February 4, 2020

Nice job by Susan Collins, explaining why she’s voting to acquit.

On TV just now.

93 comments:

madAsHell said...

For some odd reason, I thought there might be a link to the video stream. Am I missing something??

Achilles said...

DC is such a joke.

Nice job!

rehajm said...

Nice to see her act so definitive for a change...

Ken B said...

I will watch later. She is the only one I will watch.

MeatPopscicle1234 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

It wasn't improper and very poor conduct. It's Trump's job as president to investigate the 2016 hoax explosion and he's asking help to investigate on the other end. He can't leave the job of investigating that to the deep state because they won't do it. Deep state channels bypassed.

Collins is an asshole.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I can't wait for Murkowski to vote to convict. It's the only way to be sure Trump doesn't sell Alaska to Russia!

Yes, DC is a joke.

Kevin said...

Oh, is that thing still going?

Why? The world has in every way moved on.

Francisco D said...

It seems that the Republican "moderates" line is that Trumps behavior was inappropriate, but neither criminal nor worthy of impeachment. That applies to Murkowski, Alexander, Collins and very likely Romney and Gardner.

I have no idea what these people actually believe or if they even paid attention to Trumps lawyers (who were very impressive). It's all political calculation.

Maybe Lindsay will now take the ball and run with it. I am not holding my breath.

rhhardin said...

Women think like this.

rhhardin said...

Dershowitz's argument was the wrong argument, and he didn't even make it correctly.

All he should have said is that you don't get to infer the motive without thinking about it. E.g. is it Trump's job.

The dems instantly saw the flaw in Dershowitz's actual argument. That if you can't impeach if the president thought he was working in the national interest, then if the president believes his own reelection is in the national interest, you can't impeach him for anything.

That doesn't work with my version. Dershowitz's version implies a rule, and you can't make a rule of it.

rhhardin said...

They're a bunch of worthless cunts up there. British sense too.

Achilles said...

It is inappropriate to investigate corruption in Washington DC.

This sentiment is being Seriously and openly spoken.

We need to burn that city to the ground.

rhhardin said...

(t was in fact a perfect phone call.

James K said...

I don't have Dershowitz's exact words handy, but I thought he said that if the president believes something is in the national interest, AND it happens to be good for him politically, than it can't be impeachable. The "AND" suggests to me that the two conditions are not the same. In other words, there has to be something in it for the country other than his reelection prospects.

Amadeus 48 said...

Susan Collins does it again!

She saved Kavanaugh--Joe Manchin (D-Manchin) is always there when we don't need him--but Susan shows up when we need her with a well-thought-out explanation of her vote. She has to get re-elected in blue Maine, and the money is pouring into that state to beat her. I told my wife that Susan had earned a free pass on this impeachment vote because she has to get re-elected, and her vote wasn't needed. We sent her campaign $1,000 in appreciation for her Kavanaugh performance. Senate seats are rare commodities.

I am delighted that she is going to vote to acquit.

Mattman26 said...

I'll take the vote (I checked, and she voted to acquit Clinton too), but I object to her unexplained statement that it was "wrong" for Trump to mention Biden on the phone call, and to ask Ukraine to investigate "his political rival."

It's like there's some sort of immunity if you hold or are running for office. Berlusconi smiles.

madAsHell said...

I found a video of Senator Collins. I think I know why there wasn't a link.

If you set her in the corner long enough, she'll find a way to lick herself.

DKWalser said...

I found the video on C-SPAN. I agree that Senator Collins did a good job of outlining her reasons for voting against the articles of impeachment. I did not agree with everything she said, but her arguments were well-reasoned and she articulated them well.

Bay Area Guy said...

Collins did her duty on Kavanaugh and on these bogus Impeachment articles. She is much more moderate than I am, but that's a good thing. Gotta have broad appeal. Mitt should listen and learn. I hope she gets re-elected.

rhhardin said...

Trump should issue thousands of counterfeit Pelosi impeachment pens.

YoungHegelian said...

I suspect that the vacillating Republican "moderates" were discovering from their constituents that there really isn't a very large "anti-Trump" faction among their constituents who would ever pull the lever for an "R" candidate in the first place.

As I've said many times here before, Trump is a man blessed in his enemies. The Never-Trumpers would probably have gained considerable strength in conservative circles if such strength didn't also aid Democrats who seem to have just gone full-tilt bonkers.

Skeptical Voter said...

I remain impressed by Senator Collins. I saw what was probably the last 90 percent of her comments today. She is thoughtful and reasonable. I would have been impressed with her reasoning either way --either to acquit or to convict. There were a couple of zingers in there; she noted that the Democrats had said that the President was so bad that he should not be in office for one more day! And then they sat on the articles of impeachment for 33 days before bringing them to the Senate.

Collins knows that she has been targeted by the Democrats. There were threats against her at the time of the Kavanaugh hearings. After she announced her decision on the floor of the Senate today, it was not 10 minutes before some "Democrat strategist" on a cable TV show, said that would bring a lot of Democrat money to campaign against her.

I can't say that I am terribly impressed by the young folks presented on cable TV shows as "Democrat strategists" or "Republican strategists". There is ample reason to believe that none of these strategists could construct a Lego house more than 6 Lego blocks high.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

It's like there's some sort of immunity if you hold or are running for office.

2/4/20, 3:47 PM

Only if you're a Democrat.

rhhardin said...

Take a stand on the truth. Decent analysis. That's what nobody bothers to do. Bunch of pussies.

dreams said...

Collins has to worry about her reelection to the Senate, Republicans in blue states have to walk a fine line and she is probably a closet democrat.

rhhardin said...

It's only a little treason, let's not get excited.

Dershowitz got excited but unfortunately couldn't think of the reason exactly.

danoso said...

I would think anyone voting for witnesses should vote to acquit as they didn't have the information needed to convict.

Ann Althouse said...

No link because, as I said, I was watching television.

stevew said...

Collins is in a precarious re-election position in Maine so it makes sense that she would try to participate fairly in this process so as to minimize it being used against her. I happen to think that she is honest and sincere, that she believes Trump acted inappropriately in his dealings with Zelensky but that doing so was not criminal nor something to be impeached over. As for being a RINO: she is probably as conservative a person as could be elected in Maine these days.

DKWalser said...

It's like there's some sort of immunity if you hold or are running for office....

It was wrong for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate the Biden's. It just wasn't very wrong. The President is supposed to act as if he is above such things. Trump should have left this up to his AG. President's shouldn't appear to be in the score settling business.

By this metric, Trump often does things that Collins would consider wrong -- such as tweating too much.

dreams said...

Video is on Youtube.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Democrats are above the law. Democrats get to enrich themselves and their family members with international pay-to-play scams. It's ILLEGAL To ask about it.

Drago said...

Dems are going to announce ONLY 62% of their results!

I wonder who that will advantage?

William said...

The theme I keep hearing is Orange Man Bad, but—as in Collins' case—not bad enough to impeach.

Well let me say this:

• We, the people, don't think Orange Man Bad.
• We, the people, like the fact that Orange Man is going after a guy whose entire family has gotten insanely rich during the time he was ostensibly "serving" the people.
• We, the people, think that Ukraine is notoriously corrupt.
• We, the people, are proud of Orange Man for giving Ukraine lethal weapons for them to defend themselves from the Russians.
• We, the people, are sick and damn tired of a bunch of highly paid Congressmen pontificating to us like we don't have a brain in our heads.
• We, the people, hate the idea of highly paid Congressional staffers writing up nebulous, one-sided talking points without any input from the people who pay their salaries, people who might—just might—not agree with their points of view.
• We, the people, will continue to chip away at these "representatives" who don't represent us so that we can have people in Washington who will truly work to represent us, and not themselves.

That is all.

TJM said...

Inga,

Are you crying? Mad at Pelosi for doing a half-assed job?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

I'd like to know why Hillary and Joe are immune from the law?

How do you get to set up a private server to run the US State dept? How to you get to enrich your family foundation with sales of Uranium to Russia - and then use the big fat lie about how Putin helped your opponent win? How to you get to delete 30,000 government e-mails?

How does your son end up on an energy board in Ukraine right after VP dad is given Ukraine on the docket? and that "job" pays 50,000+ a month?

Why is it illegal in inquire?

Why is Ada Schitt allowed to coordinate with disgraced leaker Eric Chairamella? Why does Adam Schitt get to go on CNN and MSNBC for 3 years lying about how he has direct knowledge of Trump-Russian collusion. and it's all a lie?

Achilles said...

stevew said...
I happen to think that she is honest and sincere, that she believes Trump acted inappropriately in his dealings with Zelensky but that doing so was not criminal nor something to be impeached over.

If she honestly and sincerely thinks it is inappropriate to investigate corruption she is terrible.

More likely I think she is a moral coward just trying to get reelected.

dreams said...

It would be good if some Dems voted to acquit.

Andrew said...

Here's the video of her acquittal explanation. It's 12 minutes, although I'm not sure if it's complete. There are shorter nutshell versions on YouTube as well.

https://youtu.be/LDqMKGJDjHo

Andrew said...

Here's the video of her acquittal explanation. It's 12 minutes, although I'm not sure if it's complete. There are shorter nutshell versions on YouTube as well.

https://youtu.be/LDqMKGJDjHo

stevew said...

Collins seems more honest and honorable than most - even though I disagree with her on plenty of stuff. Maine isn't going to elect a conservative that will pass your moral purity test. She stood up for the right side in the Kavanaugh business, and now for Trump in the impeachment nonsense. If she did so in a such a way as to help her re-election prospects then I consider that a fair trade.

MayBee said...

Yes, I agreed with her strongly.

Corey Booker was very emotional, and I suspect he was vying for the Vice Presidency. He should have just declared he's currently in 3rd in Iowa.

Drago said...

stevew: " She stood up for the right side in the Kavanaugh business, and now for Trump in the impeachment nonsense. If she did so in a such a way as to help her re-election prospects then I consider that a fair trade."

Agreed.

She might be at the edge of the most conservative candidate who can currently win in Maine, so I'm okay with that.

It's the other nuts that bother me. Not least of which was McCain working directly with the dems and FusionGPS to set up President Trump via the hoax dossier feed by the McCain people to the FBI.

Narr said...

IDP chair "apologizes deeply."

Narr
Good enough!

stevew said...

If things go as currently planned I am likely to be a newly arrived constituent of hers, able to vote for her in November.

rhhardin said...

Trump wasn't going to prosecute the case, he was making sure that it got started. The deep state will block it, otherwise. High level support.

Achilles said...

stevew said...
Collins seems more honest and honorable than most - even though I disagree with her on plenty of stuff. Maine isn't going to elect a conservative that will pass your moral purity test. She stood up for the right side in the Kavanaugh business, and now for Trump in the impeachment nonsense. If she did so in a such a way as to help her re-election prospects then I consider that a fair trade.

You get what you tolerate.

You are all giving a pass on these graft schemes and attempts to stop investigations into them.

She is standing up and openly saying it is inappropriate to investigate the Bidens for laundering our tax money back to themselves using foreign aid.

Our republic is doomed when this is accepted.

dreams said...

Angus King is making Susan Collins look good.

James K said...

Collins said it was wrong for Trump to mention Biden's name in his conversation with Zelensky. I don't see why, if Biden (and/or his son) needed to be investigated. I think she just needed to throw something to the Maine voters.

RMc said...

It would be good if some Dems voted to acquit.

That's a good way to get primaried by the far Left.

Will J. Richardson said...

Here is a link to Senator Collins floor speech.

Senator Collins explains her vote to acquit President Trump.

JaimeRoberto said...

You do need to be careful investigating political opponents because it can quickly turn into a banana republic situation where police powers are used to create bogus charges to discredit your opponent. You know, like the Russia investigation.

dreams said...

"It would be good if some Dems voted to acquit.

That's a good way to get primaried by the far Left"

That would be good too.

Wince said...

Aside, Collins should address whether she prefers a president like Trump who will occasionally bump-up against ethical boundaries while doing things himself in front of people -- demonstrating a clear conscience -- in order to accomplish legitimate goals.

Or a cagey politician with a "guilty mind" who will instead deliberately use his minions to run roughshod over ethical boundaries if not the law exclusively for political advantage, like Obama.

mccullough said...

Collins is a team player. She works for Mitch.

Achilles said...

JaimeRoberto said...
You do need to be careful investigating political opponents because it can quickly turn into a banana republic situation where police powers are used to create bogus charges to discredit your opponent. You know, like the Russia investigation.

I see what you did there.

+1

narciso said...

indeed:


https://twitter.com/ShidelerK/status/1224813191110238208?s=20

Drago said...

RMc: "That's a good way to get primaried by the far Left."

Not a problem for Manchin.

Chuck said...

Actions by Trump were "improper" per Collins. "It was wrong for President Trump ... to ask for an investigation of a political rival."

Shame on Collins, for not voting to issue a Senate subpoena to Bolton. Cowardice in office.

Wince said...

Collins sounds normal on 2x playback speed.

Drago said...

With LLR-lefty Chuck's attack on Senator Collins, that would make it just about 100% of republican senators attacked by LLR-lefty Chuck while 0% of democrat senators have been attacked for any reason by LLR-lefty Chuck.

Because "conserving conservatism" and "principles" or something!

LOL

Beasts of England said...

’Shame on Collins, for not voting to issue a Senate subpoena to Bolton. Cowardice in office.’

Not sure why the Senate should perform an investigation, but whatever keeps your sad dreams alive...

tim in vermont said...

Shame on Schumer for not making the deal that. was on the table that could have gotten Bolton as a witness.

tim in vermont said...

We are supposed to forget that that deal was on the table because orange man bad.

Drago said...

BTW, that 49% approval for Trump in the Gallup poll is of Adults.

Not registered voters or even likely voters, which would incrementally increase the pro-Trump percentage.

Poor LLR-lefty Chuck. It's quite possible with all the positive numbers the republican's will hold the Senate and block LLR-lefty Chuck's beloved Schumer from becoming Majority Leader!!

Seeing Red said...

Actions by Clinton were “improper” too. He stayed.

Seeing Red said...

Next stop, Flynn’s total acquittal.

Achilles said...

Beasts of England said...
’Shame on Collins, for not voting to issue a Senate subpoena to Bolton. Cowardice in office.’

Not sure why the Senate should perform an investigation, but whatever keeps your sad dreams alive...

Because it would help the democrats gain power and that has always been Chuck's goal.

Some of those democrats call themselves republicans.

But their "principles" make them agree with democrats and work towards the same goal.

It is magic.

The Vault Dweller said...

I didn't see Collin's talk about acquitting President Trump. But I did see her talk about voting to confirm Kavanaugh. I was pleased that she didn't do a mealy-mouthed talk around but stood behind the presumption of innocence standard. I also saw her on I think Bill Maher once. He was trying to press her if she thought Healthcare was a human right. She emphatically said she thought all Americans deserved good quality healthcare, but refused to state that it was a right. Even when she was repeatedly pressed. I appreciate her standing up for the important principled distinction between a government service and a right. Susan Collins is a great Republican Senator. Mitt Romney on the other hand.

tim in vermont said...

I remember how upset the Democrats were when Hillary deleted 30K emails that were under a preservation letter from the House. So we know that there caterwauling now is certainly not just political convenience.

When there were stories that Trump might have falsified the transcript of the call, I said that if that were true, he should be impeached and removed. But looking into election interference when he was under investigation by the House and had a right to gather evidence in his defense? Not the same thing.

h said...

I guess I'm not going to live long enough. I am old enough to be a thoughtful adult during the Clinton impeachment, and then again for the Trump impeachment. It appears that this can never be discussed in a calm thoughtful apolitical manner. Either it was so long ago that no one cares, so we don't discuss, or it was so recent that we are still blinded by our political preferences. But here's what I see as the current consensus about results:
1. Pres. Johnson should not have been impeached (because JFK put it in profiles in courage, and that's all I really know about that;
2. Nixon should have been impeached or (as he was forced from office with the credible threat of impeachment and removal) because (and here's where I invite editing and correction or improvement) he tried to use the power of the Federal gov't (FBI/CIA) to cover-up the fact that his political subordinates, at his request, or with his knowledge, or to protect them just because they were his political subordinates broke the law by burglary.
3. Clinton did commit crimes, but they don't warrant removal from office. I don't think there is consensus about the reason why Clinton's crimes don't warrant removal from office. (a) because he's a democrat and supports abortion rights (b) because he lied about sex and everybody does that (c) because he didn't actually lie (is anybody saying this?) (d) because lying and asking others to lie in order to improve your political standing is not a serious enough crime to warrant removal.
4. Trump did something, and people differ about whether it was wrong, and those who agree it was wrong differ about whether it was a crime, and those who agree it was a crime differ about whether it was a serious enough crime to warrant impeachment, and those who agree it was a serious enough crime to warrant impeachment differ about whether it was sufficiently serious to justify removal from office.

For Collins, referring to point 4, I see her as believing that Trump did something wrong criminal impeachable but not removable. (I realize that there are discussions to be had about whether a President should be impeached for an impeachable but not removable action because what is the point.) And I see how she can create a consistent argument that explains her vote not to remove CLinton and not to remove Trump. I read a lot of criticisms of Collins as saying she should have reached this conclusion in a different way: not wrong, or not criminal, or not impeachable

Drago said...

h: "2. Nixon should have been impeached or (as he was forced from office with the credible threat of impeachment and removal) because (and here's where I invite editing and correction or improvement) he tried to use the power of the Federal gov't (FBI/CIA) to cover-up the fact that his political subordinates, at his request, or with his knowledge, or to protect them just because they were his political subordinates broke the law by burglary."

This is false.

There is no evidence at all that Nixon knew anything about the break in ahead of time. The entire investigation revolved around exposing Nixon working with his staff to cover up the event after the fact.

Maillard Reactionary said...

BB&H @ 4:02 PM: If it's any comfort to you, I haven't forgotten either. And I have the same questions that you do. Treason! Tyranny! Shame!

A few high profile convictions would clarify a lot of minds in that town. Assuming that they are of the guilty, of course.

jeff said...

Dershowitz's Argument was there has to be intent to break the law. The Dems, (and the released transcript) proves trump asked for an investigation, but the Dems provided zero proof he asked for the investigation to get dirt on Biden. Not only was no intent proven, it wasn’t addressed. His other argument was that if Trump benefited by an action that benefits the country ( hypothetically, trump asks for investigation of Biden, it is discovered Biden is a serial killer. Trump can’t be impeached because a rival is a serial killer and thus rewards Trump by bouncing a rival out of the race.). Dershowitz's Mistake is believing the media and senators and congressmen are all smarter than a 11 year old and would understand nuance. What actually happened is the media and Dems (to repeat myself) heard “Trump can break the law and if he thinks breaking the law helps himself by getting re-elected, if he believes that is best for the country, he can be impeached and many republicans heard, yeah, bad to go after Biden, but not impeachable. We have the dumbest possible political and media class. And Schiff and his “Trumps selling Alaska and putting his son in law in charge of the country... I don’t even know how to respond to such lunacy.

Ken B said...

Collins did an excellent job. She was logical and clear. I disagree with her on article one: I think Trump's actions were within the bounds of what is proper. But I agree with her argument that even if improper his conduct was not impeachable. He dismissal of article two was perfect.

Ken B said...

Here is a link to her speech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDqMKGJDjHo

Ken B said...

As usual Chuck is a twat. Tone it down Chuck, it’s not a competition, we already know you are a bigger twat than Birkel.

h said...

Hi Drago at 5:57. thanks for the reply.

As you can tell from my intro -- "here's where I invite editing and correction or improvement" -- I am not confident in my concise description.

But what I was trying to say was not that Nixon knew about the break-in and was trying to cover up his own participation in the crime, but rather that Nixon learned about the crime (by his subordinates) (ok I did say "at his request or with his knowledge") and that his impeachable/removable crime was to "cover up" the fact that the crime (did anyone think the break in wasn't a crime?) was done for political purposes (and how could anyone doubt that a breakin of the opposing party's headquarters was for political purposes?) at the direction or request of either Nixon himself (I agree doubtful) or a close subordinate (Mitchell, Haldemann, Erlichman, Dean?) that Nixon wanted to protect.

Let me streamline that last sentence: what was impeachable/removable was Nixon tried to use the FBI/CIA to cover up the fact that a close subordinate organized a burglary of the opposing political party's office. So (in terms of Trump issues) a President tried to use government resources (FBI/CIA) to achieve a political end (covering up the fact that WH/CREEP were used to achieve a political end). (I know there is a duplication "achieving the political end of covering up a corrupt use of resources to achieve a political end". But this is exactly what I mean.

Drago said...

h, I agree with what you wrote at 6:13.

eddie willers said...

There is no evidence at all that Nixon knew anything about the break in ahead of time.

It has always been my belief that if prior knowledge had not included John Mitchell, Nixon would have condemned them all and the devil take them. But Mitchell was a friend and Nixon's loyalty doomed them both.

h said...

replying to jeff at 6:05 who says "Dershowitz's Argument was there has to be intent to break the law."

I read Dershowitz's argument differently (and I admit from my own perspective that my interpretation is that Dershowitz agrees with what I have said in other forums). I come from the perspective that every President enters into quid-pro-quo agreements with foreign countries IN ORDER TO HELP THE US . For example Truman entered into a quid-pro-quo with the Japanese ("you surrender and we'll stop bombinb") in order to end the war in the Pacific in WWII. That agreement helped Truman politically. It was not political because Truman's principal objective was to end war, though he must have known that ending war would help him politically. And I read Dershowitz as saying, "You cant impeach and remove a president for entering into a quid-pro-quo agreement with a foreign country when that agreement helps the President politically, unless you can somehow show that the only reason for the agreement was to help the President politically. This is similar, but not the same as the standard Jeff at 6:05 proposes.

eddie willers said...

"You cant impeach and remove a president for entering into a quid-pro-quo agreement with a foreign country when that agreement helps the President politically, unless you can somehow show that the only reason for the agreement was to help the President politically.

That is the correct interpretation. All the naysayers want to ignore the "AND is in the best interest of the country".

Finding out that a former VP and current candidate for the highest office in the land is corrupt is,sure enough, in the country's interest.

Mr. Majestyk said...

Collins'examination of her vote on Article I was poor, as she asserted that what Trump did was wrong without any attempt to address the President's counterargument, which she acknowledged but otherwise ignored.

Mr. Majestyk said...

Explanation, not examination.

h said...

Eddie Willers: I agree totally, and the reason why the whole thing broke down was that the Democrats did not really want to open up the issue of aid corruption. I

rcocean said...

Can we please stop with the Collins praise? She voted Not Guilty on Clinton. Only one of 5 R Senators (3 of whom later turned Democrat) to do so. Further, She, Romney, and Murky Lisa were responsible for this Partisan clown show being taken seriously. She refused to dismiss this out of hand, lend credence to it, and wanted to drag it out as long as possible.

Are we still waiting for Drama Queen Mitt?

rcocean said...

This was an unheard of completely partisan attempt to remove a President based, not on a crime, but a made-up vague "abuse of power". No President has EVER Been impeached on such flimsy grounds. Collins did EVERYTHING she could with her Sanctimonious Susan act, to give The D's abuse of power respectability.

This was an utter waste of everyone time, and did nothing except help the House Democrats. Of course, given that Collins has ZERO desire to pass any of the Trump agenda, its not like she had anything better to do.

FullMoon said...

I saw Collin's speech. I believe most here actually know more about the lying Schiff and the bullshit impeachment investigations than she does.

Birkel said...

Fuck off, Ken B.

Ken B said...

Ah Birkel. And after I compared you favorably to Chuck.

Ken B said...

Rcocean
You might not like Rinos but any R is better than any D when voting on judges.

Chuck said...

Rob Portman has NYT op-Ed about his vote to acquit. Without a word of explanation as to his vote against witnesses.

So now, with no particular time pressure, the House will “fully bake” what Portman derided as having been “half baked.” Trump’s privilege and exception claims will be litigated. Subpoenas will be issues broadly, and litigated fully. And FOIA requests from every corner of the public will go to court as needed.

With every new revelation an embarrassment to Portman’s once-great reputation.