More on Witnesses and Timing

The below is extended discussion on two impeachment related issues that continued to be discussed after the trial was over.  I originally had it as an extended footnote, but to provide a more crisp after-action summary, I decided to provide them their own entry.  Yes, I felt compelled to add more.

Witnesses

I still think they should have took more time -- it need not take never-ending time since the Senate Democrats had the power to vote up/down a plan for a limited set (see Clinton impeachment where three witnesses were called; not some open-ended process) -- to call witnesses.

A lawyer responding to TPM said "The managers said they wanted one witness — a one hour deposition of Herrera Beutler." I listened to Raskin. He didn't actually say that. He first asked for her AND access to her notes. That is rather notable. Also, he said that she referenced others and welcomed them if they were willing to come forward. Finally, he said if given the witness and notes, the managers would work off not. I took this to mean that he left open others, if warranted.

It's done, but I'm not sure what the point of all the drama was to insert a single statement into the record. It was a helpful statement but (and the "it doesn't matter" brigade willing to throw anything at the wall cite this) what really changed? Any votes? Any big clarification of what Trump was guilty of? Not really. It's one person making a statement. You don't even have the notes! People who insist it was so very helpful are being a bit silly.

Plus, the morning vote raised hopes. The other side appeared worried. The fact they agreed to release of the statement underlined that they didn't lose much at all. And, again, didn't we say we wanted witnesses for "real trial" last time? The disputed facts and new stuff that came out in the media underlined the value of it. The Dems looked bad and (unlike sometimes) the criticism this time was not really wrong on some level.

You do have people, including some members of the impeachment team [at least publicly], rather upset at people like me being upset. The reasons don't come off as very credible. Anyway, it would have been helpful if instead of simply reading the statement into the record, which came off as tacked on, Raskin made a statement on the agreement. For instance, he could explain why it net was the best approach. Maybe, not saying anything was part of some deal, but you know, it would have been more convincing.

And, why couldn't we have people who were willing witnesses, including one would think the police officer who received special congressional acclamation? Again, such witnesses in a trial or hearing would have special symbolic effect to spread the whole story to the nation. My only counter, perhaps, is that if you did that, the Trump side would feel a need to troll answer somehow. That, however, is not quite the "it wouldn't matter" etc. type typical replies you heard that pissed off people like me. 

Timing

A lot also can be said about timing and I heard one person suggest that it might have mattered if the Senate at least started the trial before 1/20. Maybe. But, the figleaf probably would be as helpful as long as the final vote to convict took place once he was no longer in office. Taking their position seriously, I actually would find that actually credible. So, if it mattered, it wouldn't have mattered much.

I think it was wrong for the Senate -- once the insurrection happened -- to go into pro forma session (not doing business) after the electoral count was over. The situation was live and warranted them to be there. The Senate also should have accepted the impeachment before 1/20, which would have given Mitch's post-vote speech a tad bit more credibility.

But, the whole process took time -- contra to the Trump side this goes to the presence of "due process" -- and it is hard to see how it would have been over before Trump's term. The House could have started immediately, but even there, the process was going to take time. The great prosecution case itself took time to prepare and present.  Getting the whole House to impeach (tossing in the ritual of asking Pence to do the 25A) also took time on the front end.  Like moving a tanker around, these things take time.

The complete 9/11 Commission deal might take like a year or something. This was for a more limited reason and the timing was appropriate. For instance, Rep. Raskin noted that change of power moments are very sensitive and a special statement underlining the insurrection (which very well might not have been over, including talk of some "real" inauguration date still coming -- rumors of additional protests were afoot) was time sensitive.  Republicans were already starting to handwave on 1/6. 

Hope for ten more votes while emotions were still high seems naive. After all, the House vote couldn't be much sooner -- impeachment on 1/8 or something wasn't likely -- and you got ten votes on the Republican side.  Noting that, the extra time that the prosecution side had to give a great presentation [the witness issue aside, which very well involved something unsaid] was appreciated.  

Again, the things flagged in the last post don't hold up.  But, we still can and should do other things. Let's see how it goes.