Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, “no pressure” Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have. I agree!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2020
Or he want Gym Jordan to be his lawyer and to be able to call witnesses. He can't decide.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has sent GOP leaders a message that they can’t assume she will try to move through the trial as quickly as possible and ignore the possibility of hearing new evidence. And she’s not alone.
Take Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who is retiring at the end of the year. He says he might vote to hear witnesses “if I needed to. Or I might not. Or I might.”
Trump “indicated consistently for the previous weeks that ... he deserves an opportunity to get a fair hearing, make his case and I think that’s ultimately what will happen,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of GOP leadership.
The ensuing votes could get even more interesting.
“I’m not going to be voting for witnesses prior to the opening arguments. But I presume I’ll be voting for that after,” Romney told reporters.
McConnell privately notes to other senators that his approach doesn’t foreclose the possibility of calling witnesses. But it does allow the Senate to begin the trial and move toward a resolution of the political crisis that has consumed Trump and Capitol Hill for months.
So while McConnell and his deputies appeared to deploy a hard-line whipping strategy last week to lock up the votes to ignore Schumer’s initial demands, GOP leaders have turned to a far softer approach as the impeachment trial prepares to open in the coming days.
Isn't it the Democrats who are split by the primary candidates? While the GOP is walking in lock step behind Trump?
McConnell has to balance his approach to the Trump trial between GOP hard-liners who want an immediate vote to dismiss the case and his more moderate members, such as Collins, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah, who want to retain the ability to call witnesses for additional evidence.
....
“We need to start working together on procedures,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), another lawmaker facing reelection.
Or this?
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.,— a key senator to watch in this process along with four other moderate Republicans: Romney, Collins, Murkowski and Gardner— said Monday evening that he would not vote on a motion to dismiss because he wants to decide if he wants to hear from witnesses.
"I would vote against the motion to dismiss. I think we need to hear the case; Ask your questions. Then as they did in the Clinton impeachment we ought to decide then whether we need to hear from additional witnesses or need additional documents. So a motion to dismiss is not consistent with hearing the case," Alexander told NBC News.
There is little appetite from politically vulnerable Republicans to cast a vote that looks like they are dismissing the charges against the president, which is what a motion to dismiss would do.
"It's pretty clear to me that this is no longer about convicting and removing Donald Trump as president. This is about Chuck Schumer getting 2020 Republican incumbents in two tough voting situations. So I think recognizing that that's his goal, I think it won't surprise you that we're thinking about that too, and how to avoid that as much as possible," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and McConnell confidante said.
Except that motion to dismiss was supposed to be filed by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-MO. That Chuck Schumer's a right clever fella, but I don't think he's that clever.
Really startin' to wonder about the bonding strength of the Republican hive mind. Also starting to wonder just what it is Nancy Pelosi "lost" by holding on to the Articles of Impeachment as long as she did. No Democrat in Congress is speaking against her at the moment....
No comments:
Post a Comment