Assuming that the details regarding trump's treason will keep trickling out over the next 10 months (or perhaps come flooding out if the courts rule that the house's subpeonas have to be honored) the republican senators may come to rue their decision to hold a sham trial.
Defeat is a matter of perspective. The controversy over the delay gave quite a bit of attention to the key witnesses that are being denied testimony. At least without the lengthy court procedures Donald is famous for. I suspect that was a primary intention. The rules may be the same as Clinton, but the relevance of witnesses testifying will be different.Originally Posted by LDAHL
It doesn't seem that the delay caused the public to be up in arms over which witnesses will or won't be called. The House could have done that with a longer subpoena fight without the appearance of petulant gamesmanship.
I have no problem with operating under the same rules as last time. I'm simple enough to think the same rules should apply to different players.
Pelosi's petulant gamesmanship seemed like a response in kind to the GOP defense that no first hand account testimonies were given, so could not to be trusted. She may have overplayed her cards a bit since the sides have pretty much been defined and the Iran issues have takes the spotlight away for the moment. The rules seem fair enough to me but the game is being played differently than the Clinton trial.
If the goal was to influence Senate rules, she failed.
If the goal was to increase public support for her position, she failed.
In the unlikely event that I should agree, I would say that she tried to get more of the truth out to the public and dispelled the silly GOP defense that the existing witness accounts were unreliable. It seemed to me like the right thing, even with the obvious knowledge that neckless Mitch would reject anything from the dems.
I noticed that Trump intended to claim executive privilege to prevent Bolton from testifying even if he was subpoenaed I can only guess at the lengthy legal barriers that would be raised to prevent first hand accounts of events.
But if the truth was her paramount concern, why rush the House process and leave the subpoena battle for a hostile Senate to resolve? For someone so fond of lecturing others about their constitutional responsibilities, the House effort seemed pretty abbreviated.
Either she greatly overestimated the public pressure she could generate, or she was appeasing the elements of her party who have been pushing for impeachment for three years with a bit of political theater.
The delay wasn't too bad when Obama claimed executive privilege during the Fast & Furious hearings. I think the Democrats didn't want to go down that road this time due to fear that if it would open up the requirement for additional witnesses that would reveal their complicity in identifying and encouraging a potential whistleblower.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
One pundit’s explanation was that Speaker Pelosi was waiting for opinions from the 40-some Representatives who won swing districts last time. “She listens to them, not to the leftie/radicals in her party” said this pundit.
These Congressmen went home over the break to talk to constituents, and pundit’s opinion is that these Congressmen said their people are in favor of booting Trump.
57% of the public, including 56% of independents, support having witnesses at the senate trial. That's pretty much everyone but the forever trumpers. Not sure how having a solid majority of the public supporting her is failure. Assuming that moscow mitch moves forward with having a sham trial the only question left is how big of a price will senate republicans pay. The ones in purple/blue states should definitely be concerned about their political futures if they follow mitch down this path.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote