Althouse: "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday rejected calls from his Democratic counterpart to subpoena new witnesses in a Senate trial of President Trump, calling it 'a strange request at this juncture.'"

December 17, 2019

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday rejected calls from his Democratic counterpart to subpoena new witnesses in a Senate trial of President Trump, calling it 'a strange request at this juncture.'"

"McConnell was responding to a letter from Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) seeking testimony from senior administration officials, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who declined to appear in House impeachment proceedings."

WaPo reports the unsurprising news.

79 comments:

Skeptical Voter said...: Dear Senator Schumer. Chuck you! Your pals in the lower house messed this one up good and proper and I'm not going to let you try to paper over the deficiencies.

Signed, Your Colleague McTurtle; 12/17/19, 10:15 AM
John Borell said...: Hahahahahahahaha.

My comment is as juvenile as Schumer’s request.; 12/17/19, 10:17 AM
eric said...: It's all political theater and somehow the Democrats, for once, have managed to look worse than the Republicans.; 12/17/19, 10:20 AM
jnseward said...: The House held a trial in which only prosecution witnesses were allowed. It is now the turn of the defense. The Senate should only allow defense witnesses to be called.; 12/17/19, 10:21 AM
Wince said...: I assume Schumer is raising this prophylactically to delegitimize senate Republicans calling their witnesses like "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella and the Bidens.

Essentially Jennifer Rubin's "Sham trial" strategy.; 12/17/19, 10:23 AM
WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...: "We don’t create impeachments, Mr. President. We judge them.

"The House chose this road. It is their duty to investigate. It's their duty to meet the very high bar for undoing a national election. As Speaker Pelosi herself once said, it is the House’s obligation to, quote, 'build an ironclad case to act.'

"If they fail, they fail. It is not the Senate’s job to leap into the breach and search desperately for ways to get to guilty. That would hardly be impartial justice."

— Sen. McConnell; 12/17/19, 10:23 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: Shorter Schumer: "You can't have sham proceedings in the Senate! Only we can have sham proceedings!"; 12/17/19, 10:23 AM
Otto said...: Republicans get smart, don't play by The Deomcrats and media rules. Grow a set. Remember what they did to Sessions that eventually gave us the special counsel.; 12/17/19, 10:25 AM
Dude1394 said...: Pound sand schemer.; 12/17/19, 10:28 AM
Francisco D said...: I assume Schumer is raising this prophylactically to delegitimize senate Republicans calling their witnesses like "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella and the Bidens.

As I stated in an earlier post, Schumer wants to open the door to all kinds of witnesses, not just direct reports to the POTUS. If that happened, we would see several CBF-type witnesses appear and the Kavanaugh debacle repeated. It would be chaotic. The relevant testimony would be ignored for the spectacle.

Schumer's ploy is to keep the Republicans from calling Biden, Schiff and Ciamarella to the stand where they will all take the Fifth.; 12/17/19, 10:39 AM
Qwinn said...: I am sad. The Senate SHOULD call witnesses.

Like the Bidens. And Schiff.

I don't see where we'll ever get a better opportunity that the media can't just ignore.; 12/17/19, 10:40 AM
Jerry said...: "We don't have enough to justify an impeachment."

"Well, let's get more people in as witnesses!"

"We've ALREADY gotten everyone!"

"There's gotta be someone - maybe some bum in the street that Trump's limo splashed or something. Maybe a cop who caught him running a red light 35 years back. ANYONE."

"Damn. No wonder we've got Dems self-identifying as Republicans. We've really gone nuts on this - and we're gonna pay a hell of a price."; 12/17/19, 10:40 AM
wendybar said...: Screw Schumer. Democrats didn't play fair during the House fiasco, so he can pound sand crying about the unfairness of it all!! It's all a circus anyways. If Trump can be impeached, so can ANYBODY else that we don't like. Thanks Democrats!!!; 12/17/19, 10:40 AM
stevew said...: Rather a polite LOLGF from McConnell. I like it!; 12/17/19, 10:45 AM
roesch/voltaire said...: If you called the the requested witnesses from the Dems and Republicans you might get the facts out and we don't want that--never let Bolton or Biden speak.; 12/17/19, 10:48 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: A liberal law professor friend of mine got upset with me when I called the Democrat impeachment proceedings a "farce." To be clear, it's more than a farce -- it's a sham, a scam, a hoax, a fraud, a travesty, a mockery, a flimflam, a farago, a circus, a con job, a snow job, a blow job, a railroad, a witch hunt, a fuck fest, a star chamber, a Kabuki Theater and a Potemkin Village.; 12/17/19, 10:54 AM
Michael K said...: R/V posts another inane comment. The Democrats could have tried to enforce those subpoenas but did not. Too big a hurry. This is all tactics.

Meanwhile, there are good arguments that this is a sham.

The second Article of Impeachment is embarrassingly weak. It has long been understood that executive privilege is part of any system of separation of powers. This Article simply misstates the law to insist that the President is duty-bound to comply with whatever the House requests. In most instances, the President and Congress joust over these subpoenas before reaching an agreement on the particulars. In this case, where high-level communications with senior advisors are at issue, the claims for an absolute executive privilege are at their highest. Trump may ultimately be proven wrong in either whole or in part on his expansive claims. Nonetheless, impeachment is premature. As in the first instance, what is required for this charge is an adverse judicial final decision that Trump chooses to ignore.

You lefties need to up your game.; 12/17/19, 10:55 AM
TJM said...: LOL - Schumer has a lot of gall asking for the things Republicans were denied in the house!

Maybe McConnell should have taken Chuck down memory lane with this one:

"There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other,”

“Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions,"

-Jerry Nadler 1999; 12/17/19, 11:03 AM
Drago said...: r/v: "If you called the the requested witnesses from the Dems and Republicans you might get the facts out and we don't want that--never let Bolton or Biden speak."

LOLOLOL

Biden has already stated he would refuse a senate subpeona and the dems are universal in their refusal to call Hunter Biden.

The House dems refused to allow the republicans to call witnesses and the dems refused to allow dem witnesses to be fully questioned by republicans. Dems refused to release all transcripts of witness testimony and the dems selectively leaked witness testimony while making sure the republicans on the committee were not allowed to speak publicly about what they knew.

The dems refuse to allow the hoax whistleblower to testify, even though the hoax whistleblower doesn't even qualify as an actual whistleblower.

But hey r/v, we get it. Your dem/LLR-lefty 4 year project of using government agencies to undermine domestic political opponents and then attempt a coup of a duly elected President (Stasi much?) has failed and now Team Dem/LLR-lefty is looking for excuses as to why their inevitable impeachment hoax will fail as well.

Hey, I know! Just claim a coverup!!! That'll work! It's gotta work.....right?; 12/17/19, 11:03 AM
TJM said...: Bay Area Guy,

Your liberal law professor friend is a moron. I was a partner in an international law firm and this guy would have been toast in a day or two.; 12/17/19, 11:06 AM
Browndog said...: Every time Lindsey Graham talks about this impeachment he shows such utter disdain and contempt over what the House did I'm starting to believe him.; 12/17/19, 11:06 AM
narayanan said...: I propose Combat des Jetes - Never both feeet on floor

jeté je·té (zhə-tā′)
n.
A jump in dance from one foot to the other.
____________&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&______________
I heard Barr can play bagpipes.

Whichever party has final Senator standing on one foot - wins

do it for every witness request; 12/17/19, 11:07 AM
wildswan said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/17/19, 11:10 AM
Michael said...: You fools. As much as I despise the guy, Mitch McConnell is the most shrewd and ruthless Senate parliamentarian since LBJ. Who truly believes Mitch is going to be shamed or manipulated into doing something stupid. Whatever happens in the Senate will go down according to his wishes. Screw Schumer,screw Pelosi, screw Schiff.

Remember, McConnell was the guy who told Obama to shove Merrick Garland up his ass and there wasn't a damn thing the President could do about it.; 12/17/19, 11:11 AM
I Callahan said...: If you called the the requested witnesses from the Dems and Republicans you might get the facts out and we don't want that--never let Bolton or Biden speak.

If it would have helped them, they’d have already called them in the house. Whoever called RV’s comment “inane” was being nice about it.; 12/17/19, 11:14 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: I think "at this juncture" is the important part.

At a later juncture, he'll want to call Hunter Biden - watch.; 12/17/19, 11:14 AM
wildswan said...: I too can imagine scenarios in which impeachment brings out truths. But it's a legal proceeding, not a Swiss Army knife - it's only for one thing. It isn't for showing that American cokeheads can get $50,000 a month on the boards of foreign corporations if they have doting daddys (who are US Vice-Presidents.) It's about whether an American election should be reversed.

We have Trump's call to the Ukraine. We have Dem comments on the call. Enough of nothing. Vote.; 12/17/19, 11:18 AM
rcocean said...: Fact Finding = House BEFORE Impeachment
Trial = Senate. Not more "fact finding".

Schumer is actually helping McConnell out. Now Mitch can say: "Oh, Trump wanted witnesses, Schumer wanted witnesses, but we're going with no witnesses. We need to be fair - but move this thing along."; 12/17/19, 11:19 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: They used to say that the most dangerous place in Washington was getting between Chuck Schumer and a microphone.

It's equally dangerous to get between Jerry Nadler and the all-you-can-eat Nacho bar.; 12/17/19, 11:19 AM
gilbar said...: serious question?

If people still Don't think that Hunter and Grandpa Biden engaged in Both Bribery and Quid Quo Pro
Does Anybody think that there is ANYTHING that could sway them?

Maybe there's people HERE that don't think that the Biden's engaged in Bribery and Quid Quo PRO?
r/v? Igna? Chuck? Howard? Anyone?

If there IS Anyone out there that doesn't think so; Hypothetically; WHAT would it take to sway you?; 12/17/19, 11:21 AM
Limited blogger said...: Pelosi did what ever she wanted.

McConnell can do whatever he wants.; 12/17/19, 11:22 AM
Yancey Ward said...: This is Schumer's ploy to force the Republicans to dismiss the impeachment. The last thing Schumer wants is for Trump to get a forum to present a defense. Schumer is crafty, I will give him that.

Increasingly, I like my idea I presented here a couple of days ago- dismiss the impeachment peremptorily, and then hold hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee and call the witnesses the House refused to call or allow to testify.; 12/17/19, 11:23 AM
Kevin said...: Shorter McConnell: No do-overs.; 12/17/19, 11:28 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Still, though, I would prefer an actual trial in the Senate with rules of federal court procedure- no hearsay witnesses to events for which testimony is being offered unless they fit the well recognized legal exceptions. Schumer is bluffing about the witnesses he wants- none of them have anything more to add to the testimony the House took that isn't exculpatory- indeed pretty much all of them have already put out public statements saying so- the White House simply refused to waive privilege against the House's "subpoenae because it was a sham hearing- I think in a trial it is quite likely they would testify on behalf of the defense as actual witnesses to events. With the White House leaking like a sieve, it is just ludicrous to think these witnesses have any information to helps the Democrats.; 12/17/19, 11:30 AM
Kevin said...: Shorter Schumer: Nadler and Schiff handed me a turd instead of a baton.; 12/17/19, 11:30 AM
Ralph L said...: Althouse, you've got Mitch sharing a tag with Judge Michael McConnell.; 12/17/19, 11:32 AM
Kevin said...: Schumer is bluffing about the witnesses he wants- none of them have anything more to add to the testimony the House took that isn't exculpatory- indeed pretty much all of them have already put out public statements saying so

The point is they will not testify and the Dems can claim "obstruction" and "an unfair hearing".

Cries of "what does the President have to hide?" will ring out, which is what they planned until he released the actual transcripts.

The point was never to convict him - that was a fantasy - it was to create a situation where Trump looked guilty enough to swing a few states.

You kill that right now with a motion to dismiss.; 12/17/19, 11:34 AM
Kevin said...: Althouse, you've got Mitch sharing a tag with Judge Michael McConnell.

Add in singer Michael McDonald for the trifecta!; 12/17/19, 11:35 AM
Drago said...: Michael: "You fools. As much as I despise the guy, Mitch McConnell is the most shrewd and ruthless Senate parliamentarian since LBJ. Who truly believes Mitch is going to be shamed or manipulated into doing something stupid."

This is where you go off the rails Michael.

The fear on the part of Trump supporters is that the shrewd and ruthless Senate parliamentarian will do something purposely that harms Trump.

For instance, it is quite clear that for the first 2+ years of Trump's term a number of republican senators, including McConnell, actually bought into the lies of the deep staters and deep state collaborators like John McCain and Romney.

Thats why McConnell was able to get all those judges thru but somehow Trump's nominees for federal agencies were allowed to languish on and on and on and on and on which allowed the deep state/democrat/LLR-lefty holdovers to continue thwarting Trump policies at the dept level.

Post-Mueller and Post-IG it is clear that there is a recognition by a large number of republican schmuck senators that they had been had. Not Senator Burr of course. He's always known its all BS but Senator Burr is wholly owned by an is now a creature of Senator Warner.

It really will take a second term for Trump to finally get an executive team fully in place to carry out alot of his policy preferences.; 12/17/19, 11:38 AM
Qwinn said...: If no trial happens, and then the Bidens get called in in a separate investigation, what makes you think the media won't just ignore it, or frame it completely as "retaliation!!!!"?

Bringing them up within the context or the impeachment, because whether the Bidens are corrupt is at the *heart* of Article I, is the only way to avoid those.

For the first time in forever, Republicans get to hold the debate in a friendly venue that the media cannot ignore and that can actually cause Democrats to be held accountable. And they're going to purposefully pass it up. God this is depressing.; 12/17/19, 11:40 AM
Beasts of England said...: ’McConnell was the guy who told Obama to shove Merrick Garland up his ass and there wasn't a damn thing the President could do about it.’

Yes he did. But he did it for a very important reason: his own power. I’ve seen nothing that makes me believe he’ll be willing to do the same for Trump’s power.; 12/17/19, 11:40 AM
Francisco D said...: This is Schumer's ploy to force the Republicans to dismiss the impeachment. The last thing Schumer wants is for Trump to get a forum to present a defense. Schumer is crafty, I will give him that.

Yes. We have to keep the bigger picture in mind. As desirable as it is to expose the Ukraine Hoax, it is extremely important to win the 2020 elections. That means re-electing Trump and maintaining control of the Senate.

I will defer to Cocaine Mitch's judgment and experience when it comes to managing the devious Schumer Democrats. Although I would love to see the Bidens and Eric Ciamarella testify, the timing my not be right.; 12/17/19, 11:41 AM
Browndog said...: With the White House leaking like a sieve, it is just ludicrous to think these witnesses have any information to helps the Democrats.

Byron York makes the case if dems are allowed to call a witness, or witnesses it will open the door to more witnesses because anything a witness says in the Senate will be "new information" that requires more witnesses.

The Kavanaugh Impeachment; 12/17/19, 11:41 AM
Francisco D said...: It really will take a second term for Trump to finally get an executive team fully in place to carry out alot of his policy preferences.

Yes. And Trump will be in a stronger bargaining position with Senate Republicans. They have screwed him over big time.; 12/17/19, 11:43 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: “If you called the the requested witnesses from the Dems and Republicans you might get the facts out and we don't want that--never let Bolton or Biden speak.”

RV starts with the invalid assumption that Trump did anything wrong. He did not. The House is attempting to interfere in an area of plenary authority, power, and responsibility, under Article II of our Constitution, assigned exclusively to the President - the conduct of foreign affairs. When the transcripts of the Ukrainian call were almost immediately published by the WH, nothing wrong was found. Nothing. No quid pro quo. Nothing. So absent any incriminating evidence, Schifty and the Democrats tried to invent something, anything, that would implicate the President, through tightly scripted star chamber hearings. And all that was exposed were government bureaucrats who wanted to substitute their Ukrainian policy preferences for those of their boss, the President, who is the one elected to make this type of decision.

As for their second article of impeachment, again, nothing the least bit wrong was even suggested. Obama successfully asserted Executive Privilege to protect the communications of ATF employees at least a half dozen levels removed from the White House, in defending against House efforts to investigate Fast and Furious. Article II Essentially faults Trump for not allowing his top level direct reports to be grilled by Schifty and his Lawfare attorneys in order to discover some sort of intent that they could pretend was illicit, to abuse his Presidential power, since his actual conversation with the Ukrainian President showed nothing illicit, or even questionable. This has never been within the power of Congress. This tries to interfere with a President’s necessity to be able to have frank and open conversations with his closest advisors. And, indeed, the House wants to call the for just that reason. This is an extraordinarily clear cut case of Separation of Powers that the House would lose badly in the Judiciary, if ever litigated.

Two nothingburger Articles of Impeachment, where Trump did nothing wrong, and the only effect of further hearings would be to expose the one sidedness, unfairness, and hyper partisanship of the House’s Impeachment process.; 12/17/19, 11:50 AM
Michael K said...: Yes he did. But he did it for a very important reason: his own power. I’ve seen nothing that makes me believe he’ll be willing to do the same for Trump’s power.

Good point. At CTH Sundance has worried about MItch's connections to the C of C, sort of like Senator from ADM, Dole.

I don;t see that harming Trump does anything good for Mitch, though.; 12/17/19, 11:52 AM
Ralph L said...: The only testimony which could possibly help the Dems would be if Bolton and Mulvaney swear that Trump ordered them to disregard the deadline in the law for sending the aid to Ukraine. Still ridiculous, as Ukraine knew the law as well as Congress did, and both could easily complain about any conditions not in the law.; 12/17/19, 11:54 AM
hstad said...: Blogger Kevin said... @12/17/19,11:34 AM."The point was never to convict him - that was a fantasy - it was to create a situation where Trump looked guilty enough to swing a few states..."?

Yeah how is that going with the polls - backfire!

"...You kill that right now with a motion to dismiss..."

Man that is a lot of supposition and opinion on your part. No facts to back up - the Democrats are dead no matter what happens now this strategy is Pelosi's downfall because she capitulated to a bunch of kook backbenchers in her caucus.; 12/17/19, 11:56 AM
Michael K said...: There is some similarity to the machinations over BREXIT that preceded the landslide win for Boris.

Pretty well laid out by Michael Barone here.

Second, this was an immense personal victory for Johnson. Twelve months ago, he was a much-mocked backbencher, having resigned as foreign minister in July 2018 to protest the latest feckless proposal by Prime Minister Theresa May to reach an agreement to withdraw from the European Union. British voters, in their highest election turnout ever, voted to Leave rather than Remain in the EU, but May, a Remain voter, placed the negotiations in the hands of civil servants — "Yes, minister" types — determined to frustrate the will of the 17.4 million Leave voters, the largest number of Britons in history voting for any party or position.

Remainers on the BBC, and even at Sky News, the Times, the Financial Times, and the Economist — affluent and fashionable Londoners — increasingly felt free to dismiss Leave voters as bigoted and stupid. Former Prime Ministers Tony Blair and John Major called for a second referendum, while the Liberal Democrats promised to ignore any referendum result that didn’t support Remain. A majority of parliamentary constituencies voted for Leave, but a majority of members of the House of Commons supported Remain and, as May fumbled, became increasingly bold in their contempt for their fellow citizens.; 12/17/19, 11:57 AM
rehajm said...: I’ve seen nothing that makes me believe he’ll be willing to do the same for Trump’s power.

True, he's not obligated to the President's bidding, though in McConnell's response to Chuck, McConnell's own interests seem to align with Trump's quite nicely...McConnell formally responding to Schumer in the Senate; 12/17/19, 11:57 AM
narciso said...: https://mobile.twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1206990464768991233; 12/17/19, 11:58 AM
Greg said...: More bad news for Joe and the dems -https://johnsolomonreports.com/latvian-government-says-it-flagged-suspicious-hunter-biden-payments-in-2016/; 12/17/19, 11:58 AM
Real American said...: There's no high crime or misdemeanor or evidence of either. the garbage "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress" are wannabe catch-alls that don't work and won't work. Trump won in 2016 and the Dems are out to get him because they lost. That's it. That's all that this is about. Remember, the Dems want to rewrite the Constitution whenever they lose an election or political battle.

So they manufactured the Russian collusion frame job and that failed and now they're hanging their hats on the notion that Joe Biden is above investigation for unspecified reasons. So they conducted secret hearings with one-sided opinion witnesses and did away with any semblance of due process. It was a total sham! A sham impeachment deserves a sham trial.; 12/17/19, 12:21 PM
Unknown said...: Cocaine Mitch is at the wheel! Should be a fun ride!; 12/17/19, 12:23 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "There is some similarity to the machinations over BREXIT that preceded the landslide win for Boris."

Yes. I knew Johnson was going to win a huge majority when Labour, the LibDims, and the Tory RemainerRebels passed the Benn Act that purportedly prevented Brexit from happening absent a deal. They would have been on firmer political ground had they just done a vote of no confidence and held the elections in early October. The broad public saw that Labour, the LibDims, and the Tory rebels were playing foolish and unserious games with the process, and that is exactly how the Democrats are going to viewed next November if they don't find a legitimate way out of this impeachment nonsense. Right now, voting down the impeachment articles tomorrow is probably the best outcome for the Democrats- it is legitimate and it is final. Tabling them and passing censure instead is probably second best.

Here is what is not going to work- passing the impeachment articles and then voting to table them rather than sending it to the Senate- the Republicans in the House will not vote to table them after they pass- they will make a point of voting against the tabling motion in this instance, and they will beat the Democrats over the head with the nonserious action. The Senate will probably act anyway, regardless of what their rules state- if the Democrats are going to violate every norm, the Senate can bend its rules in defiance, and they will have the far better argument for doing so. This idea is just a losing one for the Democrats, and I don't think Pelosi is going to do it anyway.; 12/17/19, 12:32 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: I trust Mitch McConnell's judgment in this situation.

I recognize now that we should not allow Christine Blasey Ford -- or another such trouble-maker -- to derail the Senate impeachment deliberations.; 12/17/19, 12:39 PM
Francisco D said...: If you called the the requested witnesses from the Dems and Republicans you might get the facts out and we don't want that--never let Bolton or Biden speak.

It sounds like r/v is channeling Adam Schiff in that he hopes Bolton would say, "Trump told me to withhold aid (if Bolton actually has that power) until Zelensky dug up a lot of dirt on a completely innocent Hunter Biden".

You are being deluded by layers and layers of lies from the Democrats.; 12/17/19, 12:40 PM
Francisco D said...: From Breitbart:

McConnell accused Schumer of going straight to the news media with his proposals rather than speaking to him in person, as Senate leaders had done in the past.

He also noted that Schumer had misquoted the Constitution. The Democrat leader had claimed the Constitution gave the Senate “sole Power of Impeachment,” whereas Article I, Section 3 actually states, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

“We don’t create impeachments over here … we judge them,” he declared.; 12/17/19, 12:55 PM
Bob Boyd said...: The Dems won't be happy until Trump is thrown, naked and bound, into a pit with Greta Thunberg.; 12/17/19, 1:02 PM
cubanbob said...: If it was up to me the Republicans would call the whole Obama gang; Yates, Power, Lynch, Comey, Hillary, the Bidens and Obama.; 12/17/19, 1:06 PM
Murph said...: Bruce Hayden said... @12/17/19, 11:50 AM

This is an extraordinarily clear cut case of Separation of Powers that the House would lose badly in the Judiciary, if ever litigated.

...which is EXACTLY WHY the Dems never pursued a judicial resolution of Trump's defiance of their subpoenas: they knew they'd lose.; 12/17/19, 1:08 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: One beneficial outcome of this impeachment is that various considerations and procedures will be clarified.

In comparison with court proceedings, the House proceedings are like the witness testimonies, and the Senate proceedings are like the closing arguments and the jury's deliberations.

The Senate does not conduct a second "trial".

If McConnell indeed does not allow witnesses, then he will establish a correct precedent that will clarify the public's understanding of the impeachment process.

-----

In retrospect, the belated appearance of Christine Blasey Ford in the Senate hearings about Brett Kavanaugh taught a useful lesson about how Senate deliberations can be derailed mischievously.

If new witnesses are allowed in the Senate impeachment deliberations, then it's likely that some nutty woman will show up and claim that Donald Trump grabbed her pussy while they both were in high school.; 12/17/19, 1:08 PM
narciso said...: a disturbing image, bob boyd, now Schiff is pushing for some sealed document, from current pence aide, Jennifer (lne) who was an attache at the London embassy back in 2016?; 12/17/19, 1:22 PM
Beasts of England said...: Schumer signed-on and voted for the senate’s motion to dismiss at the beginning of Clinton’s impeachment trial. Yummy.; 12/17/19, 1:40 PM
Jim at said...: If you called the the requested witnesses from the Dems and Republicans you might get the facts out and we don't want that... - R/V

Or you could read the fucking transcript.; 12/17/19, 1:51 PM
Michael K said...: Right now, voting down the impeachment articles tomorrow is probably the best outcome for the Democrats- it is legitimate and it is final. Tabling them and passing censure instead is probably second best.

I'm still undecided if they will vote it out. Even Schiff has to be a bit shaken by the town hall he held this weekend.

The Republicans would have done better to censure Clinton in 1998 but even then there was a real crime. This is a sham and lots of people not brainwashed know it.; 12/17/19, 2:11 PM
narciso said...: in other news,

https://twitter.com/alimhaider/status/1206781528614813697?s=20; 12/17/19, 2:29 PM
minnesota farm guy said...: After thinking about Trump's well deserved desire for revenge, I have come to the conclusion that Lindsay Graham is correct to treat the House Impeachment with the disdain that it deserves and to dismiss it as quickly and painlessly as possible. Witnesses are too unpredictable and we know that the MSM will misinterpret anything that is in the President's favor. Don't prolong the opportunity for something to go wrong. Cut the damn thing off at the knees, laugh at the House for their partisan foolishness and wait for Durham to deal with at least a few of the traitors. The dems in the House have done as much damage as they can do to themselves and to Trump. Complete the acquittal and go on to winning back the House and re-electing Trump.; 12/17/19, 3:03 PM
Francisco D said...: The Constitution

Article 1; Section 2: "The House ... shall have the sole power of Impeachment"

Article ; Section 3: "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments."

Schumer is a lawyer, but he does not seem to understand the plain text of the Constitution.

McConnell does: “We don’t create impeachments over here … we judge them”; 12/17/19, 3:07 PM
minnesota farm guy said...: @Mike K I think CTH tends to get wrapped up in his own conspiracy theories every now and then. McConnell seems to be a constant cause. McConnell , like Pelosi, is no dummy. He understands the politics of the impeachment better than Trump does. In this case Trump's aggressive nature will not help and McConnell's understanding of how the Senate really works should be treated with respect, not suspicion. McConnell is treating the impeachment with disdain, while he ensure that the Senate does what it is required to do. I think that is the appropriate response.; 12/17/19, 3:10 PM
minnesota farm guy said...: Read the President's open letter to Pelosi here. Covers all the bases!; 12/17/19, 3:26 PM
Tomcc said...: Sen. Schumer's request sounds like "scope creep" to me.
Bob Boyd @ 1:02, you have succeeded in creating an image in my brain which made me throw up just a little.; 12/17/19, 3:29 PM
Brian said...: With the White House leaking like a sieve, it is just ludicrous to think these witnesses have any information to helps the Democrats.

It's got to be there somewhere though! Listen to Chuck. They need these witnesses, they need his tax returns. If we turn over enough rocks surely the evidence will be there.

A thought that occurred to me this morning. Mueller raided Trump's "fixer" Michael Cohen. Got all his records. And still couldn't find a crime that Trump committed.

Trump is either the smartest crook that ever lived, or he's the cleanest politician that ever lived.; 12/17/19, 3:42 PM
Michael K said...: @Mike K I think CTH tends to get wrapped up in his own conspiracy theories every now and then.

I do, too. The commenters do, of course. Mitch is devious enough to have several threads going at the same time. The emotions are high enough that he has probably dismissed any thought of using this for other purposes. I wouldn't put it past him.; 12/17/19, 4:17 PM
Gk1 said...: Since some democrats are already talking about trying to impeach Trump again after this failure maybe the easiest thing is to do what Cocaine Mitch is saying is simply acquit Trump and be done with it so even the dumbest liberal understands what will become of this nonsense.

There is no need to drag it out, its embarrassing to the liberal democrats as it is. They have to spend all of 2020 defending it as we understand how creation of the Ukraine "bribery"scam was just as scammy and dishonest as the Russian "collusion". Senate hearings are much better as far as drawing out the pain.; 12/17/19, 6:06 PM
Douglas B. Levene said...: Let me play lawyer here. Many of you are saying the GOP should insist on calling Ciaramella, the Bidens, the whistleblower, even if that means the Democrats get to call some more witnesses they want. A common sense rule for lawyers trying cases is to never ask a witness a question to which you do not know the answer. There are some rare exceptions to that, where any answer is bad. Here, there have been no interviews or depositions of the witnesses you want to call. That means you may think you know what they will say, but you really don't. Trials are funny things and even when you think you know what a witness will say, they'll surprise you. The odds of getting unpleasant surprises from these witnesses in particular seem high in relation to the possible value they would provide in convincing GOP senators not to vote for impeachment. I think this is how Sen. McConnell is analyzing things, and after much reflection, I think he's right.; 12/17/19, 6:09 PM
walter said...: Redo the redo..; 12/17/19, 10:38 PM
walter said...: (of the redo); 12/17/19, 10:45 PM
Narayanan said...: If we're searching for words : how about - what is the quid-pro-quo in this multi player game?

Trump wants to clear his name. Does he have allies?

Some want to besmirch it.; 12/17/19, 11:18 PM