Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Bring On the Witnesses

 

McSally Collins GardnerYes, 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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 40 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Judge Mental Member

    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.

    • #1
    • January 29, 2020, at 10:27 PM PST
    • 19 likes
  2. Arahant Member

    Clifford A. Brown: How sweet would it be to actually reverse the supposedly irreversible march of the left through our states?

    Indeed.

    • #2
    • January 29, 2020, at 10:27 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  3. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    Just kick Trump out and be done with it so we can get back to judges.

    • #3
    • January 29, 2020, at 10:29 PM PST
    • Like
  4. Arahant Member

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    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.

    I like the way you think.

    • #4
    • January 29, 2020, at 10:36 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  5. Judge Mental Member

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    • #5
    • January 29, 2020, at 10:38 PM PST
    • 12 likes
  6. Annefy Member

    Hang on a wee minute. There were 19 witnesses …

    Tim Morrison (I think …)

    • #6
    • January 29, 2020, at 11:05 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  7. Judge Mental Member

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Hang on a wee minute. There were 19 witnesses …

    There were 18, I’m already counting the IG. They only included 17 in their filings.

    • #7
    • January 29, 2020, at 11:08 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  8. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    Of course, this isn’t going to happen. So, consider the alternatives.

    • #8
    • January 29, 2020, at 11:09 PM PST
    • Like
  9. Judge Mental Member

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    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.

    • #9
    • January 29, 2020, at 11:12 PM PST
    • 10 likes
  10. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    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.

    • #10
    • January 29, 2020, at 11:15 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  11. Annefy Member

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Hang on a wee minute. There were 19 witnesses …

    There were 18, I’m already counting the IG. They only included 17 in their filings.

    I heard about a 19th witness today, but Adam Schiff wants to forget about him

    Tim Morrison ??

    • #11
    • January 29, 2020, at 11:17 PM PST
    • Like
  12. Judge Mental Member

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Hang on a wee minute. There were 19 witnesses …

    There were 18, I’m already counting the IG. They only included 17 in their filings.

    I heard about a 29th 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.

    • #12
    • January 29, 2020, at 11:22 PM PST
    • Like
  13. Annefy Member

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Hang on a wee minute. There were 19 witnesses …

    There were 18, I’m already counting the IG. They only included 17 in their filings.

    I heard about a 29th 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. 

    • #13
    • January 29, 2020, at 11:25 PM PST
    • 1 like
  14. Judge Mental Member

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Hang on a wee minute. There were 19 witnesses …

    There were 18, I’m already counting the IG. They only included 17 in their filings.

    I heard about a 29th 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.

    • #14
    • January 29, 2020, at 11:28 PM PST
    • 5 likes
  15. Annefy Member

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Annefy (View Comment):

    Hang on a wee minute. There were 19 witnesses …

    There were 18, I’m already counting the IG. They only included 17 in their filings.

    I heard about a 29th 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 …

    • #15
    • January 29, 2020, at 11:38 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  16. Franco Member
    Franco Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    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.

    • #16
    • January 30, 2020, at 5:16 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  17. Columbo Member

    • #17
    • January 30, 2020, at 5:46 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  18. Jim George Member

    @columbo, very, very clever! “Don’t bother, they’re here!”

    Bravo! Jim

    • #18
    • January 30, 2020, at 5:56 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  19. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    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.

    • #19
    • January 30, 2020, at 6:25 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  20. Susan Quinn Contributor

    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.

    • #20
    • January 30, 2020, at 6:28 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  21. Bill Nelson Member

    Clifford A. Brown: 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.

    Should not this be the position of every Senator?

     

    • #21
    • January 30, 2020, at 9:37 AM PST
    • 1 like
  22. Susan Quinn Contributor

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown: 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.

    Should not this be the position of every Senator?

     

    If everyone is working in an ugly rock quarry, maybe not.

    • #22
    • January 30, 2020, at 9:41 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  23. The Reticulator Member

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown: 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.

    Should not this be the position of every Senator?

     

    If it was, Joe Biden would withdraw from the presidential race in disgrace.

    • #23
    • January 30, 2020, at 9:41 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  24. Jim George Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    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.

    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 :

    Image result for kabuki dance

    Kabuki is a term used by American political pundits as a synonym for political posturing.[1] It acquired this derogatory meaning after drawn out peace-time treaty negotiations between the United States and Japan which had extended to 1960, and because Japan, in an effort “to shed its image as a global marauder” sent kabuki theater tours to the U.S. after World War II to sow the seeds of goodwill.[1] It first appeared in print in 1961 in the Los Angeles Times in an article written by Henry J. Taylor.[1] Outside the United States of America, analysts and commentators may refer to a similar phenomenon as political theatre.[2]

    • #24
    • January 30, 2020, at 10:46 AM PST
    • 6 likes
  25. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    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.

    The rule is 51 to pass, so that would take open duplicity by a group of 4 or more Republicans. 

    • #25
    • January 30, 2020, at 10:50 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  26. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown

     

    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,

    • #26
    • January 30, 2020, at 10:55 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  27. Roosevelt Guck Inactive

    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?

    • #27
    • January 30, 2020, at 1:51 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  28. Susan Quinn Contributor

    Roosevelt Guck (View Comment):

    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?

    I just heard that if it’s 50-50, it goes down. Period.

    • #28
    • January 30, 2020, at 1:54 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  29. Rodin Member

    Roosevelt Guck (View Comment):

    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 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.

    • #29
    • January 30, 2020, at 1:59 PM PST
    • 1 like
  30. PHCheese Member

    I would rather have a root canal on all my teeth than listen to Schiff for one more day let alone weeks.OMG

    • #30
    • January 30, 2020, at 2:10 PM PST
    • 9 likes