Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Murkowski Wants to Know Why the House Didn’t Use Courts to Get Testimony, But Demands Senate Do It

    Murkowski Wants to Know Why the House Didn’t Use Courts to Get Testimony, But Demands Senate Do It

    Murkowski wants to know why House Democrats allowed themselves to rush through impeachment but demand the Senate take their sweet time.

    Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, one of the moderate GOP senators, lashed out at the House Democrats before heading in for day three of the impeachment trial.

    A reporter asked Murkowski if she worries President Donald Trump’s executive privilege on testimonies or evidence would linger in the courts.

    Murkowski immediately blasted the House Democrats for not doing their job.

    The House Democrats rushed the articles of impeachment through the chamber in December. They admitted they did not want to wait for the courts to decide on additional witnesses because it could have taken too long.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    As soon as we pick up a couple more Republicans in the Senate, she will lose the only power she has. And the one she pushes every day:
    ” The Deciding Vote “

    Dusty Pitts | January 23, 2020 at 9:57 pm

    As a onetime Alaskan, I will never forgive this piece of… work’s father for appointing this piece of… work to that seat.

    Every time I see her picture I wonder why the undertaker didn’t put enough dirt on her casket.

    It’s false to think the democrats only reason not to subpoena witness’s and take it to court is what they say – that they needed speed.

    The “house” never voted to conduct an investigation and the constitution does not say the speaker can do this on their own. They would have lost in court and they know it.

    Matthew Carberry | January 24, 2020 at 1:04 pm

    Barry, you are correct, however, actual, semi-arcane legal arguments will typically confuse fence sitters, and make them think you are trying to “get one over on them.” Fortunately in this case, are not even necessary, and when trying to convince the undecided (who if they really cared would be better informed already), the simplest sufficient argument is the one to use.

    Murkowski’s (and every other person with any intellectual integrity) point is that even assuming arguendo the House had the power to issue and litigate valid subpoenas under the process they chose, they _still_ chose not to do so. Even under their own rules they still managed to destroy their argument of “emergency” and “threat to the Republic.” No need to get into the legal weeds with the mostly uncaring middle, just point out the most obvious and easily understood hypocrisy and contradiction in the Democrats claims.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend