Althouse: Voting on the witnesses motion...

January 31, 2020

Voting on the witnesses motion...

... happening now.

ADDED: It’s 49/51. Trump wins.

190 comments:

Breezy said...: Where is Nadler? Haven’t seen him all day... in the woodshed?; 1/31/20, 4:38 PM
Marshall Rose said...: 51/49; 1/31/20, 4:43 PM
Marshall Rose said...: So, the Senators running for president just commited Abuse of Power by the new definition because they are attempting to gain personal benefit by their actions today.

Is this not how it works now?; 1/31/20, 4:44 PM
Marcus Bressler said...: Cocaine Mitch does it again!

THEOLDMAN

Now to acquittal; 1/31/20, 4:45 PM
clint said...: I'm surprised. Romney did vote Aye. I was expecting Collins to be the only one, for some reason.; 1/31/20, 4:45 PM
cfs said...: Nadler is with his wife who has been diagnosed with cancer. I think they were meeting with her doctor today.; 1/31/20, 4:46 PM
Tommy Duncan said...: If I understood the vote correctly there will be no witnesses.

49 yea / 51 nay; 1/31/20, 4:46 PM
rhhardin said...: Ten minutes to Brexit, if I remember right. It's Brussels midnight not Greenwich.; 1/31/20, 4:47 PM
Seeing Red said...: Those running for president and Roberts should have recused themselves.; 1/31/20, 4:49 PM
JAORE said...: "Down goes Frasier!"; 1/31/20, 4:50 PM
Breezy said...: Cfs, thank you for that info. I regret my snarky comment in light of this.; 1/31/20, 4:50 PM
gilbar said...: ABC just said, that Trump is NOT exonerated,
And, is, IN FACT, Proven to be Guilty of keeping Hillary from being President; 1/31/20, 4:50 PM
cfs said...: Jones - yes
Manchin - yes
Romney - yes
Collins - yes
Sinema - yes
Murkowski - no
Alexander - no; 1/31/20, 4:50 PM
Oso Negro said...: The Deep State won! Bi-partisan corruption will remain unexamined; 1/31/20, 4:51 PM
Marshall Rose said...: Will Trump be free to investigate corruption with regards to Burisma if Biden does not secure the nomination?

No longer a political rival should make him fair game correct?; 1/31/20, 4:51 PM
MadisonMan said...: Nadler is with his wife who has been diagnosed with cancer. I think they were meeting with her doctor today.
Really? What a terrible thing to happen to her. I wish her a great doctor team, quick countermeasures and good health in the near future.

Cancer sucks.; 1/31/20, 4:51 PM
Craig said...: Impeachment fail. So sad!

This really is a real-life episode of the Road Runner vs. Wile E. Coyote.; 1/31/20, 4:52 PM
gilbar said...: PROOF that the EU is Bullshit

Brussels midnight not Greenwich.; 1/31/20, 4:52 PM
LA_Bob said...: OMG! A sad day for America. We will never know the Truth!; 1/31/20, 4:53 PM
tcrosse said...: And, is, IN FACT, Proven to be Guilty of keeping Hillary from being President

That was the Russians.; 1/31/20, 4:53 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: So, what will be the next fake accusation that is absolutely guaranteed to bring the president down?; 1/31/20, 4:53 PM
tcrosse said...: The Telegraph is absolutely giddy about Brexit night. Countdown clock and all.; 1/31/20, 4:54 PM
Temujin said...: Romney is in his last term as Senator from Utah.; 1/31/20, 4:56 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Havilcek stole the ball! Havilcek stole the ball!

Oops, wrong venue. That was the Celtics beating 76ers in 1965 Eastern Conference finals.

Well, I kind feel the same way, so sue me.; 1/31/20, 4:56 PM
TJM said...: Inga, drunk yet?; 1/31/20, 4:56 PM
Jersey Fled said...: I keep hoping the Democrats will finally give up, but I know that isn't going to happen. All this is just an admission that they know they can't beat him at the ballot box.; 1/31/20, 4:57 PM
Wince said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/31/20, 4:57 PM
Mark said...: ????

I thought they were voting later tonight!; 1/31/20, 4:59 PM
Wince said...: Will some of the Democrats who voted FOR additional witnesses now vote to acquit?

They can tell the Dem base "we tried" while the final vote reflects them having "spared the country" from a futile pursuit.

A win-win for them in purple states?; 1/31/20, 5:00 PM
Seeing Red said...: I’m surprised at Manchin.; 1/31/20, 5:01 PM
Mark said...: BRITAIN HAS LEFT THE HOUSE!

God save the Queen.; 1/31/20, 5:01 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Steve Bannon has argued from the beginning that there should be witnesses on both sides -- throw everybody into the stew under oath: Bolton, Mulvaney, McGahn, Schiff, Hunter, Biden, Ciaramella.

He argues that anything short of a trial and exoneration ON THE MERITS will simply encourage the Dems to keep coming.

It's a provocative argument. I disagree though. The "Get Trump" Squad will never cease, regardless of how many faceplants and epic humiliations they suffer. Even after Trump's term (or two terms) they will try to indict him for something, if they ever get power.; 1/31/20, 5:02 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: You fuckers are all Putin Assets!; 1/31/20, 5:04 PM
Mark said...: I'm surprised. Romney did vote Aye.

I’m surprised at Manchin.

Neither one is a surprise. Manchin likes to tease and jerk people around, but he ALWAYS caves.; 1/31/20, 5:04 PM
Francisco D said...: I am disappointed but not surprised at Sinema.

I suspect she will vote guilty on one count, probably Article 1.

I heard a rumor that Schumer said he will have their heads on pikes if they don't vote the right way.; 1/31/20, 5:05 PM
tcrosse said...: The Telegraph celebrates Hasta la vista, Baby; 1/31/20, 5:05 PM
Mark said...: Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.; 1/31/20, 5:08 PM
Shouting Thomas said...: Something about Trump drives all his opponents to madness.

On the female side, rape fantasies (and then the bastard doesn't choose them).

On the male side, fierce jealousy that he's got the hottest pussy.

At least, that's part of it.; 1/31/20, 5:08 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Generally, I am very much for Brexit, with one exception -- I'd like Elizabeth Hurley to stay.; 1/31/20, 5:11 PM
tim maguire said...: Blogger Oso Negro said...The Deep State won! Bi-partisan corruption will remain unexamined

Which is why this motion had no chance of passing. If Republicans needed a Democratic vote, one would have appeared.; 1/31/20, 5:16 PM
cfs said...: Doug Jones of Alabama will pay a price I believe.; 1/31/20, 5:16 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: Dare I say WINNING? Wait... did I just wreck the country? Mind reading notwithstanding, the dems blew it BIGLY.; 1/31/20, 5:22 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: Schumer crying like a truckload of babies!; 1/31/20, 5:24 PM
n.n said...: Trump wins, a segue to acquittal (or Democrats lose their religion), then onto Barr's investigation of foreign and domestic, special and peculiar, overlapping and converging, not in the American interests.; 1/31/20, 5:28 PM
Gospace said...: It's 49-51, the Constitution wins.; 1/31/20, 5:28 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "I’m surprised at Manchin."

Not me. Every Democrat had to vote for witnesses at this stage- they were going to be kicked out of the caucus otherwise. The more interesting vote would have been on the witness list had this motion to call witnesses at all had succeeded. As I have written numerous times, the Democrats never wanted witnesses at all, but McConnell surely made it clear that the votes wouldn't be witness by witness, but as a slate- you have to vote for all of them, or none of them. I suspect had it ever reached that point, Schumer would have filibustered the procedural vote rather than allow the list to reach a floor vote. Alas, we will never know.

I want the Senate, though, to follow through and take witness testimony, or least try to, from Ciaramella, Misko, and others. None will agree to show up, of course, and can't be forced to, but at least we will get to see the amusing antics of Chuck and Inga patiently explaining to us how the Senate can't compel testimony with their "subpoenae".; 1/31/20, 5:28 PM
n.n said...: Schumer crying like a truckload of babies!

The tell-tale hearts beat ever louder, they beat for Schumer and his coreligionists.; 1/31/20, 5:30 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: We will never know the Truth!

According to the Managers we did know the truth.

Sekulow: "After 31 or 32 times you said you proved every aspect of your case... [pauses for response] That's what you said."

Schiff: "We did."

Sekulow: "Well then I don't think we need any witnesses."

Bolton won't add any additional information to what people have already concluded.

Remember:

1. The whitleblower was not a witness
2. The transcript demonstrated no quid pro quo
3. Sondland admitted that Trump did not tell him to tie military aid to investigations, he only imagined that was what Trump wanted.
4. The Ukranians denied being pressured and said there was no quid pro quo.
5. The aid was released before the statutory deadline
6. There as no announced investigation.

What can Bolton add that will prove that the aid was contingent on an investigation?

Witness "I tell you, officer, he said he wanted to rob the bank. he told his friends he wanted to rob the bank. He went to the bank to look around."

Officer "did he rob the bank?"

Witness "well, no. But..."

Officer "Okay, then. Have a nice day."; 1/31/20, 5:30 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "Doug Jones of Alabama will pay a price I believe."

Jones is dead meat no matter how he votes on this issue, or the actual conviction/acquittal vote- he is a Democrat running in Alabama, and Roy Moore won't be the candidate next time, and even if he is by some miracle, he would win the 2nd race.; 1/31/20, 5:31 PM
Yancey Ward said...: And I do want to point out something- none of the hostile witnesses the Trump defense would have called would have agreed to appear, and they could not have been compelled to do so either. This is one reason that the Democrats couldn't allow them to be called- the optics were simply too awful. It also the reason the Republican majority was able to mostly hold together on the issue- they also knew the unfairness would make them look bad and stupid.; 1/31/20, 5:35 PM
The Godfather said...: Stop for a second to remember how we got here. In the beginning was the Dossier. And the idea was that Trump won -- defeated the annointed Hillary -- because he colluded with Putin. If that story had held up, or even remained plausible, then Trump's election might have been thought invalid and could have been overturned. But, no, Muller didn't find any collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaingn. He didn't even find that the Russian interference had any significant effect on the outcome of the election.

BUT the Democrats had taken control of the House in the 2018 elections. They had the power to impeach Trump, even though there was now no reason to think that his election was invalid. Of course there was no possibility that the Senate would go along with a purely partisan impeachment. But maybe they could weaken Trump's reelection bid, and the Republican Senate and House prospects, by a pretend impeachment. So that's what they tried.

So who violated the spirit of the Constitution?; 1/31/20, 5:35 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: You fuckers are all Putin Assets!

You see that somewhere in the Meuller report?; 1/31/20, 5:38 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Schiff, just today, made the false claim that Russian Collusion happened.
I AM NOT SHITTING YOU. Just today.; 1/31/20, 5:42 PM
Narr said...: Last night I caught a few minutes of some BBC noob trying to badger the Ukrainian foreign minister into commenting on the alleged Bolton statements--after all, THE BIGGEST STORY IN THE WORLD is the Peach Mint, and didn't his excellency feel the need to unburden himself, and get right with Justice and History, now that he had the spotlight?

Now I'm a believer in a free press, but at the least this clown should have been roughed up a little before expulsion . . .

Narr
A guy can dream; 1/31/20, 5:43 PM
Chuck said...: Blogger Temujin said...
Romney is in his last term as Senator from Utah.

Romney is in his first term as Senator from Utah. Which does not expire until January of 2025.

Now between the two of our comments, yours is pure speculation. Mine is factual.

I realize that the power of the Trump Personality Cult is such that Romney is the first/biggest thing to lash out at. Mitt Romney has made himself some beautiful enemies. The far left has nothing nice to say about Mitt Romney. And the Hannity/Breitbart/Limbaugh wing of the Alt-Right hates him.

He’s doing it right.; 1/31/20, 5:43 PM
n.n said...: This multi-trimester planned president operation gestated with Obama spied, Clinton colluded, Biden obstructed, antiFascists raged, etc., then progressed with Deep Plumber plunging Water Closet and the untimely abortion of what was likely a Democrat whistle blower.; 1/31/20, 5:46 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Chuck, if the commenter above is correct about Utah just passing a recall measure for senators, then Romney will be recalled if he votes to convict on either count.

In any case, Romney won't run again- he only ran this time to be the guy who told Trump he had to resign because of the Mueller investigation. So, in the end, he ended up with nothing for the effort.; 1/31/20, 5:49 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: "Blogger cfs said...
Doug Jones of Alabama will pay a price I believe."

He will be wiped out no matter what he does, so if you meant he will pay this price to get paid after he's out maybe.

If you believe he had a non-marginal chance of winning had he voted differently today I don't agree.; 1/31/20, 5:51 PM
gilbar said...: Yancey Ward said...
- none of the hostile witnesses the Trump defense would have called would have agreed to appear, and they could not have been compelled to do so either.

Wouldn't THAT have been an Impeachable Offense?
Let's say that Trump's team had called Hunter Biden, and the Senate voted for him to show
IF/WHEN he didn't show... Wouldn't THAT have been the end of the Trump Presidency?
Or Something?; 1/31/20, 5:53 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: And the next votes will be bipartisan for acquittal!; 1/31/20, 5:53 PM
Seeing Red said...: He’s already got a job, I’ll wager.; 1/31/20, 5:53 PM
Quaestor said...: A good day — the impeachment farce stumbles toward its farcical end and the EU tyranny humiliated.

What is that faint high-pitched sound I hear, that overwrought teapot disquietude that assails my ears? It's either tinnitus or Inga's distant whine.; 1/31/20, 5:54 PM
Arashi said...: Dang, Brexit and now this.... (dedicated to Chuck, Inga and all the others...)

The party's over
It's time to call it a day
They've burst your pretty balloon
And taken the moon away
It's time to wind up the masquerade
Just make your mind up the piper must be paid

(props to nat King Cole); 1/31/20, 5:54 PM
rcocean said...: This boring clown show is ALMOST over. Thank God. Of course its the US Senate, natural home of the Bloviator, so they'll talk ALL DAY Monday, dispensing their pearls of wisdom (aka talking points). Then we'll skip Tuesday because that's the State of the Union, and its too much work for Senators to vote and attend a speech on ONE Day. Plus, its the Iowa caucus, Y'know something that really matters.

Then Wednesday, We'll finally get to see if Mittens will vote to impeach and prove he's a jealous little girly girl or not.; 1/31/20, 5:58 PM
Yancey Ward said...: I will predict the House reopens the impeachment inquiry sometime in May or June and votes out impeachment articles around September. You read it hear first.; 1/31/20, 5:58 PM
Ken B said...: A vote for witnesses is easy to pass off as truth seeking. It is NOT just a prelude to convict. It provides cover. A few of those ayes will vote against conviction I think. Collins, Romney, maybe Manchin, Sinema.; 1/31/20, 5:59 PM
rcocean said...: Somewhere Putin smiles.; 1/31/20, 5:59 PM
gilbar said...: The neat part is;
come November, when President Trump is reelected, and the Senate AND the House are Republican...
There is a Life Long Liberal here, that will say:
Well, that's No surprise! The results were within All the Polls Margins of error

Just like he did last time; 1/31/20, 6:02 PM
narciso said...: This fellow makes three after bagdadi and suleimani

https://narcisoscorner.blogspot.com/?m=1; 1/31/20, 6:02 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: "Stop for a second to remember how we got here. In the beginning was the Dossier. And the idea was that Trump won -- defeated the annointed Hillary -- because he colluded with Putin. If that story had held up, or even remained plausible, then Trump's election might have been thought invalid and could have been overturned. But, no, Muller didn't find any collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaingn. He didn't even find that the Russian interference had any significant effect on the outcome of the election.

BUT the Democrats had taken control of the House in the 2018 elections. They had the power to impeach Trump, even though there was now no reason to think that his election was invalid. Of course there was no possibility that the Senate would go along with a purely partisan impeachment. But maybe they could weaken Trump's reelection bid, and the Republican Senate and House prospects, by a pretend impeachment. So that's what they tried.

So who violated the spirit of the Constitution?"

Everyone has, living or dead.

To your point, I find the traitors more in violation than the "loyal" opposition.

Romney and Collins.; 1/31/20, 6:02 PM
narciso said...: Quelle surprise

https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-huge-oil-discovery-on-golan-heights-1001071698; 1/31/20, 6:04 PM
rcocean said...: "You read it hear first."

Makes sense. I mean why not? All the House D's are Robots who vote in lockstep, so they don't need any R's. And McConnell has set the precedent that EVERY House Impeachment will be treated seriously and given a long trial - no matter how absurd, rushed, and ridiculous.

If Trump gets re-elected we could have a quarterly impeachment trial, make it a regular thing with a set time every 3 months.; 1/31/20, 6:04 PM
Big Mike said...: Trump wins.

There's been a lot of that since November 2016. What's good about it is that when he wins, there is a tendency for the ordinary people of the United States to win, which has not always been the case with other Presidents.; 1/31/20, 6:04 PM
narciso said...: What i was referring to:

https://mobile.twitter.com/_Emperor_Ming_/status/1223361157601337351; 1/31/20, 6:06 PM
rcocean said...: This is London. Tonight, British Prime Minister issued the following:

Tonight we have left the EU - an extraordinary turning point in the life of this country. Let us come together now to make the most of all the opportunities Brexit will bring - and let’s unleash the potential of the whole UK.; 1/31/20, 6:07 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Romney may run again, may not, but if he does he will win.

Utahians respect their betters like Mitt Romney, which is why he won to start with.

What kind of people in Utah learned something new about Mitt that would prevent Him* from winning again?

Like Kid Rock said: Send me to Hell, or Salt Lake City, it would about the same to me. It would be about the same to me.

You Utah fudges better appreciate Trump, after him Mormons are done. Forever.

I'll be sad to see them go, but understand why they were too cucked to survive.; 1/31/20, 6:08 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: Huge oil discovery to go with their Nat Gas!! Daily double; 1/31/20, 6:13 PM
Yancey Ward said...: "What i was referring to"

Another austere scholar takes the big dirt nap.; 1/31/20, 6:14 PM
rcocean said...: Mittens will vote Guilty on one article. He won't be able to pass up the chance to strike at Trump - and earn more love and respect from the WaPo and NYT. Its really astounding that we almost elected this two-faced turd in 2012, and we were sorry he was beaten by Obama. We almost got President Pierre Delecto - reaching across the aisle - being "Moderate" and giving us TPP, Amnesty, and Romneycare add-on to Obamacare. And lets not forget Climate Change. President Romney would've spent everyday thinking "Will the NYT Op-ed Board like this?"; 1/31/20, 6:14 PM
Yancey Ward said...: The only way Romney runs again is if it looks like Ivanka is going to win in 2024.; 1/31/20, 6:15 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Sorry, probably the big sand nap.; 1/31/20, 6:16 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: Next pass I'll bet the dems bring in "The Ringer". Dionne Warwick and the Psychic Network. THEN the walls will be closing in on Trump.; 1/31/20, 6:18 PM
narciso said...: Very much so

https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/the-oslo-blood-libel-is-over/?fbclid=IwAR3sUfVMp2_ZlV41AZMjmEdMoCWo058gjrWaUeSXiekqgnW001Y3FDyl_Nc; 1/31/20, 6:18 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: Now... for the Virginia 2nd Amendment secession.; 1/31/20, 6:20 PM
Tommy Duncan said...: I'm thrilled that the Senate is on call, thus forcing Bernie, Amy and Liz to miss the fun in Iowa.; 1/31/20, 6:21 PM
Marshall Rose said...: Was just fortunate enough to tell a Tom Steyer caller that I am feeling the Bern!; 1/31/20, 6:24 PM
Browndog said...: So, they are voting to table a Schumer amendment to subpoena a bunch of people and a ton of documents.

Collins and Romney both voted with the republicans.; 1/31/20, 6:24 PM
BUMBLE BEE said...: Bay Area Guy...
You fuckers are all Putin Assets!
I'm stealing that. Drop by the Kiosk tomorrow and buy a couple t-shirts for the family!; 1/31/20, 6:26 PM
narciso said...: Like evil julia stiles

https://heavy.com/news/2020/01/hannah-roemhild/; 1/31/20, 6:27 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: We need more witnesses and documents! And, if you don't give them to us, you're all Putin Assets!; 1/31/20, 6:28 PM
Browndog said...: Now Schumer has an amendment to force the Chief Justice to issue a subpoena to John Bolton, and have the Sargent at Arms serve it.; 1/31/20, 6:29 PM
Mark said...: Romney won't run again- he only ran this time to be the guy who told Trump he had to resign because of the Mueller investigation.

No, he ran for senate for the same reasons that Hillary ran for the senate, with delusions of becoming the de facto leader of the party. He fully expected that the congressional leadership and party establishment would embrace him and hoist him on their shoulders. He expected that they would beg him to be high in the senate leadership.

And most (all) of the senators looked right through him and thought, "who is this punk freshman from a podunk state thinking he is that he was entitled to be our leader?"; 1/31/20, 6:29 PM
narciso said...: Our governor is intent on seeking justice for the montalvo case.; 1/31/20, 6:29 PM
Josephbleau said...: The lesson we learn from Kavenaugh and impeachment is that if the Republican victims try to go out of their way and be fair the Democrats will never quit and erect one bombshell event after another. The only sensible approach is to have the vote fast and end it quickly.

I thought at one time that these events were good in that they caused the Democrats to pre-spend all their campaign money. Yet, if Bloomberg and Steyer are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on stuff, it may not matter. Perhaps the Democrats now have an inexhaustible amount of money. OK, but I think money matters less now spent in the media, but certainly is used to support voter fraud. I don't know why anyone would donate to a Democrat, if they throw money around that way your donated pittance means nothing.; 1/31/20, 6:31 PM
narciso said...: That was the case of thr husband who cut up his wife and burief her in her back yard but the joke da refuse to act on it.; 1/31/20, 6:32 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: The idiot brigade (Dem Senators) have moved to Subpoena John Bolton. So now, there is a Motion to Table the Motion. I really need to brush up on Robert's Rule of Orders. But at least we don't have to hear much from Shifty-Schiff.; 1/31/20, 6:32 PM
Browndog said...: Browndog said...

Now Schumer has an amendment to force the Chief Justice to issue a subpoena to John Bolton, and have the Sargent at Arms serve it.

Apparently Collins and Romney voted for this. Final vote was 51-49; 1/31/20, 6:36 PM
Mark said...: Now we see the folly of those Trump-supporting conservatives who said the Senate needed to have witnesses.

This frivolous farce should have been summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim on the very first day, but of course weasels like Mitt Romney would have prevented that.; 1/31/20, 6:37 PM
Mark said...: Now Schumer has an amendment to force the Chief Justice to issue a subpoena to John Bolton, and have the Sargent at Arms serve it.

Apparently Collins and Romney voted for this. Final vote was 51-49

Sigh. No. The motion was was not on Schumer's motion but on a motion to table. And C and R voted against. The motion to table the Schumer motion passed.; 1/31/20, 6:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
You fuckers are all Putin Assets!

1/31/20, 5:04 PM

Ha Ha Ha.
Simp.; 1/31/20, 6:42 PM
Mark said...: Now they are voting to table another Schumer motion that would suspend the Constitution and give the presiding officer supreme authority over the Senate by ruling on motions.; 1/31/20, 6:46 PM
Browndog said...: Sigh. No. The motion was was not on Schumer's motion but on a motion to table. And C and R voted against. The motion to table the Schumer motion passed.
____

Sigh. By not voting to table they voted for the amendment.

Sigh.; 1/31/20, 6:47 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: I can't make fun of Nadler, since he has to attend to his wife, who has cancer.

But that still leaves Shifty-Schiff as fair game.

The Senate should move to authorize the Sergeant at Arms to give that little Bug-eyed weasel a wedgie -- for making us endure this impeachment farce for a month.; 1/31/20, 6:47 PM
Mark said...: Of course all the Dems are voting against the Senate's plenary authority, all for crass political purposes. C and R voting to table.; 1/31/20, 6:48 PM
Mark said...: By not voting to table they voted for the amendment.

No. Go learn your rules of procedure.; 1/31/20, 6:49 PM
Mark said...: And, no, I'm not going to have some pissy Chuck-like back and forth with you.; 1/31/20, 6:49 PM
Clark said...: @Bay Area Guy: Robert's Rules of Order won't help you much. It's the Rules of the Senate that you need.; 1/31/20, 6:50 PM
Browndog said...: No. Go learn your rules of procedure.

Fuck off.

Go ahead, make the case they voted against tabling the Schumer amendment because they wanted to bring it to a vote, so they could vote no.; 1/31/20, 6:55 PM
Clyde said...: Still not tired of winning, winning, winning!; 1/31/20, 7:08 PM
Matt Sablan said...: Well, let this be a lesson. Do your own homework.; 1/31/20, 7:14 PM
Chuck said...: Blogger Yancey Ward said...
Chuck, if the commenter above is correct about Utah just passing a recall measure for senators, then Romney will be recalled if he votes to convict on either count.

Lulz.

Remind me what part of Article I talks about the “recall” of ANY member of Congress?

Next; with or without (it’s gonna be without), tell us about all of the past recall elections of members of the House or the Senate?

Finally, wherever you come from in Bumfuckville, are you regarded as leading civic lights given your vast knowledge of the Constitution?

https://www.thoughtco.com/can-members-of-congress-be-recalled-3368240; 1/31/20, 7:20 PM
Matt Sablan said...: "Will some of the Democrats who voted FOR additional witnesses now vote to acquit?"

-- I don't know how if you voted for further witnesses you can do anything BUT vote for acquittal or not vote. I mean, you're saying, "We need more evidence!" Right? So, the default in any rational system of "we need more evidence" when you have to decide if someone is guilty is, "Well, we can't prove he's guilty."

Right? You could protest by not voting, but if you HAVE to decide guilty/not guilty, and you felt you needed more evidence to make a decision, the only consistent position is not guilty, right?; 1/31/20, 7:22 PM
chickelit said...: Marshall Rose said...
So, the Senators running for president just commited Abuse of Power by the new definition because they are attempting to gain personal benefit by their actions today.

Is this not how it works now?

Totally agree. Each of those Senators voting in blatant self-interest should now be mocked into political oblivion. It is also an excellent criterion for narrowing the Democrat field.; 1/31/20, 7:24 PM
Iman said...: Been relaxing in Laguna Beach today and missed all the fun. I’m certain Chuckles has been Clown Shoes On all day... amirite?; 1/31/20, 7:24 PM
alanc709 said...: BTW, Happy Brexit Day, Chuck; 1/31/20, 7:28 PM
Matt Sablan said...: I'll say this: I would have been fine with witnesses, provided they worked like witnesses are normally thought to work. That is, both sides get to call their witnesses, examine and cross-examine them, and put them under oath. Unfortunately, the way witnesses were done in the House left me skeptical that Congress can be trusted to handle witnesses fairly. Maybe the Senate would have been different, we'll never know, but past precedent in hearings and the like have shown that witnesses are more there for sport and show than to "find the truth."

Given that, while I would have been fine with a legitimate set of witnesses handled professionally, given the reality of the situation, rejecting new witnesses seems fine to me. Especially since we've got the witnesses that the House, that is, the prosecution essentially in this case, wanted and their testimony is, as far as I can tell, being used and referenced in the Senate trial, the only people who might lose out are the defense, who get no chance to call any witnesses in either chamber.

Which, the defense seems to be fine with, so, I'm not sure what the big deal is. If the House wants more witnesses, do it right from the start, and let's see if double jeopardy applies to impeachment when it goes through the courts.; 1/31/20, 7:36 PM
robother said...: While it is true that the US Constitution does not permit the recall of Senators, since it is clear that Romney is voting for iconviction in part to advance his personal desire to become President, the majority in the House of Representatives can impeach him under the standards applied to Trump. I have a feeling that vote in the Senate on that impeachment may have a different result than the vote on Trump's impeachment next Wednesday. A ray of hope for bi-partisanship after all.; 1/31/20, 7:48 PM
rcocean said...: The whole thing was a clown show since there NO CHANCE 20 R's were going to vote to remove Trump over Ukrainian Aid! If they had Trump would've been the FIRST president to be removed. The first. Over this. That 47 D's were willing to do it, just shows what a dangerous bunch they are.

Given conviction was impossible, the D plan was to use the impeachment to damage Trump by stringing it out as long as possible. Hence the cry for witnesses. Who weren't going to change the trial's outcome or anyone's vote. Romney voted for witnesses for the same reason the D's did - to damage Trump.; 1/31/20, 7:56 PM
Original Mike said...: "Unfortunately, the way witnesses were done in the House left me skeptical that Congress can be trusted to handle witnesses fairly."

I never heard the explanation for why the House interviewed their witnesses behind closed doors, with Adam Schiff deciding what questions could and could not be asked. I really would appreciate an explanation.

Inga? Chuck?; 1/31/20, 7:56 PM
Achilles said...: Yancey Ward said...
I will predict the House reopens the impeachment inquiry sometime in May or June and votes out impeachment articles around September. You read it hear first.

This is my guess too.

They must do something to compete with the indictments that are coming from the Durham investigation.

Those will be dropped in June/July.

So your timing is about right.; 1/31/20, 7:58 PM
rcocean said...: There was no reason for witnesses. What were they going to prove? That Trump really did delay Ukrainian aid solely to investigate Hunter Biden? So what. its still not a "High crime". Its not a "Crime" of any sort.

Partisan Clown impeachment articles result in clown trials. Want a real trial? Find true high crimes and misdemeanors, so obvious that some House R's will vote for it. Treat the matter seriously and go ahead slowly and reluctantly. As opposed to rushing forward with any shit you could find and then holding up the trial for a month because you don't like the Senate "Rules"; 1/31/20, 8:02 PM
Wikitorix said...: Seeing Red said...

Those running for president and Roberts should have recused themselves.

Roberts can't recuse himself. The constitution says "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside:" I don't know whether he could demote himself to Associate Justice, or if he'd have to resign from the Supreme Court entirely, but it's not optional, the Chief Justice must preside. Either way, the trial would have to be put on hold until President Trump could appoint a new Chief Justice and get him confirmed.

A Senator recusing from the vote is the same thing as voting for acquittal: "And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." The vote requires 2/3 of the Senators present, not the Senators who cast a vote. If 100 Senators are present, then a 66-0 vote is an acquittal.; 1/31/20, 8:03 PM
narciso said...: The face cards up

https://mobile.twitter.com/thelastrefuge2/status/1223404266687209472?s=21; 1/31/20, 8:05 PM
Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...: there's a "justice-involved" family in Delaware

...breathing a collective** sigh of relief

**but not enduring; 1/31/20, 8:10 PM
Fritz said...: It seems to me that a vote for witnesses implies you haven’t seen enough evidence to remove Trump, while a vote for no witnesses implies that you’ve seen enough to decide one way or the other. Of course that’s exactly opposite to how it’s actually playing out.; 1/31/20, 8:17 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "and votes out impeachment articles around September. You read it hear first."

Not improbable and, frankly, I hope they do. The Donk House just spent the entirety of it's limited political capital for no return whatever, possibly even a negative return. Doubling down harms no one but them. How does it go? Began as a tragedy and ended as a farce?; 1/31/20, 8:18 PM
Sebastian said...: "anything short of a trial and exoneration ON THE MERITS"

But the very accusation is BS "on the merits": a thought crime, and nothing more.

No evidence could make the accusation rise to the level of a high crime.

Therefore, any call for further "witnesses" is itself BS.

All of which of course only reinforces the shammy nature of the charade.; 1/31/20, 8:34 PM
Jamie said...: Did anybody just hear Graham 2.0 say "bullshit" on live TV??; 1/31/20, 8:35 PM
Sebastian said...: Of course, Trump's lawyers also raised the valid question, if you Dems think your evidence proves the charge, why do you need any more witnesses? (And by the way, why didn't you call them in the first place?)

Anyway, merits and substance and law and procedure are beside the point: the point was to keep up the vendetta against Trump, put shaky Senators in a tight spot, and mobilize the TDS base.; 1/31/20, 8:37 PM
rehajm said...: Did anybody just hear Graham 2.0 say "bullshit" on live TV

Twice.; 1/31/20, 8:40 PM
Francisco D said...: I will predict the House reopens the impeachment inquiry sometime in May or June and votes out impeachment articles around September. You read it hear first.

I think that is way too obvious Yancey and it will create a backlash.

My prediction is that after one year into his second term, the Dems will impeach Trump again. Trump would be a lame duck and have somewhat less political influence with Republican defenders. The Dems need to destroy his legacy. The more successful Trump is = the greater need to destroy him.

Trump is an existential threat to the Deep State.; 1/31/20, 8:52 PM
Jamie said...: My husband thinks Yancey et al. are absolutely correct. If the point is that the D's don't think Trump can be defeated at the ballot box AND they think his coattails are sufficient to hold the Senate (and dare I breathe, "take the House"?), a second impeachment before the election is just a case of going for it on the fourth down, isn't it? What do they have to lose, if they believe they're going to have crummy field position (as they will - fighting the incumbency advantage) no matter what?

Admittedly, I think it's going for it on fourth after a decisive sack, but...

The husband and I disagree on how interested people are. I hold that the impeachment farrago cuts generally against D's because the process was so transparently one-sided and generally for Trump, but that lots of people are totally not engaged even though we are; he believes that everyone's a little interested and a full 50% of all Americans (rather than 50% of whatever poll sample is being reported on by a press in the tank for those D's) are firmly convinced of Trump's guilt thanks to the efforts of almost all the mass media. I dunno. I guess November will tell.; 1/31/20, 9:14 PM
wildswan said...: "Yancey Ward said...
I will predict the House reopens the impeachment inquiry sometime in May or June and votes out impeachment articles around September. You read it hear first."

I predict that by May or June the Dems will be a national joke and impeachment, if they try it again, will add to the fun. I'm with those saying: "this parrot is dead" and it will be dead in Ipswich, Bolton or May. But if the Dems want to be dragged again by Smilin' Mitch, have at it.

Dead Parrot
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2hwqnp; 1/31/20, 9:18 PM
Howard said...: No Witt, you must acquit; 1/31/20, 9:23 PM
The Godfather said...: If you love this country, vote for the Republican candidates for House and Senate on Nov. 3. Yes, the Republicans may be (are) imperfect, but if the Democrats control the House after the 2020 election, they WILL do this again, especially if they also control the Senate. Even if you detest Trump, our country doesn't deserve what the Democrats would do to it.; 1/31/20, 9:27 PM
Rt41Rebel said...: Of all the ridiculous rhetorical phrases I've heard in the past 3 years, "the right side of history" tops the list. I won't waste your time with my reasons, but I would love to read our hostess's takedown of it.; 1/31/20, 9:39 PM
Chuck said...: Blogger robother said...
While it is true that the US Constitution does not permit the recall of Senators, since it is clear that Romney is voting for iconviction in part to advance his personal desire to become President, the majority in the House of Representatives can impeach him under the standards applied to Trump. I have a feeling that vote in the Senate on that impeachment may have a different result than the vote on Trump's impeachment next Wednesday. A ray of hope for bi-partisanship after all.

So first you idiots imagined that Senator Romney could be “recalled.” Now you are thinking of an “impeachment” of him.

Where do you get this shit?

Senators can be expelled, or censured, by their own body. They are not subject to impeachment. Not since 1789 and the case of William Blount.

What’s next on your agenda for Senator Romney? I’ve ruled out recall and impeachment. What else have you got?

Hahaha.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/oct/07/impeach-senator-representative-donald-trump-no/; 1/31/20, 9:46 PM
chickelit said...: The Democrat's worst nightmare is at hand: to have to run against Trump in a fair election under Electoral College rules. Their radical base won't let them field a reasonable candidate, so they'll have to ramp up the cheating and voter fraud in places they've never tried before. This should be interesting.; 1/31/20, 10:26 PM
Mary said...: Well, Republicans now own this. An impeachment trial with no witnesses. The truth of the matter is that usually the defense is trying to get witnesses on behalf of their client, they want witnesses to prove his or her innocence. That’s not what happened here, however you try to spin it. They didn’t want any voices heard. That pretty much says it all.; 1/31/20, 10:29 PM
chickelit said...: I renounce my 2012 vote for Mitt Romney and pledge to work against him in any future national election. I am contagious.; 1/31/20, 10:29 PM
chickelit said...: Mary said...Well, Republicans now own this. An impeachment trial with no witnesses.

No additional witness. Lt. Col. Vindictaman is free to testify to his heart's content.; 1/31/20, 10:32 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: “I will predict the House reopens the impeachment inquiry sometime in May or June and votes out impeachment articles around September. You read it hear first.”

Maybe. I think that it would be political suicide for the Democrats, unless they can put something together that is a lot more plausible this tie around. The problem is that the Democrats repeatedly cheated all the way along, from setting up the fake whistleblower to issuing fake subpoenas, to denying Trump the right to interview witnesses, to controlling what questions the Republicans could ask witnesses, to demanding more witnesses in the Senate, etc. A lot of America’s really don’t like cheaters. They also don’t like liars and Schifty showed himself to have been pathological in that regard. Do you really think that they would want another bogus impeached trial this fall? I just dot see tat going well. And impeaching before the election but leaving the trial until after the election could lose the Democrats their House majority esp if that meant Republicans running the impeachment prosecution.

Not sure that they wouldn’t be that adamant, or that stupid. But I just have a hard time believing that the House Dems don’t have cooler heads. We shall see.; 1/31/20, 10:37 PM
Mary said...: So once a trial starts the prosecutors or defense can no longer introduce new witnesses or documents? Is that how it works? I wish Ann would provide some of her legal knowledge this way. I’m tired of the emotional aspect of all of this and would just like some plain old facts.; 1/31/20, 10:40 PM
Achilles said...: Mary said...
Well, Republicans now own this. An impeachment trial with no witnesses. The truth of the matter is that usually the defense is trying to get witnesses on behalf of their client, they want witnesses to prove his or her innocence. That’s not what happened here, however you try to spin it. They didn’t want any voices heard. That pretty much says it all.

If there were no people this stupid, who would vote for democrats?; 1/31/20, 10:42 PM
Drago said...: Mary: "An impeachment trial with no witnesses."

No witnesses?

Who were all those people in the House Managers videos?

Take your time in answering that one Mary. I wouldnt want you to sprain your brain.; 1/31/20, 10:43 PM
Mary said...: I don't know why you're attacking me, I'm giving my opinion and I'm asking questions here (against my better judgement, this area is toxic!) But tell me, I'll ask again, So once a trial starts the prosecutors or defense can no longer introduce new witnesses or documents? Is that how it works?; 1/31/20, 10:48 PM
Achilles said...: Mary said...
So once a trial starts the prosecutors or defense can no longer introduce new witnesses or documents? Is that how it works? I wish Ann would provide some of her legal knowledge this way. I’m tired of the emotional aspect of all of this and would just like some plain old facts.

This isn't a trial you moron. This person is as stupid as Inga, but with different writing styles.

It is impeachment. There are very specific rules to impeachment.

The House Impeaches the president. They name the articles, gather evidence against the president, and submit the case to the Senate. The articles are supposed to be based on treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

I bolded those last 6 words. The key word there is OTHER. Abuse of power and obstruction of congress are made up bullshit.

At that point the Senate makes a decision.

The Senate had no obligation to listen to anything the democrats were doing. The entire impeachment process carried out by the house was obscene and disgusting.

The House democrats abused every principle of our legal system.

Really it is time to stop enabling these people. They are trying to destroy our republic.; 1/31/20, 10:55 PM
Achilles said...: Mary said...
I don't know why you're attacking me,

Because you are parroting obvious lies.

If you don't know they are lies you are stupid.

It has been 3 years of lies and sedition trying to overturn the 2016 election. Every day we have to listen to democrat talking points made by stupid people who continue to support them.

It is time for people who support this crap to be humiliated and driven out of the public square.; 1/31/20, 10:57 PM
Crazy World said...: Inman 7:24 very nice place to enjoy.; 1/31/20, 10:58 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Mary, an impeachment trial has its' own rules. It is not like a regular trial in court. The House presented 17 witnesses (and did not allow the GOP to present any witnesses of their own.) Why is that considered fair and the Senate refusing to allow more witnesses is somehow illegitimate?

Secondly, why would any person in their right mind want this to drag on? Even with more witnesses, 67 Senators would have to vote to have Trump removed from office. That is not going to happen and was never going to happen.

This is complete partisan bullshit.; 1/31/20, 11:00 PM
Mary said...: So far I’ve been called stupid and a moron, I’ve been told “Take your time in answering that one Mary. I wouldnt want you to sprain your brain.”
You’re all such an engaging and enlightening group here! I feel like I’ve learned so much.
But seriously all I’ve learned here is that you hate any opinion that is not your own (which is in complete and total defense of Trump no matter what he does or says) even other Republicans are at risk of being name-called if they are not on-board 100%. This is exactly what is wrong now in our country. I know the same can be said for liberals. They can get into this “you are 100% with us or else you’re crap” mentality and it’s really really bad. It’s bad for all of us. So go ahead, call me human scum or whatever. It’s what I’ve come to expect from Althouse commenters. I stand by my opinion, this no-witness business is not going to be good for Republicans in the next election. I could be wrong, I could be right, but this is my theory.; 1/31/20, 11:15 PM
narciso said...: This isnt a criminal trial mary, now it is 'a travesty of two mockeries of a sham' the laws that were broken bent or mtilated to get here are legion, starting with the steele dossier and the phony fisa on carter page.; 1/31/20, 11:20 PM
walter said...: Mary,
You began with pretty uninformed declarations that are bound to get pushback. Better to ask questions first.; 1/31/20, 11:21 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: @Mary

"So far I’ve been called stupid and a moron,"

Not very nice, but you may be a Putin Assett, too!; 1/31/20, 11:29 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: . I stand by my opinion, this no-witness business is not going to be good for Republicans in the next election. I could be wrong, I could be right, but this is my theory.

1/31/20, 11:15 PM

Who do you think was swayed by this farce who wasn't already in the "hate Trump" camp?

Maybe wasting time and money on an obvious witchhunt instead of trying to, you know, actually govern will not be good for Democrats in the next election. There's more solid evidence for that (Trump's rising poll numbers, for one) than there is for your theory. I could be wrong too of course, but it looks like the country was, by and large, bored out of their minds by the clown show in Congress.; 1/31/20, 11:33 PM
walter said...: If not Chuck! in drag, might be a love connection.; 1/31/20, 11:35 PM
walter said...: So is Klobuchar's secret to poll bump being away from Iowa?; 1/31/20, 11:37 PM
walter said...: It's been said elsewhere that this impeachment is the first where new/non-House witnesses have been suggested for Senate adjudication.; 1/31/20, 11:40 PM
Yancey Ward said...: Ah, Chuck the dumbfuck can't read my comment.

Dumbfuck- I wrote "if" the commenter was right. I didn't know, and didn't really care if it was even possible to pass such a law- just speculating what would happen if he was right. So, it isn't possible to pass such a law.; 2/1/20, 12:02 AM
Yancey Ward said...: But I find it interesting that you apparently had to look it up, too.; 2/1/20, 12:03 AM
D 2 said...: Mary: perhaps you may help things by identifying whether you had objections to the House's conduct with how they involved witnesses. Why do you consider "ownership" is to begin now, and not earlier in this process? Did you have a problem with how witnesses were or were not involved in (pre senate) proceedings?; 2/1/20, 12:04 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Mary,

I will take you at your word that you are truly interested in the answer.

This wasn't supposed to be analogous to a criminal or civil trial in the court system. In essence, the impeachment process in the House is supposed to do the investigation and conduct what would be analogous to a criminal trial. In other words, all the witnesses for both sides should have been called, questioned and cross-examined by both sides before the House issued articles of impeachment- that is how it was done in 1868, 1973-74, and 1998.

The analogous part for the Senate to a criminal or civil court trial is what an appeals court does- an appeals court examines the court record created in the criminal/civil court and judges whether or not the verdict at that level is to be upheld. If an appeals court finds that the witnesses from a previous trial were insufficient, it doesn't call those witnesses itself- it remands the case back to the criminal/civil court where the trial took place and orders a new trial. In this case, if the Democrats think they need new witnesses, they are free to call those witnesses to the House in a new impeachment inquiry.

Now, are you honest, or just a troll?; 2/1/20, 12:18 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Sorry if we seem harsh, but we deal with trolls who write in the manner you do all the time- my first instinct is that your comment was an attempt to mock the idea that because no witnesses were called, it couldn't be a real impeachment trial. The style of your comment could be completley innocent, but I have seen this technique used by trolls for going on 20 years now.; 2/1/20, 12:23 AM
Yancey Ward said...: It is interesting- the case for recalling a Senator has only been tested once that I can find, and didn't get beyond the district court level in Idaho in 1967.

Given the text of the Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution about Senators and the 17th Amendment to those sections, the district court decision is the correct one- there doesn't seem to be scope for a state to do anything but set up the popular election- but we do know that doesn't mean shit with judges who can reach any decision they want. Maybe Utah can bring us a new case. What say you, Chuck?; 2/1/20, 12:35 AM
Achilles said...: Mary said...

You’re all such an engaging and enlightening group here! I feel like I’ve learned so much. But seriously all I’ve learned here is that you hate any opinion that is not your own (which is in complete and total defense of Trump no matter what he does or says) even other Republicans are at risk of being name-called if they are not on-board 100%. This is exactly what is wrong now in our country.

You opened with this:

Mary said...
Well, Republicans now own this. An impeachment trial with no witnesses. The truth of the matter is that usually the defense is trying to get witnesses on behalf of their client, they want witnesses to prove his or her innocence. That’s not what happened here, however you try to spin it. They didn’t want any voices heard. That pretty much says it all.

This was the first thing you said here.

You do not have an open mind. You did not come in with anything other than hate.

You are a typical democrat supporter.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. You are still supporting a group that lied about Russian collusion, lied about Kavanaugh being a gang rapist, defended Hodgkinson, wants open borders, and wants to impeach Trump for the same thing Biden is caught on camera bragging about. You people have been openly lying for 4 years.

There is no reason to respect someone who says the things you said.; 2/1/20, 12:37 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: “I will predict the House reopens the impeachment inquiry sometime in May or June and votes out impeachment articles around September. You read it hear first”

You may have been beat out by Tucker Carlson tonight. Maybe not your projected impeachment dates, but that he believed it likely that Trump be impeached again this year.; 2/1/20, 12:38 AM
Yancey Ward said...: I made the prediction at 6:58 EST. Of course, I am not really first- probably 1,000,000 have made that prediction this week. It is sort of like predicting the sun rising.; 2/1/20, 12:46 AM
Yancey Ward said...: And there is also the SCOTUS case that shot down state imposed term limits on federal officers in the mid 90s. That case, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, was decided 5-4 with the liberals winning the vote of Anthony Kennedy. The dissent was Rehnquist, Thomas, O'Connor, and Scalia.

So, a recall law for Utah isn't necessarily impossible to pass and implement. However, it would take a decade to work it ways though a final SCOTUS decision if it ever made it that far. So Romney is safe.; 2/1/20, 12:56 AM
Birkel said...: Romney is the Justin Amish of the Senate.
He will lose in 2024 or not run.; 2/1/20, 1:04 AM
n.n said...: So, Trump survived the first, second, and progressive choices for Planned President (PP). Now, the Democrats are following Governor Blackface's advocacy of liberal license to force selective-president of survivors. The Democrats are crying foul because they didn't do their homework and there is a clear and progressive risk for wielding the double-edged scalpel, beginning with quid pro Joes (e.g. obstructing justice) and not ending with quid pro Bos (e.g. placing Iranian regime and terrorist proxy interests first, cancelling a head of state). Tik-Tok the cover-up has run its course. The Democrats will not be permitted to share/shift responsibility, but will have to wield the scalpel if the choose to exonerate themselves through PP.; 2/1/20, 1:51 AM
etbass said...: Whether another impeachment ensues depends on the election of congress candidates ....and the president, of course.; 2/1/20, 1:56 AM
Gk1 said...: I just don't think Nancy can get House red state democrats to walk the gang plank again with another pointless impeachment this year. I would wait to see the residual damage that has happened underneath the water line with this failed impeachment effort. Failure will be a huge loss of face, particularly when even with 100% of the media behind their effort no one really cares, including democratic voters.

My money would be on another swamp effort of internal leaks to damage trump and fan perception he is a russian agent. Thats the only play left in their play book.; 2/1/20, 2:24 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: This is not about impeaching Trump, this is about knocking off a couple of Republican Senators so that the Dems can block Supreme COurt nominations, federal judges, etc.; 2/1/20, 2:36 AM
etbass said...: Reminds me, I haven’t seen much in the way of senate and house projections for November.; 2/1/20, 2:44 AM
phunktor said...: "So far I’ve been called stupid and a moron, I’ve been told “Take your time in answering that one Mary. I wouldnt want you to sprain your brain.”
You’re all such an engaging and enlightening group here! I feel like I’ve learned so much.
But seriously all I’ve learned here is that you hate any opinion that is not your own (which is in complete and total defense of Trump no matter what he does or says) even other Republicans are at risk of being name-called if they are not on-board 100%. This is exactly what is wrong now in our country. I know the same can be said for liberals. They can get into this “you are 100% with us or else you’re crap” mentality and it’s really really bad. It’s bad for all of us. So go ahead, call me human scum or whatever. It’s what I’ve come to expect from Althouse commenters. I stand by my opinion, this no-witness business is not going to be good for Republicans in the next election. I could be wrong, I could be right, but this is my theory."

Go away little troll. And demerits to everyone who responded as if there was the faintest chance you commented here in good faith; KF!plonk!; 2/1/20, 3:02 AM
wendybar said...: America Wins.; 2/1/20, 4:10 AM
Ty said...: My favorite part was when house managers broke into song.

John Roberts was clapping along (off-beat). Totally made my day.; 2/1/20, 4:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Yancey: Now, are you honest, or just a troll?

Mary isn't a troll. She's a garden-variety lib bint who thinks she's so much better informed than all those benighted people who get all their info from Fox News. (It's an article of faith with people like Mary that everybody here gets all their info from Fox News, lol.) So predictably, she's not any good for anything but the standard lib bint flounce-in flounce-out.

Flounce-in stage: She's gonna blow everyone's closed mind with challenging opinions and facts that she's sure they've never heard anywhere (what with living in a Fox News bubble and all).

Flounce-out stage: She suffers the painful cognitive dissonance flare-up consequent to the realization that she's getting unexpected push-back from people who are more intelligent and better-informed than herself. She immediately switches to the predictable lib bint defense against this unpleasant state of cog-dis: dropping the issue she allegedly came to debate like a hot potato, and attempting to make the thread all about her injured feelings instead.; 2/1/20, 7:30 AM
rehajm said...: Reminds me, I haven’t seen much in the way of senate and house projections for November.

270 to win has baselines. For the Senate races in play: AL from blue to leans red, AZ ME CO NC from red toss up, one or two from solid blue to leans blue...MI and...?

House baseline is 3 flips red to blue (NC, TX), around 16 blue toss ups, 6 red toss ups, 5 open seats going 2 blue and 3 red...; 2/1/20, 7:41 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "So once a trial starts the prosecutors or defense can no longer introduce new witnesses or documents? Is that how it works?"

-- Trials are often dismissed without hearing witnesses if the case is weak or non-existent.; 2/1/20, 7:57 AM
CWJ said...: Haven't read the comment thread yet so maybe this was answered, but I can't remember which media outlet laughably characterized the impeachment vote in the house as bipartisan. I'd like to monitor them to see how they characterize this witness vote.; 2/1/20, 8:45 AM
Narayanan said...: persistence personified.

https://youtu.be/4xk2-Ol8tLk

Nigel Farage last EU briefing, press; 2/1/20, 8:46 AM
Mark said...: "So once a trial starts the prosecutors or defense can no longer introduce new witnesses or documents? Is that how it works?"

-- Trials are often dismissed without hearing witnesses if the case is weak or non-existent.

Some jurisdictions will, in fact, entertain and grant a motion to dismiss after the opening statements are given if the opening statement states all the evidence that the plaintiff proposes to offer in support of the allegation and it is apparent that the facts proposed to be shown would not sustain the complaint.

And if the case is dismissed after opening statements, it is still considered to be a real trial.; 2/1/20, 10:37 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: “I just don't think Nancy can get House red state democrats to walk the gang plank again with another pointless impeachment this year. I would wait to see the residual damage that has happened underneath the water line with this failed impeachment effort. Failure will be a huge loss of face, particularly when even with 100% of the media behind their effort no one really cares, including democratic voters.”

I think that that is going to be the problem for another impeachment. The House Dem majority very much depends on a bunch of Trump District seats that were flipped Blue in 2018. They would be required to walk off of a political cliff, to appease the crazies in their party, and then go back to their districts to campaign. Meanwhile, Trump will likely be doing multiple MAGA rallies a day, very likely even one or two in their districts, where their opponents will be introduced and plugged by Trump, while he points out that these Dem Representatives have done nothing in DC white there, except vote to impeach Trump on bogus charges. When Speaker Palsi tells them to jump, they ask “how high?” Who do they want to support in the last months before the election? Trump? Or, Palsi, Wadler, Schifty, AOC, and her two rag headed Jew hating Muslim confederates? For this first vote they can hope that it has faded by November. Not likely for an August/September impeachment.; 2/1/20, 10:42 AM
Narr said...: May I humbly suggest, if it is agreeable to our hostess and to Angle-Dyne, a tag called "lib-bint cog-dis"?

Narr
O what a beautiful morning!; 2/1/20, 10:55 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: "So once a trial starts the prosecutors or defense can no longer introduce new witnesses or documents? Is that how it works?"

The problem with most trials is that of surprise. Normally, each side gets to depose the other side’s witnesses, call their own witnesses to discredit them, etc. Adding new witnesses after discovery is complete is then a problem. There is always a question whether their earlier omission from the witness list was an underhanded trial tactic or not. And often the party attempting to call the new witness has to justify why they weren’t named as a witness earlier. The main problem for the Dems here is that, bottom line, they didn’t call most of the witnesses they didn’t interview earlier because they didn’t have subpoena power and didn't want their impeachment slowed down by the President litigating his Executive Privilege and Immunity claims through the court system (besides, that would have killed their second article of impeachment). Thus, the reason that these witnesses weren’t interviewed by Schifty and his staffers during their impeachment investigation, was because of internal Dem Party priorities, and had little to do with last minute surprises, which is the usual excuse for calling witnesses not on a party’s witness list during a trial. And even if there were witnesses who refused to be interviewed by Schifty and his band of miscreants, following Trump’s orders, that wouldn’t be a legitimate excuse for adding them as witnesses in the Senate trial, because it was Up to Palsi, Wadler, and Schifty to have acquired, by a vote of the full House, legal subpoena power, so that they could go into court to enforce the subpoenas (and the President court interpose his Constitutional defenses). That is how it has always worked in the past. That their plan and timing didn’t allow for that wasn’t Trump’s and the Republican’s problem. It was theirs. And they had to live with the consequences.; 2/1/20, 11:10 AM
Mary said...: I'm not a troll btw. Thanks to those that gave some legal feedback about trials. I wonder if you guys argue like this in real life, the name calling and all? I have more to say, but I'll leave it here. This comment section is not for me!; 2/1/20, 12:42 PM
Jim at said...: they want witnesses to prove his or her innocence.

Maybe people wouldn't call you names, Mary, if you had a basic understanding of how our courts work.

Here's a hint to get you started: Defendants are not guilty until proven innocent.; 2/1/20, 3:36 PM
Greg the class traitor said...: Yancey Ward said...
And I do want to point out something- none of the hostile witnesses the Trump defense would have called would have agreed to appear, and they could not have been compelled to do so either.

Why not? The Senate can issue legally valid subpoenas; 2/1/20, 6:34 PM
Gospace said...: Got to reading this late today.

Democrat and media new math:
17=0

There were 17 witnesses in the House, and their testimony was transmitted to the Senate. Seventeen..

Looking at comments up above and the frenzy in the media, they don't exist. The Senate knows nothing about any witnesses.

17=0

Actually, there were 18 witnesses. One was apparently exculpatory, a word I had never used prior to this impeachment brouhaha. In a real trial, failure by the prosecution to present that testimony would result in a mistrial.; 2/1/20, 7:45 PM