Block the evidence; then rule there is insufficient evidence.
I think they have a case for arguing against new witnesses. They, however, do not have a case for blocking the evidence already collected.
How about we wait to throw him in the volcano until after he convinces enough disgruntled republicans it's ok to vote against the GOP this election cycle?
Something bigger is going on here because this isn't a good look. Acquittal is a done deal no matter what so Itch's primary concern is protecting his Senate majority. Conducting a sham trial against the wishes of the vast majority of the public (~70%) who want witnesses and evidence presented doesn't help Gardner, Collins, McSally, Tillis, etc - it does the opposite.
So, what's up? If I had to guess, it looks like the GOP Senate is trying to avoid witnesses at all costs, starting with Bolton who's kinda hard to paint as a liberal. They tried last week to float the "we'll call Hunter Biden" schtick, but when you think about it, who cares if they do? Dems will immediately counter with "lets hear from Rudy Giuliani then" and that's where all hell breaks loose.
Instead the plan seems to be to stop the proceedings one step BEFORE the calling of witnesses, which is to say there's been no evidence presented to no need to call anybody. Illogical as all you know what, but if they've resorted to playing that card that means whatever Bolton's about to say is really, really damaging. So you take your pick, outrage over a show trial or outrage over ****ing public testimony? Seems like they've chosen the former.
Something bigger is going on here because this isn't a good look. Acquittal is a done deal no matter what so Itch's primary concern is protecting his Senate majority. Conducting a sham trial against the wishes of the vast majority of the public (~70%) who want witnesses and evidence presented doesn't help Gardner, Collins, McSally, Tillis, etc - it does the opposite.
So, what's up? If I had to guess, it looks like the GOP Senate is trying to avoid witnesses at all costs, starting with Bolton who's kinda hard to paint as a liberal. They tried last week to float the "we'll call Hunter Biden" schtick, but when you think about it, who cares if they do? Dems will immediately counter with "lets hear from Rudy Giuliani then" and that's where all hell breaks loose.
Instead the plan seems to be to stop the proceedings one step BEFORE the calling of witnesses, which is to say there's been no evidence presented to no need to call anybody. Illogical as all you know what, but if they've resorted to playing that card that means whatever Bolton's about to say is really, really damaging. So you take your pick, outrage over a show trial or outrage over ****ing public testimony? Seems like they've chosen the former.
Last I hear they were going to put a kill switch in the rules where the defense could move for immediate dismissal at any time by simple majority.
Again. I think they can prevent witnesses and have an argument. But, they're blocking evidence already in the record AND they're ignoring what is in the public domain (been reported since the impeachment was passed by the House).
I don't see how they can get away with that.
The way they "get away with it" is:
1. R Senators vote as a bloc not guilty without listening to a word.
2. Fox and hate Radio blare lies 24/7 to their orcs who hear nothing else.
See also:everything McConnell has gotten away with for the last 3 years.
I hope #1 happens and I hope it costs them even more than Arizona, Colorado, and Maine.
Odd when Kep is the pessimist and Scooby is the voice of reason.![]()
The GOP "gets away with it" when elections are held on their turf. That's not the case in 2020 for the Senate as they have to defend vulnerable incumbents in either Dem leaning (CO, ME) or swing states (AZ, NC). The best thing the GOP could do is agree to one witness: Bolton, and hope that he either screws the Dems with lackluster testimony or even if he does reveal or corroborate ****ing info they can try to spin it as "well, you know, treason isn't technically a crime" and hope for the best.
Either way the point remains. If there was nothing to see, Itch would allow a full trial and laugh his arse off when nothing came of it. He's not putting his own Senators in a bad position for re-election for some marginal benefit to Chump. He's doing it because the alternative must be much, much worse.
I think about all we can do is to keep saying, "yes, denying witnesses the chance to speak is exactly how an innocent man behaves." That resonates. Even the hopeless Dumpies at my work don't like that.
I'm curious as to what would happen if Trump gets re-elected but McConnell loses his seat.