For everyone upset because the Dems did not call witnesses (I was) here's some clarification from several sources, including Del. Stacey Plaskett:

1) We would not have seen witnesses testify in the Senate, the way we saw them testify in the House during the first impeachment.
The Senate rules do not allow for that. The witnesses would have given depositions, which would have been entered into the record.

2) It was not certain that the possible witnesses were willing to testify. If they were unwilling, subpoenas would have to be fought out
in the courts, and we know that could have dragged things out for weeks, or longer.

3) Because these witnesses had not been pre-examined by the House Managers, they were not certain of exactly how they would testify. We all assume that Pence would have been a great witness
for our side, but we have no reason to be confident of that. He's the ultimate * toady. He wants to retain *'s base. He could have gotten up there and downplayed everything * did, including *'s attacks on him. No smart lawyer EVER puts a witness on the stand if
they don't know what the witness is going to say. If you don't believe me, ask Bob Brennan.

4) The House Managers got what they wanted, which was Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler's testimony about Kevin McCarthy's phone conversation with Trump during the insurrection,
entered into the record.

5) The despicable Lindsey Graham threatened that the Republicans would call as many as 100 witnesses. Again, this would have extended the trial for weeks, at minimum. And the Senate rules require that no other business can be conducted once the Senate
has started an impeachment trial. That would have meant no Covid Relief bill, no confirmations of Biden appointments, etc. The Republican Senators who were voting for impeachment told Schumer that no other Republican votes were to be found, and they might lose a few if
if they proceeded with witnesses.

6) Does anyone really believe that witnesses would have changed any more fascist Republican votes? How many witnesses? The fix was in from day one. Even though the Senate voted on Tuesday that it had jurisdiction to try a former President,
a former President, several Republicans ignored that vote, and instead of voting on the facts, they used jurisdiction as an excuse to vote no, including McConnell. There was no way they were EVER going to vote guilty.

On to criminal prosecution, federal and state.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Rhuta Bhayga

Rhuta Bhayga Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RhutaBhayga2

14 Dec 20
Posted by a poll worker:
-----
It was only a small thing, but it was important to me.
I worked to help make sure that every vote, EVERY VOTE, was properly cast and counted. I trained for and worked the Voter Protection lines for ALL voters.
I answered questions and logged issues and looked up regulations and doubled checked registrations and ballot acceptance without prejudice for party affiliation.
I did the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons.
And now this President, along with 126 members of Congress, are saying that my work was a part of, and party to, a fraud. That I helped rig an election. That my work was dishonest and dishonorable. Along with all of my fellow Voter Protection workers,
Read 8 tweets
8 Nov 20
This great post is from #RebeccaSolnit, all her words, not mine:

"The middle ground is not halfway between Nazis and antiracists. The reasonable position is not a compromise between rapists and feminists, slaveowners and abolitionists, Natives and General Crook.
The truth is not midway between the liar and the truthteller. That has to be a factor in all those calls for reaching out and unity.

"The murderer and his intended victim don't have to agree on what's right.
The people who were harmed don't have to reach out to those who did the harming. The people who told the truth don't need to make liars feel better about themselves or what they said. Those who were targeted by this war don't have to do all the peacemaking.
Read 7 tweets
7 Nov 20
Thread on White House Transition process:

On March 4th 1801 the second president of the United States - John Adams - refused to hand over office to his main rival at the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson.

The rule of "midday January 20" had not yet been written.
Despite his stubbornness, THE OFFICE SIMPLY LEFT HIM!

Adams was the first president to reside at the new official residence

After Jefferson's swearing in - which the incumbent refused to attend - White House staff began removing Adam’s belongings from the WH.
All security organs ended all official communication.

All presidential staff stopped taking instructions from Adams – THE OFFICE MOVED.

Since then, all WH incumbents prepare early to leave in case they see signs of losing,
Read 11 tweets
30 Sep 20
From Bill Svelmoe, history prof. at Notre Dame.

A few thoughts on #AmyConeyBarrett

- She's a done deal. Dems shouldn't waste time attacking her character, or her religion, or on how she will vote on hypothetical cases.
The #PeopleofPraise isn't a cult. I've had half a dozen of their kids in my classes... these have been among the best students I've ever had. Extremely bright. Careful critical thinkers. Wonderful writers. I loved having them in class. So don't go after the People of Praise.
By all accounts Barrett walks on water. I've had that in a roundabout way from people I know at Notre Dame, including from folks as liberal as me, who actually look forward to seeing her on the court. I have no first hand knowledge of her, but take the above for what you will.
Read 27 tweets
27 Sep 20
It's disheartening to see the "Pro-life" response to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death. It's very clear that the folks who think RBG was a vehement "baby killer" have never heard of the name Susan Struck.
#RBG #NotoriousRBG
In the 1960s & 1970s, before Roe vs Wade, abortion was not only legal on US military bases, it was actively ENCOURAGED and basically mandated. Yes, really.
#RBG #NotoriousRBG
Captain Susan Struck was a combat nurse in Vietnam. When she got pregnant in 1970, the Air Force starkly gave her two choices. Get an abortion or be discharged. Struck wanted to keep her baby. So she was kicked out of the service.

#RBG #NotoriousRBG
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!