Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Dems Likely Short On Calling New Impeachment Witnesses: Collins (YES), Alexander (NO), Romney (Wants Bolton), Murkowski (thinking about it)

    Dems Likely Short On Calling New Impeachment Witnesses: Collins (YES), Alexander (NO), Romney (Wants Bolton), Murkowski (thinking about it)

    Even if Murkowski votes YES, it’s 50-50 and a Democrat motion to call new witnesses would fail unless some other Republican defects or Roberts casts a controversial tie-breaker.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfJlzrBL1Wo

    The Q&A session just ended. Republican Maine Sen. Susan Collins wasted no time announcing she will vote yes on calling witnesses.

    Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander will vote no.

    *We will update this post as more senators announce their decisions.

    Since she posted it on Twitter, all typed up and everything, it looks like she made the decision a while ago. Not shocked, honestly, since she hinted she wanted to hear from John Bolton.

    The media made retiring Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander its wild card on the witness vote. He announced he will vote NO:

    “I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.”

    Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told reporters she planned to go back to her office to “reflect on what” she heard in the 16-hour session. She showed them her two volumes of notes.

    Murkowski will make a decision in the morning.

    Utah Sen. Mitt Romney said that he wants to hear from Bolton.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    Would CJ break a tie (either way)?

    PRO:

    1. Absent authority, presiding officers often are assumed to have that power. If the Senate objects, they can overrule him, but in a partisan question like this, that too might be a tie.

    2. CJ Chase did so in the Johnson impeachment teial, so there is precedent.

    3. It’s only a procedure issue, not guilt or innocence.

    CON:

    1. He is not required to and may not have the authority, so the path of least resistance is to decline.

    2. Everything here is a partisan issue, and getting involved could hurt the Supreme Court.

    3. The body agreed to rules at the outset that did not provide for a tiebreaker.

    4. The defense has stipulated that even if Bolton says X, the President is not guilty, so no real reason to call him other than, as Schiff said yesterday, “so the American people can hear,” i.e. to affect the elections, not relevant to the proceeding.

    My guess is that CJ Roberts would decline to break a tie, and that someone will hold a press conference and say that Schiff remains free to call Bolton in a House oversight hearing and deal with the courts regarding executive privilege. Maybe Ms. Maxine thinks Bolton has something relevant to banking.

    WSJ:
    Readers are invited to opine on which one of the following scenarios represents the greatest threat to American liberty:

    A) After identifying a U.S. citizen volunteering for the U.S. presidential campaign of the party out of power, the FBI makes false claims and persuades a federal court that the citizen may be a Russian agent and should be subjected to electronic surveillance.

    B) After observing a U.S. citizen obtain a Ukrainian company board seat for which he was manifestly unqualified while his father was running Ukrainian policy for the U.S. government – and in which capacity the father would later demand the firing of a local prosecutor investigating the son’s business associates – the U.S. President urges the government of Ukraine to investigate.

    This column is struggling to recall a more serious allegation of abuse of our democratic process by officials of the federal government.

    Article upon article upon article fretting about GOP defectors working against the general GOP agenda in the Senate. Why are there never any defectors from the Democrats? The count is always taking away from the GOP votes, but there are never any additions from the other side.

    Why are we so horrible at getting our message across?


       
       0 
       
       1
      bhwms in reply to ss396. | January 31, 2020 at 10:24 am

      Or horrible about selecting our candidates.

      In many states, the primary system is rigged for “moderates” (RINOs). For example, in NH, Republicans can vote in the Republican primary, Democrats can vote in the Democrat primary, and Independents (Undeclared) can vote in either. We know that a huge number of the Independents are really Democrats who meddle in the Republican primaries. There are substantially fewer Republicans/Conservatives who are Independent – and most of them are because they believe the GOP is too GOPe.

      Second, for a conservative, the nature of how you build a coalition to win starts with the conservative base (pro-life, pro-national defense, pro-veteran, anti-spending) and builds to the middle. The moderates start in the middle and say just enough conservative things to get the conservatives to not abandon them wholesale.

      Then they do something stupid repeatedly, like Senator Ayotte listening too much to John McCain, and the conservatives abandoned her.

    I too am fed up with Susan Collins–the perfect RINO. But I am most disappointed with Bolton.
    He has legitimate grounds for being pissed off at Trump–but to play into the hands of the Democratic scum who detest him is stupid. He will–like McCain by his saving Obama care–will go down in history as turncoats.

    Their overwhelming case of opinion. innuendo, and outright lies needs more witnesses to be believable!


    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