Posted on 01/28/2020 11:04:41 PM PST by knighthawk
“If McConnell had any balls, he’d offer the prosecution (House Democrats) the very same number of witnesses that the defense (Trump) was allowed in the House trial — ZERO.”
Exactly right. Why do we always have to be so polite? We can be impolite and still do the right thing.
think mitch is actually trying to do the right thing.
Look at who he has to work with..romney, collins, murkowski and graham who talks big but is still mccain’s best buddy at heart.
is he perfect? far from.
But he got the judges through and will continue to do so and he has handled the impeachment nonsense well so far.
Now end it.
...
I suppose when you consider that Mitch and his extremely wealthy wife along with other Republican sellouts have indeed sold out the country in Ukraine and other locations to make deals that enrich themselves, I guess if you consider all those things and that they’re trying to stay on President Trump’s good side knowing that he knows those things, I guess Mitch is trying to do the right thing now. Truth be told all of them deserve to hang for treason.
That's why I love FreeRepublic.
Dagnabbit.
Wouldn’t only 34 votes be required for acquittal? 100 minus 34 equals 66.
66 votes doesn’t meet the 67 vote super majority threshold.
IMHO, “open mindedness” for those RINOS is how most of their brains fell out.
The only witnesses that the House managers should be able to call are those material witnesses that were used for the original bill of impeachment, excluding, of course, hearsay witnesses. What does that leave, just one who testified that Trump told him that he did not want a quid pro quo? I am good with that.
Another option, the congressional leadership source told Fox News, is for the White House to assert executive privilege to block witnesses, including Bolton.
That's a given, for the purpose of protecting the institutions of the WH and presidency.
It is also not a mutually exclusive option to "tit for tat witness calling." A mess of witnessess can be called AND executive privilege can be asserted.
The issue of the day is "fair trial, and that requires witnesses."
Reframe the issue as those calling for more witnesses are undecided on removing Trump from office, that they are seriously considering the Senate should remove Trump from office. IOW, that there is a real case there, that what Trump thought or said (not what he did), is seriously grounds for removal from office.
50/50 is not a majority, so the motion fails.
There is no need for a tie breaker.
Not the first one. The federal government is itself way outside of constitutional bounds on many things, including the basic fact it is huge and has fingers in things not in its "limited powers" grant.
I have to admit, "constitutional" is still a useful rhetorical tool, but substantively it is a farce.
If the senate decides this is the new threshold for "hightr croimes and misdemanors," then that's what it becomes.
Congress has already set the precedent that a dual citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. And that was done with ZERO seconds of debate.
If our government was "legitimate," this farce would never have started.
Meanwhile, the US Congress is the largest meddler in elections, of all institutions and governments in the world. Taking some of that work away from the State Department, Intelligence Community, and DOJ.
Trump should immediately declassify the manuscript and post it on the white house website. Screws Bolton’s sales and removes the need for Bolton to testify.
My guess is that the after political life is better for Democrats than Republicans.
I suspect that is why the framers set up impeachment with the chief justice, to avoid that possibly.
One thing we should all do is write our senators urging acquittal or dismissal. I did so a few days ago, even though both my senators are Dems. Rational respectful letters could do a lot right now.
Out of the “6” senators who are on the fence, how many of them are up for reelection this year?
Actually... H W Bush won Jersey in ‘88.
McConnell doesn’t have the votes to block witnesses yet — but it sounds like he will by Friday
hotair.com
______________
"The headlines going around this evening, all to the effect that “McConnell doesn’t have the votes!”, are misleading when you read down into the stories themselves. Republicans sound much calmer and more resolute about ramming through an acquittal verdict without witnesses than they did 24 hours ago, in the first flush of the NYT’s story on Sunday night about Bolton’s book."
"McConnell doesn’t have the votes yet but as of Tuesday night Collins and Romney remain the only two Republicans willing to say it’s highly likely they’ll vote to call witnesses. Murkowski is interested in hearing from Bolton but won’t go any further than that now. And no one thinks Lamar Alexander’s going to blow up his buddy Mitch’s plans for a quick ending to the trial."
********
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.