Replies

Rush is making the case that having witnesses testify would be a disaster for demonicRATS. Exposing Adam Schiff-faced as a pathological liar. That almost makes me want to see witnesses.

No.

As I posted on this topic in November:

Let me relate a lesson from season 2 of The Apprentice.
In season 2 only, the show instituted the strategy of "immunity." A successful project manager would receive immunity from being called to the boardroom in the next challenge. By being immune from the boardroom, the winning project manager is guaranteed to survive the next task.
The winner of the first task (Bradford Cohen, lawyer) was on the losing team in week 2. When told that he was immune and can return to the suite, Cohen said that he believed the team should stand or fall together, and refused immunity. The losing project manager brought Cohen into the boardroom, claiming that he slacked off during the task.
In the boardroom, Trump's Executive Vice President and Senior Counsel George Ross told Cohen that he made the cardinal error in business: he took a sure thing and turned it into a gamble. While he lauded his loyalty to his team, he should have taken the immunity and lived to fight another day. Instead, he gave up the immunity and took the gamble of the boardroom. Ross said he should be fired for this blunder, and Trump agreed.
The lesson here is to not trade the sure thing (or closest to it) of the vote to acquit for the gamble of witnesses that will prolong the proceedings where anything can still happen.
While it's laudable to want the satisfaction of calling Biden, Schiff, et. al. to appear under oath, it opens up the President to the risks of a mistake in the Senate trial that might be avoidable.
It's best to take the path that ends this sham at the earliest opportunity possible.

-PJ