It's clear to me that Van der Veen was chosen primarily on the basis to play to Trump and the his base. He's just rehashing stuff with the same attitude that is usually seen on Fox news. Knowing that even if the defense still consisted of Castor rambling for 16 hours Trump still wouldn't get convicted this is now about "Fight like Hell!" to keep Trump happy and keep the base indignant.
Call Hillary wrt emails, Benghazi, Clinton Cash, Frazzledrip, Uranium One, Pizza Gate, Paula Jones, Monica, etc. Next up, call Obama wrt Tan Suits, BLM, Deep State, spying on Trump, where he keeps all of the guns he took, etc.
This is all pretty stupid, honestly. Witnesses should have been called from the start and integrated into the actual core of the case - they should have aired all the dirty laundry, and the GOP is right on one thing - they should have very clearly laid out a timeline of what Trump knew and when he knew it. Instead, Dems wanted to just hurry this up knowing he wasn't going to get convicted. But once they officially lost McConnell (?), it seems they suddenly shifted gear, but now this is just going to be a mess. If you only vote for the pro-Impeachment witnesses, it becomes a partisan mess. If you allow a free-for-all, this will never end. Seems like a trainwreck waiting to happen.
Yep. I wouldn’t be shocked if during the process of lawyering strategy someone like Jason Miller said that they should go with Jim Adler the Tough Hammer. In the room there was probably some laughs and then as people recalled events like the Kavanaugh performance, everyone agreed that this is precisely the type of lawyering that works with their base and the clownish congressmen who absolutely love clownish belligerence.
I doubt you are correct with all due respect but we’ll see how it goes to know for sure. Reason being the Democrats have a slim majority and three Republicans (Romney, Murkowski, Collins) will likely call the shots in the end. I doubt they will vote for a circus and the Dems only need one of them to vote to keep the process tight and only depose relevant witnesses. Really the only risk here is parliamentary rules McConnell can exploit that just slow down the process but most outside viewers won’t notice if McConnell can just delay a few hours on a motion to do blah blah. The only risk is if Collins, Romney, and Murkowski all together decide to go all Gym Jordan and vote to depose people like Hillary Clinton.
Oh I agree that it won't be garbage like calling Hillary Clinton. But I could see if Dems try to get McCarthy, then the GOP tries to get Pelosi, etc. My free-for-all comment was more just that if you're going to allow a few witnesses, you kind of have to allow anyone that the defense thinks is semi-reasonable - that's just a fairness issue. They can pick people that are reasonably connected to this but still just do it for the sake of theater. For example, go after AOC and try to call her out on her interviews about the danger she was in to see if they can damage her politically. But the real problem is the timeline even if you only have a few witnesses - they have to depose them, decide what to do with the testimony, then bring them in (?) to actually then repeat all that stuff, maybe respond to random questions from Senators, etc. What was going to be done today now has an indefinite extension it seems. If they really want to it right, you're probably talking at least a week or two (Senate can do other things in the meantime, of course). If they half-ass it, they could maybe do it quicker. But the witnesses would have been a lot more compelling integrated into the original case instead of "hey, here's our full case, we're done .... but OH WAIT! here's some other people we can hear from too!"
Let there be witnesses! The Dems aren't going to get a conviction, but by laying out the timeline and confirming Trumps dereliction of duty they are going to make the GOP votes look as hypocritical, unjust and un-American as possible. And it will be a huge campaign issue for every contested election for the 2 and 4 years cycles. Also, one or some of the witnesses are going to be Republicans, possibly even McCarthy. When their testimony indicts Trump and exposes the Trump lawyer's lies it will further the division within the party and break the lockstep hegemony of McConnel and the party leadership. It could precipitate a break up to a third party I remember Watergate, it was the relentless assault of truth everyday that eventually crushed Nixon. More truth please! I'm good for another week or two.
I don’t think either sides want this to be a long trial. As for witness, correct me if wrong, but this all started when the defense said (lied) that Trump wasn’t aware of Pence situation and that seemed to have pissed off a number of Republicans and now at least one of them stepped forward to counter that narrative and I assume is willing to be a cooperative witness (meaning wasn’t willing to be one or thought it wasn’t necessary to be one before).
We are eventually going to hear the truth about what Trump did and didn't do when staffers are called under oath. Mark Meadows! Come on down! I want to get into the National Guard issue too. Chris Miller, Kash Patel! Come on down! "Did the President tell you to minimize the Law Enforcement response?"
I think it is funny... calling Nancy Pelosi, who could do what, call out the National Guard? Oh wait, only the president could do that. And he didn't. So sure, let her testify about the attack, about congressmen and women in danger, about the VP in danger, and about terrorists chanting while searching to harm her? Yea... that will help trump.
Except the managers can’t actually control when they call witnesses. That has to be decided on by the Senate. Also remember the House bite was done quickly while Trump was still President with the intention of trying to get him removed and convicted before his term ended. That is one reason why the process is what it is.
