Managed to watch just over 8 of the 16 hours of questions. Supposedly around 180 were asked, so I watched and listened to somewhere between 90 and 100. All of them asked to either provide a softball that allowed the House Managers and the President’s lawyers to make their cases, or give the House Managers the opportunity for a TV soundbite for this year’s election season advertisements.
Nothing remotely revealing, enlightening, or redeeming.
What was interesting is having a runner carry a written question to the Chief Justice to read. Wondering if this dates back to Johnson’s impeachment in 1868 and if the method was instituted because not all the Senators could read and write? In any event, a curiosity.
Back to the main topic…I anticipate few minds were changed. As to witnesses Pierre Delecto and Susan Collins say yes. Gardner, Murkowski, and Alexander say “no”. So if McConnell has his supplicants properly whipped there will be no witnesses followed much fake outrage and gnashing of teeth and “it isn’t a real acquittal” among the Democrats and the Mainstream Press. As I said, if the House Democrats really believe Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors then let them go to court to get the testimony and come back wit a real and substantive article of impeachment.
But they wont. Outrage sells better. But will it get out the vote?
Steve's place 