Did not watch today,

[TNNurse]

my blood pressure would not tolerate it.
Can someone give me a basic understanding of why they decided to not call witnesses???

[Wounded Bear]

1. Basically, the Trump counsel would have turned it into a shitshow of epic proportions...

they came up with lists of dozens or maybe hundreds of witnesses for Trump that they would have had to vote on.

They got 7 repub votes, which is more than most folks thought they would.

[TNNurse]

4. Thanks, I suspected something like that from a headline.

[Wounded Bear]

6. The other comments below are accurate also...nt

[spooky3]

2. Because

(A) many witnesses were too fearful and Dems couldn’t know in advance what they would say under oath

(B) Trump’s lawyers stipulated that the one witness statement was true

(C) they had a strong case without them.

Per Eric Swalwell.

[euphorb]

7. Mostly true, however . . .

. . . Trump's lawyers did not stipulate that the one witness statement was true. They merely stipulated that it could be entered into the record.

[spooky3]

8. The Republicans did not challenge its veracity or

Bring witnesses to refute it.

On edit: Jamie Raskin just said “the Republicans stipulated...” on Meet the Press, rebroadcast on Velshi - MSNBC.

[soothsayer]

3. A few reasons

1) would not have changed outcome
2) maybe only wanted one witness
3) got drumpf to allow her statement instead
4) dangerous putting cold witnesses on cuz could say anything

[TNNurse]

5. Thanks to you all.