spread here.No, she isn't.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9909210228
Posts falsely cite Pelosi as responsible for security during Capitol insurrection
CLAIM: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is in charge of overseeing the Capitol Police, is responsible for security failures that allowed the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol to happen.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Pelosi does not oversee day-to-day operations of the Capitol Police.
THE FACTS: After the deadly riot at the Capitol, social media users began sharing posts that blamed Pelosi for security shortfalls that allowed the building Capitol to be breached.
[...]