Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Liz

McConnell Doesn’t Have The Votes To Block Witnesses Yet —

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Liz

McConnell Doesn’t Have The Votes To Block Witnesses Yet — But It Sounds Like He Will By Friday

 

HotAir

Allahpundit

Posted at 8:41 pm on January 28, 2020

 

Excerpt:

 

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.

 

They seem to be calculating that they’d rather get torched by nine months of Democratic “COVER UP!” attack ads than put Bolton on the stand, which is cynical but rational. Those “cover up” ads are coming no matter what, after all. They could call Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, even Giuliani, and so long as they vote to acquit Dems will accuse them of being Trump’s co-conspirators. And it may well be that Republicans will suffer less politically from a quick acquittal without witnesses than they would if they called Bolton, he gave damning testimony, and then they voted to acquit anyway. True, Bolton’s probably going to give damning “testimony” to the media anyway after his book comes out. But that can’t be avoided. Trump created this problem for his Senate caucus; there’s no way out of it without some political pain.

 

Maybe an obviously sham process aimed at ducking material witnesses is less painful than a pretend-diligent process in which the verdict is assured no matter what any witness says. It’s certainly debatable.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said the vote total wasn’t where it needed to be on blocking witnesses or documents, these people said. He had a card with “yes,” “no,” and “maybes” marked on it, apparently a whip count, but he didn’t show it to senators.

 

Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who face competitive races in the fall, warned colleagues in the meeting against backing more witnesses, people familiar with the matter said. The senators said a drawn-out trial could lead to more Democratic attacks and hurt their re-election chances, the people said. None of the three senators’ offices immediately responded to requests for comment…

 

The reports of Mr. Bolton’s account unsettled Republican senators and bolstered the odds of a successful vote to hear further witness testimony. Several on-the-fence Republican senators said Mr. Bolton’s claims strengthened the case for further witness testimony, while the number of senators the White House believes may vote for more testimony ticked up.

That sounds pretty dicey! But other reporters say otherwise, sensing far more confidence about the big vote on Friday:

 

*snip*

 

Full Article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

Why is blocking witnesses a thing that we want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liz

Why is blocking witnesses a thing that we want?

I may be oversimplifying it, but I think most of us conservatives are more than ready for this farce to be over, rather than dragging it out as the dems will undoubtedly attempt to do. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

The video of Bolton saying after the Ukraine call that it was great and cordial and spoke of advances in battling corruption in Ukraine and how the president of Ukraine had a great meeting with president Trump .... totally takes the wind out of trying to claim anything else. Bolton was relaxed, was not pressured into saying anything he didn’t want to say.

 

Another made-up headline like with Kavanaugh, but under scrutiny becomes “oh never mind”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeansToTheRight

I’m not for dragging it out, but I’m leaning towards Bolton testifying and delivering nothing for the Dems. I think there is probably nuanced “smoke” in the book that when probed by Trumps legal team will prove to be steam from boiled water as opposed to any smoke. There is no way that Bolton will testify how the Dems dream he might. That just ain’t happening. But it’s the only string of hope they have left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

I may be oversimplifying it, but I think most of us conservatives are more than ready for this farce to be over, rather than dragging it out as the dems will undoubtedly attempt to do. :shrug:

 

I agree, we're tired of this manufactured scandal schitt, however, to call witnesses to put this crap to rest irrevocably, seems to be the smarter move, so that we don't play into the leftard agenda that suggests that to put this to rest quickly is a means of hiding evidence that Trump did something illegal, WHICH HE DID NOT DO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

It won’t be as simple as “just let Bolton testify”. Remember who we’re dealing with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tikk

Why is blocking witnesses a thing that we want?

 

Oh I agree. However when the only witnesses that are available are from one side. That could be a problem. Which seems the case.

 

ETA:

 

Witness A states they witnessed a crime by someone at this date at this time.

Witness B states that at that date and this time, Witness A was somewhere else at that date and this time.

Witness A is permitted to testify.

Witness B is not.

 

That's a problem.

Edited by Tikk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

Oh I agree. However when the only witnesses that are available are from one side. That could be a problem. Which seems the case.

 

ETA:

 

Witness A states they witnessed a crime by someone at this date at this time.

Witness B states that at that date and this time, Witness A was somewhere else at that date and this time.

Witness A is permitted to testify.

Witness B is not.

 

That's a problem.

 

Does the punishment for perjury apply when testifying in this sort of case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tikk

Does the punishment for perjury apply when testifying in this sort of case?

I dunno, ask Lois Lerner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

I dunno, ask Lois Lerner

She's not gonna be a credible source given that she's protected by the corrupt asshats still inhabiting the swamp...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL

Imagine a trial in any other court than the United States Senate. The prosecution has rested. During the defense, the prosecution starts making noises about calling additional witnesses for the prosecution...witnesses that they CHOSE NOT TO CALL during the preparation for their case. Witnesses that, even if they are called and even if they say exactly what the prosecution thinks they will say, that will show nothing more than a difference of policy position with the defendent.

 

Are those witnesses going to be allowed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erp

I just wonder if some Dems know how badly they are being played?

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schiff-bolton-lack-credibility-senate-impeachment-trial.amp

 

Fine, let Bolton speak. Then, let Schiff speak and explain his earlier comments about Bolton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Currahee!

Imagine a trial in any other court than the United States Senate. The prosecution has rested. During the defense, the prosecution starts making noises about calling additional witnesses for the prosecution...witnesses that they CHOSE NOT TO CALL during the preparation for their case. Witnesses that, even if they are called and even if they say exactly what the prosecution thinks they will say, that will show nothing more than a difference of policy position with the defendent.

 

Are those witnesses going to be allowed?

 

And going a little further than Jerry......it would be unconstitutional.....calling witnesses and allowing further documents is not within the power of the Senate....that is the sole and complete job of the House and their chosen managers....in this instance the Democrat house wants to bully the Senate into getting a further bite at the apple. They could have subpoenaed Bolton Or anyone they liked and they didn’t because Trump would have challenged them in court.....as is his right.......and they didn’t want to take the time....remember Trump was a “threat to the Democracy”..... I think this whole exercise goes back 21 years to Clinton....the Democrats have never gotten over that asterisk by Billy’s name....even thought he committed perjury and suborned perjury.....and lost his law license as well.

 

So here we are....if the Republicans cave to witnesses then prepare yourselves for every Republican president from now on to be impeached by a Democrat controlled house on “bull Schiff” charges like the ones Trump is facing today. Remember the House Democrats charges are NOT criminal......because no criminal act was committed....no matter how they try to spin it.

 

After almost four years of constant attacks from those on the left on a day-by-day basis, I truly don’t see how “Orange Man Bad” does it. I’m 65 years old and have been involved in politics for most of my life(lost 10 cents on the Kennedy-Nixon election) and I haven NEVER seen a whirlwind president like this. As Lincoln said about a hard headed general named

Grant.... “ I like him...he fights!”

 

I pray for the health and safety of President Trump every day....

 

Once someone said about President Teddy Roosevelt.... “ I’m glad I was alive when he was President”.

 

I feel the same way about Donald Trump.

 

Next November is going to be great.....get out and vote....get your friends to vote....take no chances.....don’t care about the weather.....watch the other side.....I don’t trust them....they’ve stolen elections before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51

Why is blocking witnesses a thing that we want?

 

I can think of a number of reasons:

 

1. The impeachment is technically/legally flawed. Why give it any credence?

 

2. The Biden Ukraine transgressions should be investigated in a separate Senate process. Don't muddy the weak impeachment -- let it fail on it's own lack of merit and evidence.

 

3. It's a horrible precedent to set for the entire impeachment process. Constitutionally evidence discovery is not the responsibility of the Senate.

 

Etc., etc., ec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erp

I can think of a number of reasons:

 

1. The impeachment is technically/legally flawed. Why give it any credence?

 

2. The Biden Ukraine transgressions should be investigated in a separate Senate process. Don't muddy the weak impeachment -- let it fail on it's own lack of merit and evidence.

 

3. It's a horrible precedent to set for the entire impeachment process. Constitutionally evidence discovery is not the responsibility of the Senate.

 

Etc., etc., ec.

 

All valid points. Number three being the most important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrimV

Why is blocking witnesses a thing that we want?

 

It reduces the chance of reliving the Kavanaugh circus, with Democrats introducing last minute "bombshell witnesses" with zero credibility.

 

A number of Democrats already admitted the goal is to hurt Trump's 2020 reelection, not remove him from office. The longer this Clown Show lasts, the more opportunities they get.

 

Lame ass Lefties will shriek "Cover Up!" regardless, so Republicans earn nothing by compromising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13
Why is blocking witnesses a thing that we want?<br />

 

Let's say they allow witnesses. The Senate subpoena's John Bolton. Is he going to show up tomorrow or next week and testify......or is the Executive Branch going to do what it should and block him from testifying until a court steps in and mediates it? The House had every right to subpoena John Bolton and collect the information that they now want the Senate to do. They chose not to and they rushed to impeachment. Let them dance with the information they brought to the dance.

 

If they allow witnesses, this will last quite a bit longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

Heard on the radio this morning - might've been Erick Erickson - that McConnell now DOES have the votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

I can think of a number of reasons:

 

1. The impeachment is technically/legally flawed. Why give it any credence?

 

2. The Biden Ukraine transgressions should be investigated in a separate Senate process. Don't muddy the weak impeachment -- let it fail on it's own lack of merit and evidence.

 

3. It's a horrible precedent to set for the entire impeachment process. Constitutionally evidence discovery is not the responsibility of the Senate.

 

Etc., etc., ec.

This

 

It reduces the chance of reliving the Kavanaugh circus, with Democrats introducing last minute "bombshell witnesses" with zero credibility.

 

A number of Democrats already admitted the goal is to hurt Trump's 2020 reelection, not remove him from office. The longer this Clown Show lasts, the more opportunities they get.

 

Lame ass Lefties will shriek "Cover Up!" regardless, so Republicans earn nothing by compromising.

And this

 

Let's say they allow witnesses. The Senate subpoena's John Bolton. Is he going to show up tomorrow or next week and testify......or is the Executive Branch going to do what it should and block him from testifying until a court steps in and mediates it? The House had every right to subpoena John Bolton and collect the information that they now want the Senate to do. They chose not to and they rushed to impeachment. Let them dance with the information they brought to the dance.

 

If they allow witnesses, this will last quite a bit longer.

And this

 

Heard on the radio this morning - might've been Erick Erickson - that McConnell now DOES have the votes.

And definitely hopefully THIS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

BTW, I’m sensing the shifting back to Republican favor. NPR this morning had a tiny statement in the news segment that “Chuckie Schukie is not confident” (of course no republican got to say their thing, in analogy to the House Imp Inq), and the after-news four topics did not include anything at all about impeachment.

 

They’ve given up. Well NPR has at least. I must say, seeing Schiff lose will be a moment to remember and celebrate! It’ll rival, and in some ways even pass, the Hillary loss. It doesn’t get much better than these two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian

I can tell you one witness I want to hear from, the 18th witness transcripts from the House inquiry that Schiff is keeping hidden, you know, the IG testimony about the whole start of this witch hunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

BTW, I’m sensing the shifting back to Republican favor. NPR this morning had a tiny statement in the news segment that “Chuckie Schukie is not confident” (of course no republican got to say their thing, in analogy to the House Imp Inq), and the after-news four topics did not include anything at all about impeachment.

 

They’ve given up. Well NPR has at least. I must say, seeing Schiff lose will be a moment to remember and celebrate! It’ll rival, and in some ways even pass, the Hillary loss. It doesn’t get much better than these two.

 

Believe this, this isn't the last we'll hear from that lying sack of Schiff.

 

What sucks is that - as it looks right at the moment - we may lose one Republican Senate seat this fall: the seat formerly held by Johnny Isaakson (R-GA) until he retired this year and now held by Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) who was appointed by Governor Kemp to replace Isaakson until the election. Rep. Doug Collins has also jumped in for that seat. Which means that on the ballot for that Senate seat will be one Democrat and 2 Republicans, so you KNOW what's likely to happen.

 

What the H-E-Double-Toothpicks are these people thinking???

 

If we lose a seat and the Dems don't otherwise get trounced for their shenanigans, this may embolden them enough to make the next 2 or 4 years deja vu all over again.

 

:hairpull:

Edited by Dean Adam Smithee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

If we lose a seat and the Dems don't otherwise get trounced for their shenanigans, this may embolden them enough to make the next 2 or 4 years deja vu all over again.

 

Oh c'mon, you know the Democrats will continue their lies and BS and outright treason NO MATTER WHAT happens in November. It's their whole thing, their "game plan", their bread & butter, their stock in trade.

 

<_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erp

Believe this, this isn't the last we'll hear from that lying sack of Schiff.

 

What sucks is that - as it looks right at the moment - we may lose one Republican Senate seat this fall: the seat formerly held by Johnny Isaakson (R-GA) until he retired this year and now held by Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) who was appointed by Governor Kemp to replace Isaakson until the election. Which means that on the ballot for that seat will be one Democrat and 2 Republicans, so you KNOW what's likely to happen.

 

What the H-E-Double-Toothpicks are these people thinking???

 

If we lose a seat and the Dems don't otherwise get trounced for their shenanigans, this may embolden them enough to make the next 2 or 4 years deja vu all over again.

 

:hairpull:

Have the Dems coalesced behind one candidate now? And if this is what happens, no one is to blame but Doug Collins. He should not have tossed his hat in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...