PREDICTIONS: COVID, FOOTBALL, & IMPEACHMENT

I thought about who to feature, and Jamie Raskin deserves a prominent place in history.   He is a real mensch.

 I made some predictions that have been wildly wrong.   Last March I predicted that the total American deaths from Covid 19 would be about 5,000.    I was off by about half a million.   I predicted it would have run its course by June and that baseball would be back by July.   Wildly wrong on the first, although baseball did come back but in empty parks.   I also predicted the DOW would bottom out at 18,000.   That one was almost dead on the money- it bottomed out just below 18,500 and is now over 31,000.

Last Fall I said that the Steelers were nowhere near as good as their 11-0 record, and they could easily have been 7-4 (I didn't actually say that, but I promise, I was thinking it.)    That was accurate- they were even worse than I thought, losing to awful teams (the Washington Football Team) very good teams (Buffalo) and an up and coming team (Cleveland).   5 out of their last 6, ending at 12-5 after beginning with 11 straight victories.  Their loss to Cleveland was astonishing- being down 28-0 in the first quarter, with the first play of the game being two Hall of Famers, center Markice Pouncey hiking the ball over Ben Roethlisberger's head into the end zone where it was recovered for a Cleveland touchdown, being emblematic as to how far they had fallen.   And the photo of Ben, all alone, slumped on the bench, stone faced after the loss, reminded me of the iconic Y. A. Tittle photo of him slumped in the end zone, helmet off, blood running down from his bald head at the end of a loss- ironically, to the Steelers in Pitt Stadium in Pittsburgh.

A week ago I predictd a Super Bowl blowout, 38-17.   That was fairly close, but I got it backwards.   I thought K.C. would cruise.  Instead it was 31-9 for Tampa Bay.   You could have made a billion dollars off a $1.00 bet that K.C. would not even get a touchdown.

And a day ago I said it would be a miracle if the Senate got 60 votes to convict T***p on the sole article of impeachment.    I said that 57 would be the max- which turned out to be correct.    I had thought that there would be the  56 who voted to go ahead with the trial (that included Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, who joined the 5 Republicans, Collins, Sasse, Toomey, Romney, and Murkowski, to vote to let the trial go ahead and not dismiss on the grounds that T***p was out of office).    I thought the 57th vote might be one of the Dakota Republicans-   I was actually thinking of John Thune of South Dakota, but it turned out to be retiring Richard Burr of North Carolina, who is not running for re-election next year.   Not even Rob Portman of Ohio, also retiring next year, voted to convict.

On the "we'll never know" but I think I was correct:   the House should have had three separate articles of impeachment.  One for the felony of attempted election fraud on January 2nd.   I would have really loved to have seen the defense scumbag lawyers try to explain that one- "find" me exactly 11,780 votes- one more than I need.    One for incitement to insurrection.   One for dereliction of duty (like a soldier going AWOL when the enemy is attacking) after the mob breached the barriers, then refusing calls for help while still encouraging the mob (again- I would have liked to see their defense on that one).

And that would have required three separate votes, one on each article.

I said repeatedly- and actually sent messages and called Raskin's office- that in advance of the trial the impeachment managers should publicly call out T***p, tell him to personally bring his evidence of election fraud and testify under oath.   Call him a coward and a bully and a liar, too afraid to show up to present his "evidence"- not rumor, not speculation, not innuendo, not wild conspiracy theories- but actual, legally admissible evidence-  because he knew he would be exposed as a liar.     That would have destroyed his claim of "massive election fraud" better than any impeachment trial or ad campaign.

I also think that they should have subpoenaed T***p anyway.  He's a private citizen and has no immunity whatsoever.   Once brought before the Senate he could have pleaded the Fifth Amendment- that applies in any proceeding.  But, as Jamie Raskin pointed out, the court or jury is permitted to draw a negative inference when a witness or party pleads the Fifth in a civil proceeding, something that a jury can not do in a criminal trial.

I also think they should have had at least three or four live witnesses, under oath.   Mark Meadows, who was in the room with T***p when he called Raffensberger and can be heard on the call.  And who presumably was in the room when T***p was watching the riots on television and getting frantic telephone calls for help.  Meadows presumably urged T***p to tell the rioters to stand down.  I'd love to hear that testimony if anyone brings a criminal prosecution or civil suit.   It would have been compelling in this trial. 

Also, call Kevin McCarthy- I have no idea why the House managers wanted to call the Congresswoman McCarthy told his story to and not the horse to get the story from the horse's mouth.  Put him under oath and put him in a vise:   he can commit perjury, claim he never made that call or that the conversation as reported never occurred, then be prosecuted based on the testimony of people that he told the story to and of Mark Meadows and anyone else on the call in the White House,  and lose his House seat if convicted,.   Or he can tell the truth and have his caucus strip him of his minority leadership.

Also, call Tuberville as a witness and put him under oath.  He's too stupid to lie and his testimony would damn T***p.

They both deserve it.   And the show would have been worth it.