Category: Impeachment

As Republicans grapple with mounting pressure for witnesses, Americans have already decided

Posted on by Kerry Eleveld

Once again, the GOP is just catching up to where the nation already is, even as Republicans fight to remain in their hermetically sealed Fox News bubble. Following the bombshell John Bolton news, Senate Republicans are reportedly pulling each other aside and talking in hushed tones about potentially calling a witness or two during Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial. Gasp. 

Naturally, they're following the nation instead of leading it, as is the GOP way. If there is such thing as a national consensus these days in American politics, voters' desire to hear from witnesses is about as close as it gets. As MSNBC's Steve Benen pointed out, three major polls in the past week have all shown that at least two-thirds of respondents want new witness testimony in Trump's impeachment trial.

That includes:

66% in the latest Washington Post/ABC poll 68% in the latest AP-NORC poll 69% in the latest CNN poll

That’s about as much agreement as we’ll get on anything as politically charged as an impeachment trial. If Republicans blow it to protect Trump, their complicity in the cover-up will be more obvious than ever.

Days after ‘head on a pike’ outrage, Republican warns of ‘repercussions’ for defying Trump

Posted on by Laura Clawson

Republican senators were outraged when Rep. Adam Schiff mentioned the report that the White House was threatening Republicans with their “head on a pike” if they voted for witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Outraged! Sen. Susan Collins violated the decorum of the Senate chamber by bursting out with “That's not true.” Sen. Lisa Murkowski claimed that “That’s where he lost me.”

So: no threats to Republicans over their votes on impeachment witnesses, huh? Someone should tell Trump's House allies that.

Rep. Mark Meadows told Norah O’Donnell that “I don't want to speak for my Senate colleagues. But there are always political repercussions for every vote you take.” Yeah, like the kind of political repercussions that Team Trump specializes in dealing out. The kind you might metaphorically call “head on a pike.”

But we’re not exactly dealing with the brain trust here. Rep. Doug Collins had a challenge for Democrats: “The question needs to be flipped. Where is a courageous Democrat who will actually look at the facts and vote in favor of not impeaching this president? ” (Uhh, Doug, he was already impeached.)

Impeachment trial resumes with more of Trump’s lie-and-attack defense: Live coverage #4

Posted on by Laura Clawson

White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow, and their whole crew are back to continue the opening arguments in the impeachment defense of Donald Trump. They gave a brief preview on Saturday, which was exactly what you’d expect: lies and attacks. They resume in the wake of reports that former national security adviser John Bolton’s book recounts a conversation with Donald Trump in which Trump explicitly tied military aid to Ukraine investigating his political opponents—exactly what Trump was impeached for—but it’s unlikely that will change the basic lie-and-attack strategy.

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 10:10:02 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

We now have WH lawyer Eric Herschmann, who will take us to dinner. He’s picking up with Bondi’s massive Burisma lies and says he’s going to go through “additional evidence.”

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 10:11:45 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter Bondi isn’t the first of this crew, btw, to purposely invert the truth about Shokin.  Both Sekulow and Cipollone made similar claims on Saturday, and McCarthy did the same in the House. And now it’ll continue with Hershmann who is also apparently going to try to argue that Ukraine intervened in the 2016 election and Mueller investigation was a Dem witchhunt. Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 10:14:19 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

This is just amazing. Continuing the nepotism is bad argument which is just mind-blowingly brazen. How much has Ivanka made off of Chinese patents in the last three years?

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 10:15:10 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

Oh, right, on Shokin. 

x

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 10:21:57 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

x

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 10:22:48 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

The one name we haven’t heard today? John Bolton.

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 10:27:56 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

One thing they’re inadvertently confirming here, with this extended rant against the Bidens—Trump’s entire concern with “corruption” in Ukraine was about the Bidens. But we’re supposed to believe this has absolutely nothing to do with 2020 and Trump didn’t blackmail Zelensky over it at all.

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 10:33:29 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

Oh god with the “fake” Schiff “transcript” again. They. Have. Nothing. There’s no defense for Trump, none, so they’re just gonna give us a less yelly version of the House maniacs defense.

How desperate are Senate Republicans to silence Bolton? Desperate enough to throw away the republic

Posted on by Kerry Eleveld

Republicans don't give a damn about how dangerous Donald Trump is, or about the fact that he's selling our democracy to whichever foreign governments will help him get reelected. They are absolutely desperate not to hear directly from former national security adviser John Bolton. In fact, nothing could be worse than simply calling Bolton to testify under oath about what he knew and what he heard directly from Trump about withholding aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigations into Trump’s domestic political opponents, the basis for Trump’s impeachment.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said that the Bolton account wasn't worth exploring because it was just a marketing stunt: “This looks like a marketing tactic to sell books is what it looks like to me.” Gee, John, why not find out by calling Bolton in and asking him?

Campaign Action

Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska prefers a statement to actual testimony: “It doesn’t take a subpoena to put out a statement. I think if Ambassador Bolton has something to say he could  do that.” Also, Fischer is pretty sick of being asked about the biggest news of the day and likely even the entire impeachment trial so far: “Do you guys have memos on the same question to ask all the time? Just curious.”

Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri doesn't really care what the facts are—he's in Trump's camp no matter what: "I can’t imagine that anything he would have to say would change the outcome of the final vote."

Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming applied his blindfold to the "so-called blockbuster" Bolton report: "To me, the facts of the case remain the same."

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota echoed Barrasso’s nothing-to-see-here take: “I don’t think it changes the facts. ... I don’t personally see it as a game changer.”

And—wait for it—Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri is confused about what constitutes a first-hand witness: “Well, I don’t know. Is he a firsthand witness? I’m not sure.” LOL. Man, what a complete joker, unworthy of holding elected office—a proud moment for Missouri, no doubt. 

And Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst—who's already declared her undying fealty to Trump and the White House’s distorted version of events—is waiting to hear White House lawyers declare the earth is flat once again so she can agree with them wholeheartedly: “I’m sure they will address this now, and we go from there.”

Yep, that may be the one truthful thing uttered so far by Republicans on Monday morning. The White House counsel will absolutely try to twist the Bolton revelations one way or the other. Asked by a chorus of reporters about the Bolton report Monday morning, Trump was unusually short on words. "False" was all he offered. 

Senate Republicans were heading into an all-caucus meeting just before the impeachment trial resumes, and they will likely come out with a more tailored set of talking points intended to blunt the damage of the bomb that just dropped on them. They will also surely apply immense pressure on Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, the only GOP senator to signal any interest whatsoever in hearing from Bolton. Romney called it “increasingly apparent that it would be important to hear from John Bolton.” That’s what counts for courage these days in the Republican Party.

Impeachment trial resumes with more of Trump’s lie-and-attack defense: Live coverage #3

Posted on by Laura Clawson

White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow, and their whole crew are back to continue the opening arguments in the impeachment defense of Donald Trump. They gave a brief preview on Saturday, which was exactly what you’d expect: lies and attacks. They resume in the wake of reports that former national security adviser John Bolton’s book recounts a conversation with Donald Trump in which Trump explicitly tied military aid to Ukraine investigating his political opponents—exactly what Trump was impeached for—but it’s unlikely that will change the basic lie-and-attack strategy.Impeachment trial resumes with more of Trump's lie-and-attack defense: Live coverage #

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 8:20:29 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

And we’re back. They say they’re going without a break until 6:00 ET. Can’t imagine they have that much, since there’s nothing new here, but if they say so. Sekulow starts with talking about Giuliani. “The role of the president’s lawyer.”

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 8:22:40 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

Hey, how about rather than talking about Giuliani (“national hero, America’s mayor”) he testifies?

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 8:25:06 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

If we have two and a half hours of fluffing Rudy Giuliani, they’ll get a majority voting to end this thing early just to make it stop. Could maybe even be their strategy.

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 8:26:23 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

Never mind that Giuliani has fully admitted there was a Biden investigation quid pro quo.

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 8:28:41 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

Good point. 

x

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 8:36:16 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

Seems like using Rudy was investigating Putin’s theory that it was Ukraine not Russia interfering in the 2016 election—in contravention of every single intelligence agency in the government—is ill-advised.

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 8:38:56 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

And we’re back to Philbin and process, which is turning out to be the last vestige of these scoundrels. Maybe that’s to bore us all into forgetting that Giuliani defense that just happened.

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 8:45:44 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

Philbin is very not happy that the House had public hearings. Also not happy that they had private hearings. You get the sense that they are not down with this whole “Congress has oversight over the executive” bit of the Constitution.

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 8:46:22 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

Where’s Alan Dershowitz? Weren’t we promised Dersh?

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 8:49:48 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

Here we go again—the House didn’t talk to all the witnesses that would exonerate Trump (never mind that Trump obstructed them) but we can’t talk to new witnesses in the Senate because something something due process.

Monday, Jan 27, 2020 · 8:57:07 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

x

(She’s being sarcastic in the “nice argument” part)

Rep. Adam Schiff makes the irrefutable case for Bolton’s testimony

Posted on by Walter Einenkel

Donald Trump impeachment trial manager Rep. Adam Schiff has been so very stolid in his handling of the Republican-sham impeachment circus being orchestrated by the White House and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. As another day of appearances by Trump’s impeachment defense team began, House impeachment managers spoke to reporters in front of the Senate. The last question reporters asked was whether Schiff trusted former national security adviser John Bolton. Schiff used his response to point out the important issue: that the testimony of a witness such as Bolton is vital to a fair trial in the Senate.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: It's not a question of whether I trust John Bolton or the Republican senators [trust] John Bolton, or the Democratic senators. He should be placed under oath. And this is why we think the testimony should be public. It should be live. Let the American people, along with the senators, evaluate John Bolton’s credibility when he testifies, and make their own judgment. But to say that we’re going to blind ourselves from a witness who has so clearly relevant testimony to one of the central most serious allegations against the president, I don't see how you could have a fair trial without testimony like that.

x x YouTube Video

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.

GOP Senators Plan for Acquittal After Witness Vote – Impeachment End Game in Sight

Posted on by Guest Author

If the vote to call witnesses fails, Senate GOP leaders might pursue a quick end to the ongoing impeachment trial.

Vote to Acquit Could Come as Early as Friday

Politico reports that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is mulling over using procedural moves to end debate and vote for Trump’s acquittal. It is expected that the vote to call witnesses will fail and Democrats will be unable to introduce more evidence. If that happens, Senator John Barrasso says the vote to acquit could come as early as Friday.

“The question is going to come to ‘Have you heard enough to make a decision or do you want witnesses?’ If people say, ‘We’re ready to vote,’ we’re going to vote right then,” said Barrasso.

RELATED: Report: Mitch McConnell Plans to Acquit Trump on Impeachment Charges

Politico reports, “Barrasso suggested that an acquittal vote could take place as soon as Friday — if senators don’t agree to subpoena additional witnesses or documentary evidence. Under the organizing resolution that controls the proceedings, Democrats could offer additional motions if the Senate votes down deposing additional witnesses — including former national security adviser John Bolton — but Republicans could then move to shut down debate and call for an up-or-down vote on acquittal.”

“We would,” said Sen. Joni Ernst of the quick acquittal vote. “If it fails, no more witnesses, no more documents. Then we would, I would think … I would imagine that then we would roll into that.”

If Democrats were to try to stall, it would be seen as a partisan attempt to hurt Trump. Democrats might want to go ahead and end this fiasco and risk doing any further damage to their party as the 2020 election nears.

RELATED: After Their Rush to Judgment, Democrats Now Seek to Stall on Impeachment

Please, Just Stop Already

Senate Democrats are already trying to figure out how to outwit McConnell if Republicans pursue this strategy.

“So the rules would have the vote on the articles come up immediately after a failed vote on witnesses. I think we are exploring what our options would be if we lost that witness vote,” said Sen. Chris Murphy according to Politico. “McConnell I would imagine would go straight [to the acquittal vote]. The rules don’t provide for anything.”

After Trump’s lawyer’s presentation, there are supposed to be 16 hours of questions to the House managers that will no doubt be highly scripted by both sides.

And so on, and so on. Can we just end this already?

The post GOP Senators Plan for Acquittal After Witness Vote – Impeachment End Game in Sight appeared first on The Political Insider.