Rand Paul continues his efforts to get the Ukraine whistleblower killed

Posted on by Joan McCarter

Sen. Rand Paul has not been getting enough attention during this impeachment process, so he executed his predictable and promised stunt on the Senate floor Thursday afternoon, submitting a question to Chief Justice John Roberts during the Q&A session that presumably contained the name of the whistleblower. Roberts refused to read the question, so Paul left the floor to have an "impromptu" press conference (and probably hit the send button on a fundraising email).

CNN's Manu Raju reports, "At press conference, Paul says: 'I can tell you my question made no reference to any whistleblower.' Then Paul reads aloud his question which names a Schiff's staff member and names the individual who has been reported as possible whistleblower—and asks about their contacts." This was an apparent effort to get the press to publish the name, since he seems intent on getting the whistleblower killed.

It likely won't work. One reporter asked, "With all due respect, shouldn't you be at the impeachment hearing right now?" Of course he should have been, and the sergeant-at-arms should be putting him in the Senate jail right now. He should also be disqualified from sitting as a juror in this impeachment trial and have his vote taken away—if either Roberts or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants to save this trial from being a total farce.

Now is the time for Chief Justice Roberts to rise to the defense of his country

Posted on by Joan McCarter

Assuming that there are three Republican senators who care enough about their country and the rule of law to want witnesses and documents in Donald Trump's impeachment trial (not a given by any means) Chief Justice John Roberts could be put in a difficult position. He would have to break the a 50-50 tie either voting for a sham trial or a real one. Or, do what the conventional wisdom expects and choose not to decide and let entropy win. At a stalemate, the side asking for witnesses would lose.

Thus far, Roberts has been more of a spectator than an umpire, to use his infamous analogy during his confirmation hearing of what his role on the Supreme Court would be—"calling balls and strikes." He's watched while Republican senators made the presentation by House managers a farce, napping through the discussion, playing with toys, standing in the back of the room chatting, reading unrelated books, or just flat out leaving the room for long stretches. That is against the rules of impeachment trials, rules he's there to enforce. That has not impressed the experts. So far, Roberts has been "less of a force than some people expected or hoped for," Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor and impeachment expert told the Washington Post. Few watching this have high hopes that he'll rise to the challenge.

No matter how we get there, the end goal is the same: John Bolton must testify.

The only peep out of him on the proceedings was a "both sides" scolding of Rep. Jerry Nadler spurred on, of course, by Sen. Susan Collins' note tattling on him. He's done something helpful in rebuffing Sen. Rand Paul's efforts to out the person who blew the whistle on Trump's Ukraine extortion. That was done behind the scenes, even before the question and answer period began Wednesday.

So, with his chance to actually do the job, call the balls and strikes, the big question is whether he'll step up to save the institution of the Senate from itself, try to save the republic from Trump, or even try to save his own legacy. One Democrat, Sen. Chris Van Hollen from Maryland, is going to attempt to force the issue by offering a motion putting pressure on Roberts to decide. Republicans will almost certainly defeat it, but that doesn't mean Roberts couldn't be the hero all of his own accord.

Democrat to offer motion requiring Chief Justice Roberts to order witnesses, documents

Posted on by Joan McCarter

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen will offer a motion in Donald Trump's impeachment trial Friday to require Chief Justice John Roberts to subpoena documents and witnesses, if he determines they are relevant to the articles of impeachment, and to exercise his authority to rule on all issues of evidence, including executive privilege.

"A fair trial includes relevant documents and witnesses. And in a fair trial the judge determines what evidence is admitted," Van Hollen said in a statement announcing the motion. He said his effort "ensures the Chief Justice will serve the same role as a judge in any trial across our country—to allow the Senate access to the facts they need to get to the truth." He adds "No Republican can question the fairness of this approach—the Chief Justice oversees the highest court in our land and was nominated by a Republican President. And, given his authority to rule on questions of privilege, they should not fear a drawn-out process. I urge my colleagues to seek out the truth and the facts and to vote in support of my motion. Anything else constitutes an effort to hide the truth." He's right, it's perfectly fair. So it's another test of whether there are just four Republicans left who think this process should be fair.

Here's the text of the motion: "I move that for this trial the presiding officer shall issue subpoenas of any witness or any document that a Senator or a party moves to subpoena if the presiding officer deems them likely to have probative evidence relevant to either article of impeachment, and, consistent with his authority to rule on all questions of evidence, shall rule on any assertion of privilege."

Moscow Mitch’s 2020 campaign fund helped out by Trump’s impeachment defense team

Posted on by Joan McCarter

You can't make this degree of corruption up. Moscow Mitch McConnell, the guy who has promised again and again that he is working with Donald Trump's impeachment lawyers to make sure that Trump will not be convicted and removed from office, has gotten campaign donations from those lawyers. This year. For his 2020 reelection campaign.

The Louisville Courier Journal reviewed campaign finance data for McConnell, finding that Ken Starr gave the maximum allowed, $2,800, on July 31, 2019. He's been a donor to every one of McConnell's campaigns since 2020. McConnell's gotten two separate donations from Robert Ray for a total of $5,600. Those were on Sept. 30, 2019, 12 days after The Washington Post reported on the whistleblower report that Trump was withholding aid to Ukraine until the country agreed to announce an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.

McConnell's campaign blew off the glaring appearance of corruption in the transaction, taking a swipe at House Democrats. "The absence of any adequate arguments by House impeachment managers seems to be playing a pretty meaningful role however," McConnell's campaign manager Kevin Golden said. Clearly the money isn't a bribe for McConnell to ensure Trump's acquittal, because that's been a foregone conclusion from the get-go. Moscow Mitch promised it. So it must be a reward.

It's time to end McConnell's destructive stranglehold on the republic. Please give $1 to our nominee fund to help Democrats and end McConnell's career as Senate majority leader.

America has spoken: A fair impeachment hearing requires relevant witnesses

Posted on by Joan McCarter

As Senate Republicans try to figure out a way to deal with the impeachment witness issue, perhaps how the American public—the people they represent—can help clarify. Because what they say, even among Republican voters, is that you can't have a trial without witnesses. They've been saying that since before the John Bolton bombshell that he has firsthand knowledge that Trump did the abuse of power. Let's just go through the numbers of voters saying witnesses should testify:

Quinnipiac (1/28): 75% overall; 49% of Republicans, and 75% of independents Quinnipiac (1/13): On whether Bolton specifically should testify—66% say yes; 39% of Republicans, 71% of independents Monmouth, (1/21): 80% support witnesses (not broken down clearly by party) Reuters, (1/22): 72% want witnesses, including 69% of Republicans CNN, (1/20): 69% want new witnesses, including 48% of Republicans AP/NORC (1/22): 68% want witnesses; including 36% Republicans ABC-WaPo 71 (1/24): 66% overall; 45% of Republicans, 65% of independents

Again, the majority of these are from before the Bolton bombshell, including a poll released from Navigator research Tuesday that had 82% of voters wanting to hear specifically from Bolton. That included 70% of Republicans, a number that would undoubtedly decline now that they know what Bolton would like say. Trials are supposed to have witnesses, that's fundamental to our system of justice. Everyone knows that. Without relevant witnesses, it's a cover up. Everyone knows that, including Senate Republicans however much they'll argue otherwise.

The numbers keep adding up against McConnell’s cover-up trial: 75% of voters want witnesses

Posted on by Joan McCarter

Senate Republicans are skating on pretty darned thin political ice, and Moscow Mitch McConnell is whipping them into the danger area in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. Here’s the latest from Quinnipiac which finds that 75% of voters want the Senate to hear witnesses. "There may be heated debate among lawmakers about whether witnesses should testify at the impeachment trial of President Trump, but it's a different story outside the Beltway. Three-quarters of American voters say witnesses should be allowed to testify, and that includes nearly half of Republican voters," said Quinnipiac University Poll Analyst Mary Snow in the polling memo.

That includes includes 49% of Republicans, 95% of Democrats, and 75% of independents. What’s more, 53% of voters say Trump is lying about his actions in Ukraine, compared to 40% who say he’s being truthful (the cult remains). For those “independent” senators like Susan Collins, here’s a number: 53% of independents say Trump is lying. Among all voters, 54% say he abused his power, 52% say he obstructed Congress, and 47% say he should be removed. Oh, and 57% say they are paying a lot of attention to the proceedings. That’s got to be shaking up some Senate Republican offices right now.

Let's add to the pressure. Please give $1 to our nominee fund to help Democrats and end McConnell's career as majority leader.  

New poll: 82% of voters say Bolton must testify in impeachment trial

Posted on by Joan McCarter

Donald Trump's lawyers and Senate enablers are doing their damnedest to pretend that former national security adviser John Bolton is just some guy making stuff up in "An unpublished manuscript, that some reporters, maybe, have some idea what it said. If you want to call that evidence." They might want to rethink that considering new polling from Navigator research showing that a whopping 82% of registered voters think Bolton should testify at the impeachment hearing.

What's more, and this is something, that question was included in a poll in the field last week, before the report from Bolton's leaked manuscript which says flat-out that Trump withheld aid to Ukraine for his own political gain. From the toplines of the poll, respondents were asked "If John Bolton has firsthand knowledge of Donald Trump's actions relating to Ukraine and investigating Joe Biden, how important is it for John Bolton to testify in the Senate impeachment trial?" A total of 82% say yes—56% say it's very important and 26% say it's somewhat important to hear from him. That includes 70% of Republicans, with 33% saying it's very important and 37% somewhat important.

x

Collins’ tepid support for impeachment witnesses isn’t playing well back home

Posted on by Joan McCarter

Sen. Susan Collins, last seen in high manufactured dudgeon over incivility in Donald Trump's impeachment hearing, seems less concerned over the revelation from former national security adviser John Bolton that Trump did indeed try to extort Ukraine to influence the 2020 election. The reports about Bolton’s upcoming book "strengthen the case" for hearing witnesses, she said, which some analysts are taking as support for calling witnesses. It's not, though; it's Collins holding her finger in the wind.

She needs to be seen as open to calling witnesses because her performance thus far is not playing particularly well back home. The Portland Press Herald published an op-ed over the weekend lambasting her stunt during the House managers’ presentation, in which she sent a sternly worded note to Chief Justice John Roberts saying that Democrats were being mean. "Instead of demanding to see every last shred of evidence of the president's conduct before she voted on whether he is guilty of manipulating America’s foreign policy and national security interests to cheat in an election, she chose to get lost in the weeds" of procedure, editorial page editor Greg Kesich wrote.

Collins has chosen her side, and Maine knows it. Please give $1 to help Democrats in each of these crucial Senate races, but especially the one in Maine!

Those procedural weeds have nothing to do with getting at the truth, something that Amy Fried, professor of political science at the University of Maine, is writing about at the Bangor Daily News. "In one universe, that of televised ads run by her campaign, Susan Collins is a stalwart independent," Fried writes. "In an alternative universe where Collins was independent, initially she would have vigorously backed the efforts to receive witnesses and documents blocked by the White House."

Collins' Kavanaugh vote should have been a lesson to her about just how shaky her image as an "independent" is back home. Her performance in this impeachment, thus far, is eroding it further. It could end up being her total undoing.

It’s Chief Justice Roberts’ chance to be apolitical and impartial: Democrats need to make him do it

Posted on by Joan McCarter

Senate Republicans are making it very clear: the John Bolton bombshell that Donald Trump personally told him he was withholding congressionally mandated funds for Ukraine for his own political gain is nothing new. They knew it all already and it doesn't make a difference, so what? So there's no reason at all they need to hear directly from Bolton.

There's one person though, that shouldn't be thinking "so what": Chief Justice John Roberts. After all, he is the chief justice of the United States. He is supposed to be the one guy ultimately in charge of the rule of law for the whole land. He, as law professors Neal K. Katyal and Joshua A. Geltzer and former Republican Rep. Mickey Edwards argue, is the one person who could go over the Republicans' heads and order subpoenas from Bolton or any other witness who should testify. That's if Roberts doesn't want to go down in history as the chief justice who presided over the biggest sham of an impeachment trial for the most criminal president the nation's ever had. House impeachment managers need to put him to that test.

It's pretty simple. The House managers, Rep. Adam Schiff and team, can ask Roberts to issue the subpoenas. The lawyers explain that the impeachment rules in effect "specifically provide for the subpoenas of witnesses, going so far in Rule XXIV as to outline the specific language a subpoena must use—the 'form of subpoena to be issued on the application of the managers of the impeachment, or of the party impeached, or of his counsel.'" Furthermore, the rules provide that "the chief justice, as presiding officer, has the 'power to make and issue, by himself,' subpoenas." It would take a two-thirds vote of the Senate to overturn his decision to subpoena witnesses or documents. Republicans don't have 67 votes.

So far, Roberts has simply sat in the presiding chair and done nothing except to respond to Susan Collins' vapors and tell both sides to be nice to each other. That's just the way he wants it, undoubtedly. But he has a job, one the framers of the Constitution laid out clearly.

"The framers' wisdom in giving this responsibility to a member of the judiciary expected to be apolitical and impartial has never been clearer," write Katyal, Geltzer, and Edwards. The House managers need to make him do that job.

What did Moscow Mitch know about Bolton bombshell and when did he know it?

Posted on by Joan McCarter

Senate Republicans are reportedly feeling "blindsided" by the revelation from John Bolton's upcoming book that Donald Trump personally told the former national security adviser that he was withholding aid to Ukraine until he got his investigations into Democrats and the Bidens. They want to know who in the White House knew about this and why it was withheld from them, they say. They should be looking closer to home, at their majority leader, Mitch McConnell, if indeed this news came as a total shock to them.

Bolton's lawyer said he provided the manuscript of his book to the White House on Dec. 30. That's two weeks after McConnell promised Sean Hannity on Fox News, "Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with White House Counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this." Just a few days after that interview, McConnell told reporters, "I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There's not anything judicial about it. […] I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all." He also said that it was the House's "duty to investigate" and not the Senate's, and that "we certainly do not need 'jurors' to start brainstorming witness lists for the prosecution."

It's time to end McConnell's destructive stranglehold on the republic. Please give $1 to our nominee fund to help Democrats and end McConnell's career as Senate majority leader.

There is no way that McConnell didn't know what the White House was sitting on with the Bolton manuscript. There is no way that McConnell wasn't acting with the White House to keep this information from his Republican senators. If in fact he did keep it under wraps. If they're blindsided by anything, it's because they thought the White House had done a better job at shutting Bolton up.