Collins earns a new nickname in Moscow Mitch’s impeachment game: Sidekick Sue

There's a new nickname for Maine Sen. Susan Collins floating around the internet: It’s #SidekickSue, in recognition that she's Moscow Mitch McConnell’s most valuable player when he's trying to fix a Senate vote. That the fix was in (and that she had a key role in it) was glaringly apparently Thursday night in the choreographed release of statements from Collins and Sen. Lamar Alexander regarding whether they wanted to compel additional witnesses and testimony in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. (Collins said yea, while Alexander said nay.)

The final cynical fillip came Friday morning from Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the other reliable player in McConnell's game, with her duplicitous embrace of the cover-up with crocodile tears: "It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed." But she did her job for McConnell, and she's providing the cover Collins needs. It's not going to work this time.

The jig has been up for Collins since she betrayed every principle she previously touted and voted in favor of Brett Kavanaugh’s conformation to the Supreme Court. "Just as we've known she would, Collins announced her support for witnesses only when the votes were fixed to block witnesses and rig the trial to cover-up the corruption of Donald Trump," Marie Follayttar, co-director of Mainers for Accountable Leadership, told Common Dreams. "We see Collins for who she is—Sidekick Sue to Moscow Mitch and a corrupt and despotic Trump."

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!

Rand Paul Says President Trump Would Be ‘Going Against The Law If He Didn’t Investigate The Bidens’

Republican Senator Rand Paul asserts that President Donald Trump had a legal obligation to investigate potential corruption committed by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

Paul appeared on Fox News Thursday night program “The Story with Martha MacCallum” after making news earlier in the day by reading a question that had been censored by Chief Justice John Roberts on the Senate floor. Paul’s question cited the “original legislation” providing money to Ukraine as having included a provision to “investigate corruption.”

RELATED: Ted Cruz: Democrats Made ‘Very Serious Strategic Error,’ Hunter Biden Testimony Now Needed

Rand Paul: Trump NOT Asking Ukraine to Investigate Bidens Would Be Breaking the Law

“Did you think there was anything wrong with the phone call?” asked host MacCallum. “Did you see it as a request for a political favor in the coming election against somebody who is likely running against the president?”

“The original legislation that we gave money to Ukraine said that the president has to investigate corruption,” Paul responded. “And so I think there is a lot of evidence that the Bidens are corrupt and that there was corruption, so he would actually be going against the law if he didn’t investigate the Bidens. I think he did what was completely in compliance with the law and this is just partisanship thing gone amok, and ultimately the Democrats are going to regret they did this because they are making it very, very hard for the country to have anything that we can do together.”

Paul was likely referring to a 1998 treaty that former president Bill Clinton signed with Ukraine that called for “Mutual Legal Assistance” to investigate corruption. Fox News host Jesse Watters brought up this fact during a debate back in September with fellow “The Five” co-host Juan Williams, saying that Trump had a “firm legal underpinning” to pursue an investigation into the Bidens.

RELATED: Schiff: Calling Hunter Biden to Testify an ‘Abuse’ of Impeachment Process

Paul an Ally of Trump

Rand Paul has consistently opposed the Democrats impeachment scam, including questioning whether Donald Trump’s enemies have conspired against the President long before the Ukraine phone call was a twinkle in liberal eyes.

Not to mention, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Joe and Hunter Biden are corrupt!

The post Rand Paul Says President Trump Would Be ‘Going Against The Law If He Didn’t Investigate The Bidens’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

New Bolton revelation: ‘The kind of bombshell Mitch McConnell has been afraid of all along’

Former national security adviser John Bolton’s new revelation about White House counsel Pat Cipollone being in on Trump’s Ukraine conspiracy as early as May 2019 is dropping like a bomb on Washington. "This is the kind of bombshell that Mitch McConnell has been afraid of all along," reporter Kasie Hunt said on MSNBC.

Indeed, a day that seemed almost certainly headed toward a no-witness vote and fast acquittal just in time for Donald Trump’s victory laps on Fox News and at next week’s State of the Union address now holds a slew of question marks. Hill reporters are now musing that the Senate trial could go into next week, “maybe even mid-week,” tweeted Politico’s John Bresnahan. Trump’s already in damage control, tweeting out fantasies like a drunken sailor on hallucinogens. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski still hasn’t announced her vote on witnesses, which is bad news for McConnell because she hasn’t owed the GOP caucus anything since 2010, when she won reelection as a write-in candidate. Murkowski’s now a “no” on witnesses.

As Americans, we should still be rooting for witnesses. The citizenry deserves to hear from Bolton in his own words, among others.

But as Democrats, we can also feast on the political peril this represents for Republicans, who have now admitted that Trump did everything House managers said he did and that they just don’t care. As commentators on MSNBC absorbed the new Bolton bombshell, they almost unanimously declared it an electoral disaster in the making for Senate Republicans, especially given where public opinion has been on witnesses all along. 

"This makes that vote against witnesses political suicide,” former GOP operative Nicolle Wallace observed, adding, “I hope they take it."

Even former Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill was bullish on the prospects for Democrats. “If these Republicans shut this trial down and say, No more,” she said, “it is a great gift to the Democrats in November.”

As Sen. Kamala Harris noted before the news dropped, "There can be no true exoneration if there's not been a fair trial. Period." Now more than ever, Senate Republicans are also on trial. At least some of them seem to know it.

Impeachment trial/Republican cover-up reaches key decision point: Live coverage #2

After a day of procedural debate and voting, six days of opening arguments, and two days of question and answer, the impeachment trial of Donald Trump could conclude Friday with debate followed by Republicans voting to end the trial and cover up Trump’s abuses of power. But Democrats will be keeping up the fight for a fair trial.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 8:44:01 PM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

Ongoing coverage can be found here.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:11:35 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Crow hands off to Hakeem Jeffries, who quickly pulls up a statement from Fiona Hill as part of pointing out the deep involvement of Mick Mulvaney—and reminding the senators of that “drug deal” quote from Bolton. This followed by a clip showing Sondland being asked about that deal. Sondland says “Yeah, a lot of people were aware of it.” Jefferies returns to the “everyone was in the loop” statement that ties Bolton’s manuscript claims to statements in the investigation.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:13:35 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jeffries making it clear again that the “perfect call” was not a stand alone event. It was part of a larger conversation conducted by Giuliani, Sondland, Volker and others that started well before that call.

Jeffries calls for “let’s question Mick Mulvaney under oath.” Which, I think, is the first time today there’s been a direct call for the testimony of anyone other than Bolton.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:16:28 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

jeffries plays an extended version of Mulvaney’s press conference statement, framing things both before and after the statements that have been shown in previous clips. Which — hopefully — gnaws away at the claims Mulvaney was either confused or misquoted.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:21:05 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jeffries address the “policy disagreement” claims from Trump’s defense by repeating their own statements that Giuliani wasn’t involved in policy.

Jeffries also renews the call for Blair and Duffey — the officials who actually had to put their names on letters to DOD and others in withholding the aid. Duffey also authored notes making it clear that he and other officials at OMB were aware the hold was illegal, and instructed people to stay quiet about it.

So the House mangers are where they started in the first day of debate: Bolton, Mulvaney, Duffey, and Blair. Those are the witnesses they are requesting.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:26:21 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jeffries doing a good job, again, of framing the gaps in our knowledge of what happened, how they seem to point to nothing other than malfeasance, and inviting senators to solve the mystery. He’s doing a good job of making just getting answers on OMB emails seem like something exciting and interesting.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:29:08 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Jeffries hands over to Zoe Lofgren.

Lofgren returns to the focus on the need for documents, speaking directly to the documents that are mentioned in testimony.

Lofgren: “But we haven’t seen any of them. I think it’s a cover-up.”

The House managers are making the same requests that they made coming in: four witnesses and specific documents. It’s hard for even Trump’s team to claim that the House is on a fishing expedition for whole new theories of the case … but they’ve made those claims, and will again in a few minutes.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:34:09 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Lofgren reminds the Senate again that depositions and documents are completely within their control, that they can designate Roberts to adjudicate issues of privilege, that the House team has agreed to deal with witnesses and documents within a week. And that Trump is “the architect of the very delay” that’s being used as a threat to the Senate.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:35:31 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Lofgren notes that Bolton, as a private citizen, is free to talk about any conversation he had with Trump that doesn’t include classified information. And that if Trump did try to invoke executive privilege “he would fail.”

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:37:31 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Lofgren states — accurately — that Trump can’t deny the statements from Bolton, then use executive privilege to prevent Bolton from defending himself. Trump’s own morning statement is an argument that Bolton should be allowed to speak.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:38:54 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff steps up to bring this home.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:40:19 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff: “We agree with the president’s counsel on this much: this will set a new precedent. … if someone believes they would benefit from a trial with no witnesses, they will cite the trial of Donald J Trump.”

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:42:53 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff makes a clear argument that simply allowing Trump’s obstruction to stand is an abdication of the impeachment power, as well as Congress’ oversight authority. Trump will have been told that concealing evidence is an acceptable tactic.

Schiff: “Our country will no no longer have a government with three coequal branches.”

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:43:52 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff: “No matter what you decide to do here, no matter if you decide to let witnesses tell their story … The facts will come out. … Witnesses will tell their story in books and in hearings … the facts will come out.”

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:48:18 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff once again giving a pitch to simple honesty and common sense — everyone is going to learn the truth anyway. Why not ask while that truth can do some good? Why not show the public that Senate Republicans care about the truth?

Schiff: “A trial without witnesses is no trial at all. You either have a trial, or you don’t.” 

Schiff closes this section with a Adams quote about the importance of a fair trial. 

“Only Donald Trump, only Donald Trump of any defendant in America, can insist on a trial without witnesses or documents.”

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:49:12 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff: “The importance of a fair trial here is not less than any courtroom in America, it is greater than every courtroom in America. Because we set the example.”

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:51:04 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff wraps up his call eloquently, and McConnell calls for a short recess before Trump’s defense makes its statement on witnesses.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:55:03 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

x

Impeachment trial/Republican cover-up reaches key decision point: Live coverage #1

After a day of procedural debate and voting, six days of opening arguments, and two days of question and answer, the impeachment trial of Donald Trump could conclude Friday with debate followed by Republicans voting to end the trial and cover up Trump’s abuses of power. But Democrats will be keeping up the fight for a fair trial.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:17:07 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

As they get underway this afternoon, this heartrending post comes from Jerry Nadler.

x

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:12:16 PM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

Ongoing coverage can be found here.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:19:25 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Lisa Murkowski is reported to have announced that she is also a “no” on witnesses.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:22:47 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Adam Schiff opens the day, and will argue the House’s position first, while leaving some time to respond to the statement from Trump’s legal team.

Schiff moves directly to the new information from Bolton’s book, and pauses for effect before naming Pat Cipollone. Schiff calls out Cipollone for his claims that the House managers were suppressing facts when he was suppressing the fact that he was involved.

Schiff: “The facts will come out. They will come out.”

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:23:51 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

x

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:25:30 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Schiff: “Let’s find out who is telling the truth. Let’s put John Bolton under oath. As Mr. Cipollone said, let’s make sure that all the facts come out.” 

Schiff hands off to Val Demings. 

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:27:48 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Val Demings restates that the “evidence in the House record is sufficient to convict [Trump] on both counts, more than sufficient. But that’s not how trials work.”

Renews the call for witnesses, as in other cases. And reminds all the people in the room who have been complaining about precedent and tradition that there has never been an impeachment — not of a president, not of a judge — conducted without witnesses.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:29:55 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Demings lets emotion slip into her voice as she warns that allowing Trump to remain in office is giving him permission to undermine America’s security and election.

Demings: “Is this a fair trial? Is this a fair trial? Is this a fair trial without witnesses and documents? The answer is unequivocally no!”

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:32:08 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

If the statements from Alexander and Murkowski were not already enough of an indictment of the process in the Senate, Marco Rubio’s is genuinely worse.

Rubio admits that the House made its case and Trump is guilty. He admits that Trump’s actions are impeachable. And he still isn’t going to vote for even bringing in witnesses.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:34:28 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Demings: “Will you let the American people hear, simply hear, the evidence?” Reminds the Senate that when the House managers asked for Bolton’s testimony last week, they did not know what they would say. “Now we know why.”

Not mentioned in Deming’s statement — Cipollone was sitting there arguing against Bolton’s testimony when he definitely knew what Bolton would say.

Demings: “The American people clearly know a fair trial when they see one. Large majorities of the American people want to see witnesses in this trial.”

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:36:55 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Demings reminds the Senate of the deal that Schiff proposed over the last two days, offering to bind the House team to an agreement to limit witnesses and the time of depositions. Her plea here is one of the best moments of this process. She’s pouring her heart into it.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:38:59 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Demings: “The Senate does not just vote on impeachments. It does not just debate them. The Constitution demands that the Senate try impeachments. And a trial requires witnesses.”

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:40:58 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Demings hands over to Rep. Sylvia Garcia.

Garcia opens, as have others, by thanking Senators for listening. Though the evidence that Republicans have listened seems to be scant.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:43:01 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Garcia points out that, as a lawyer or a judge, she’s never run into a situation in which the defendant is claiming there is no evidence, while acting to suppress all the evidence. She speaks directly to the subpoenas for documents, which are not protected by executive privilege, but have also been subject to a blanket cover-up.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:45:50 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Ha. Garcia gets in a mention of “those in the room where it happened” a double-play on Hamilton and Bolton’s book. She plays a clip of Cipollone demanding “all of the facts.”

Cipollone: “Who doesn’t want to talk about the facts? Who doesn’t want to talk about the facts? Impeachment shouldn’t be a shell game. They should give you all the facts.”

Garcia digs Cipollone for misquoting witnesses and leaving out parts of statements in an attempt to generate exonnerating evidence. 

Garcia: “Let’s be very clear. We are not the ones hiding the facts … That’s why we are the ones standing up here saying don’t allow [Trump] to silence the witnesses and hide this evidence.”

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:47:33 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Garcia has clearly read the statements from Rubio and Alexander, as she quotes some of their reasoning while calling for witnesses. This is also Garcia’s best moment of the whole trial. 

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:49:06 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

x

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:51:23 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Both Garcia and Demings have hammered the same points. Nixon and Clinton didn’t just allow their closest advisers to testify, they instructed them to do so. Trump is ordering his advisers not to appear … which definitely can be taken as an indication of what those advisers would say.

Garcia: “There’s not much that the American people agree on these days, but they do agree [that this trial should have witnesses].”

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:54:35 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Garcia hands over to Jason Crow.

Crow reminds the Senate that the House managers asked, not for dozens of witnesses, or unlimited witnesses, but four witnesses. And plays another Cipollone clip with the man who was in the room saying “Not a single witness” testified that there was a connection between military assistance and investigations.

Crow: “Denials in 280 characters is not the same as testimony under oath.” 

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:55:01 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

x

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 6:56:49 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Crow brings up the statement that “everyone was in the loop.” So far, the House managers seem to be mostly tiptoeing around the real implications of Cipollone’s involvement. I suspect that in part that’s because this information just landed on the a half-hour before the hearing began.

I also suspect Schiff will not be silent when he wraps this up.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:00:48 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Crow makes a nice point that Bolton was mentioned as someone who was trusted by Ukrainian officials. Bolton’s actual role here is something that Americans still don’t understand. It increasingly seems that Bolton was put in the center between a defense of national security and the plot that Trump and Giuliani were directing. There really does seem to be a lot more to come out to describe the whole shape of what happened.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 7:02:43 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Crow spends some time bringing things back to the role of Giuliani. Whose name should have been heard more often in this week. 

It would be interesting to go back over the week to see if Trump’s team has ever said anything about Giuliani not in response to a direct question.

Murkowski embraces the cover-up. In her own words, ‘There will be no fair trial in the Senate’

Sen. Lisa Murkowski has made the decision we all knew was coming: She’ll vote no on having witnesses in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. Murkowski’s reasoning for her vote is extra special. The House, she said, “chose to send articles of impeachment that are rushed and flawed. I carefully considered the need for additional witnesses and documents, to cure the shortcomings of its process, but ultimately decided that I will vote against considering motions to subpoena.” Blah blah blah, I’m a Republican posturing about being moderate when the fix was always in.

Here's where it gets ridiculous, though. “I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything,” Murkowski said. “It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed.”

There will be no fair trial … and Lisa Murkowski is here to ensure it. As an institution, the Congress has failed … and Lisa Murkowski is not going to think too deeply about her own role in that.

Bolton’s book says Trump impeachment attorney Pat Cipollone was directly involved in Ukraine plot

As the Senate sits down to go through four hours of debate over hearing witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, The New York Times has released more information on what’s contained in former national security adviser John Bolton’s upcoming book. That information includes how Donald Trump ordered Bolton to squeeze Ukrainian officials for damaging slander of political opponents two months earlier than was known. Trump ordered Bolton to call Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shortly after his election and tell the incoming leader to meet with Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, specifically to orchestrate an announcement of investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden.

And just to cap off a week in which Republican senators admitted that they believe that Trump is guilty but aren’t going to do anything about it, it turns out that one of the conspirators in Trump’s Ukraine scheme has been sitting right on the Senate floor through the entire not-a-trial. Bolton’s book says that White House counsel Pat Cipollone was in the room when Trump gave Bolton his marching orders to extort lies from Zelensky.

Friday, Jan 31, 2020 · 5:44:21 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Donald Trump has made a response to the claim, saying that he “never instructed John Bolton to set up a meeting for Rudy Giuliani” while at the same time calling Giuliani “one of the greatest corruption fighters in America.” He also mentions that the meeting never happened.

Which might be because Bolton says he never made the call Trump demanded.

The Times says that the order from Trump came at a meeting attended by Bolton, Cipollone, and acting chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney’s involvement in the Ukraine plot has been evident from the beginning, as he directed the withholding of funds from Ukraine through the Office of Management and Budget. Bolton had previously referred to the whole affair as a “drug deal” dreamed up by Mulvaney.

But the claim that Cipollone—officially the lead counsel in Trump’s impeachment defense—was directly involved in the events at the core of the case should be explosive. Cipollone has been standing in front of the Senate denying that there are firsthand witnesses available, when he himself is a firsthand witness. He’s been denying facts of which he is a fact witness.

His direct involvement in the Ukraine plot should be an enormous siren sounding through the Senate proceedings. In legal terms alone, it’s indefensible.

However, since Republicans have already determined that the House team has proved its case, and they’re sticking with the Dershowitz Defense that Trump can do as he pleases … it’s not at all clear that learning that Trump’s lead counsel has been directly, repeatedly lying and covering up information right to the Senate’s face will have even a tiny effect.

Democrats Show Frustration at Losing to Trump, Again

By David Kamioner | January 31, 2020

Two moments on Thursday were indicative of reality slowly, finally, grabbing hold of the Democrats and bringing them face to face with their impending defeat in the impeachment trial of President Trump.

The first was when Senator Elizabeth Warren called the credibility of Chief Justice John Roberts into disrepute in a question she posed from the floor of the Senate.

The question he had to read from his perch as presiding officer was, “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?”

RELATED: Impeachment Trial Could Be Over Friday Night

Roberts sighed and was visibly peeved. He must have thought: Really?! From her?!

For a lying race hustler like Warren to impugn this guy was too much even for some Democrats, many of whom who looked thunderstruck from the floor of the Senate.

Adam Schiff quickly took the podium and complimented the Chief Justice. Why did she do it? Pure bitterness. She’s in her own little fuhrerbunker as her campaign and this impeachment collapse around her.

So she does the only thing she has proven adept at, she opens her yap and, this time indirectly, says something crashingly dumb.

The second incident was even better, schadenfreude wise.

RELATED: Bolton Video Guts Democrat Witness Strategy

The last question of the night was upon the Democrats and Schiff was preening and getting ready to answer it. Just after Roberts reads it and Schiff starts to rise, Nadler jumps up and rushes the podium.

Schiff calls, “Jerry, Jerry, Jerry,” trying to call him back and take the closing moment for himself. But no. Nadler holds fast and, with GOP open laughter permeating the Senate and Schiff sitting there like a gutted fish, Nadler throws a tantrum a second grader would be embarrassed to have engaged in.

And thus the night ends as Schiff is denied his final chance at lying.

Now, that’s entertainment!

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Republican Lawmaker Launches Bill To Officially Classify CNN And Washington Post As ‘Fake News’
Fox Refuses To Air Super Bowl Ad About Abortion Survivors – Greenlights Commercial Featuring Drag Queens
‘The View’ Goes Off The Rails As Impeachment Lawyer Alan Dershowitz ‘Triggers’ Hosts By Defending Trump

The post Democrats Show Frustration at Losing to Trump, Again appeared first on The Political Insider.