Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bring On the Witnesses
Yes, new witnesses will prolong the process by weeks at a minimum, and voting for witnesses under a Cocaine Mitch-Ted Cruz plan is likely necessary to a Trump and Trump-voter-supporting Congress winning this November. On Friday, there will be a series of votes. It is now more likely than not that there will be 51 votes, including Susan Collins (Republican-Maine), Mitt Romney (Snake-Self Serving), Lamar Alexander (Retiring-Chamber of Commerce), and Lisa Murkowski (Scheming-Big Union and Oil).
Senator Collins faithfully represents her state. She is a woman of honor who will take a tough vote when needed. It is she who reportedly first floated the common-sense proposal that the Senate trial should be run on the same rules as for the President Clinton trial. There was a basic sense of turn-about as fair play in this. She prevailed; these are the rules in the current Senate trial.
Senator McConnell is reportedly maneuvering for a single basket of witnesses vote, no chance for troublemakers and RINOS to actually work with the Democrats to inflict maximum damage on the president and the Republican majority in the Senate. This will work if he also insists on the Cruz control: paired 1-for-1 witness approval. You want the ‘Stashe? You have to vote for Biden’s boy. You want Mick Mulvaney? You have to vote for Eric Ciaramella. “Do ya really wanna jump?” [officially sanctioned clip, so “R” rated]
Susan Collins likely needs to show her state’s eligible voters that she is leading the way in ensuring a fair and full trial; no “cover up,” no rocks unturned. We can count on the Democrats and their media muppets to grossly overreach, as in the Kavenaugh ordeal. When they do, Senator Collins will be there with her Pine Tree State sensibility firmly bringing the circus to an end, as in the Kavenaugh fiasco, inflicted on the judge by the disreputable Jeff Flake.
While Senator Cory Gardner, of Colorado, may not be in the Gang of Four that enables the Democrats to prolong this farce, his reelection will likely benefit from careful positioning on the matter. Indeed, properly played, he and President Trump might ride together to a Rocky Mountain high victory. Likewise, Martha McSally needs some serious help to get her first win in a state-wide election. She was beaten by a not-so-secret socialist in 2018, and appointed by a Chamber of Commerce governor without any demonstrated ability to get candidates elected. See Jon Gabriel’s postmortem of that race: “5 Reasons Why Sinema Won Arizona.”
So, Collins, Gardner, and McSally need to show both “independent judgment” and loyalty to the voters of their states who will vote for President Trump. While RealClearPolitics is not running their Senate map this early in the year, 270towin.com has the map and current assessments of the state of play. Arizona, Colorado, and Maine are all toss-ups, neither party favored, in the 2020 Senate election race. Played well, with the right combination of prudence and boldness, all three will be wins for both President Trump and the senators. How sweat would it be to actually reverse the supposedly irreversible march of the left through our states?
Postscript: People are commenting on Chief Justice John Roberts and his collusion with Democrats to continue the Eric Ciaramella -Adam Schiff scheme. Here is the thing: he loses power the moment 51 Republican Senators vote to hear that name or to compel that testimony. He is powerless in the face of a majority of Senators. Their house, their rules.
Published in Politics
Even thinking about a one-to-one swap is the wrong way to go. The Dems have already had 18 witnesses. If they want Bolton now, the defense gets up to 19.
Indeed.
Just kick Trump out and be done with it so we can get back to judges.
I like the way you think.
What’s more, the defense gets 18 before the Dems can call any additional witnesses. Let’s even things up.
Hang on a wee minute. There were 19 witnesses …
Tim Morrison (I think …)
There were 18, I’m already counting the IG. They only included 17 in their filings.
Of course, this isn’t going to happen. So, consider the alternatives.
It should at least be their opening offer. They have made the point several times about not being able to participate in the House process; this is the payback. They won’t get it, but a lot of people will think it sounds fair.
Excellent point. Of course, this should have been the position of Senate GOP leadership, starting in late December. So, it is not going to be offered Friday.
Judge Mental (View Comment):
Annefy (View Comment):
I heard about a 19th witness today, but Adam Schiff wants to forget about him
Tim Morrison ??
I haven’t heard this, so not saying it might not be true. I think Tim Morrison was included though. The only thing I’m aware of is the IG giving a deposition in the basement. He was not called publicly, and the deposition has not been released.
I will look into it tomorrow But I’m sure I heard about a 19th witness who is not following the narrative.
Well, cool. The IG is already the one I’m most interested in seeing, because I suspect the reason Schiff is suppressing him is that he blows holes in their case. If there is another one of those, all the better.
I’m not sure if this helps
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/19/afternoon-impeachment-session-kurt-volker-and-tim-morrison-230pm-livestream/
At the moment I can’t remember where I heard it – though I remember where. The parking garage at work. (Not helpful)
I will scan Dan Bongino tomorrow. Probably where I heard it
Geez – this is worse than Shakespeare in high school. Everyone needs color coded name tags …
Can’t wait for Bolton. Bolton is on video saying unequivocally that he would gladly lie if he thought US national security was at stake.
I’m no Clarence Darrow but here’s my proposed line of questioning:
Defense lawyer: Mr. Bolton, do you consider aid to Ukraine a matter of national security?
Boltons likely response: Yes *
( roll tape of Bolton saying he’d lie)
Defense lawyer: Are you lying now, Mr. Bolton?
*If Bolton says “no” or weasels and spins, lawyer says, “so this wasn’t a matter of national security?”
”How important or unimportant was this call, in your view, if national security wasn’t paramount?”
”Was it simply a cordial, congratulatory call, as you’ve said on tape?”
I don’t think Bolton would be a good witness for the Impeachment Managers.
I would go scorched earth myself. I’d go back to his claims ( again, on tape) about Sadaam possessing WMD. This would force Democrats to choose sides claiming Bolton is credible ( or not)
Because of this and other reasons, I doubt we will get witnesses.
@columbo, very, very clever! “Don’t bother, they’re here!”
Bravo! Jim
Come on. Senators don’t witness and people exposing skeletons poorly hidden in closets. The first rule of Senate Club: nobody talks about Senate Club.
I still think they could pass a vote to have witnesses, but if they vote for individuals, one side will vote the other down. Couldn’t you see Schumer and McConnell talking to each other behind the scenes and saying, hey we don’t really want witnesses, we just want to look good, so let’s not get agreement on anyone. Darn, we tried.
Should not this be the position of every Senator?
If everyone is working in an ugly rock quarry, maybe not.
If it was, Joe Biden would withdraw from the presidential race in disgrace.
Susan, Prof. Charles Lipson has a very good analysis this morning on Spectator.us entitled “The Democrats’ Dirty Secret? They Don’t Want Witnesses” in which he outlines some of the very reasons you have cited.
All of which reminds me of a :
The rule is 51 to pass, so that would take open duplicity by a group of 4 or more Republicans.
People are commenting on John Roberts and his collusion with Democrats to continue the Eric Ciaramella -Adam Schiff scheme. Here is the thing: he loses power the moment 51 Republican Senators vote to hear that name or to compel that testimony. He is powerless in the face of a majority of Senators. Their house, their rules,
If the vote on calling witnesses is a tie, and Chief Justice Roberts casts the deciding vote, is it proper for him to cast votes on the bench to decide the extent of the President’s executive privilege when that question comes before the Court? At what point does he become a participant in the impeachment proceedings? Taking the hypothetical one step further, what if there is a 4-4 tie on this question at the Court?
I just heard that if it’s 50-50, it goes down. Period.
I think if Roberts breaks a tie that results in witnessing being called, then he should recuse himself of the Executive Privilege litigation. The consequence of a 4-4 tie is that lower court ruling in the case under review is deemed upheld. So whether that is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the ruling at the district court or the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I do not recall whether there is any circumstance in which a district court decision would go straight to the Supreme Court without going through the Court of Appeals.
I would rather have a root canal on all my teeth than listen to Schiff for one more day let alone weeks.OMG