Republican senator shocked at Mitch's attitude regarding the impeachment trial

[GreatNews2night]

Wow! Finally a Republican senator with some integrity!

GOP senator '''disturbed''' by McConnell impeachment remark

Well said, Senator Murkowski! I wish the other members of your caucus thought like you!

I'll respect her if she decides to vote against Trump's conviction, but I commend her for saying she won't prejudge, and for deploring Mitch's statement that he will side with the defense, which is the very opposite of his oath to be impartial.

 

[Mycroft]

Wow! Finally a Republican senator with some integrity!

GOP senator '''disturbed''' by McConnell impeachment remark

Well said, Senator Murkowski! I wish the other members of your caucus thought like you!

I'll respect her if she decides to vote against Trump's conviction, but I commend her for saying she won't prejudge, and for deploring Mitch's statement that he will side with the defense, which is the very opposite of his oath to be impartial.

A GOP Elite RINO is shocked.

yawn...

If she didn't use Mitch's strategic statement, they would have come up with something else for her to be "shocked" about.

 

[notquiteright]

A GOP Elite RINO is shocked. yawn... If she didn't use Mitch's strategic statement, they would have come up with something else for her to be "shocked" about.

I don't think you know what 'strategic' means- try looking up 'partisan hack'... eace

 

[PLizzy]

Wow! Finally a Republican senator with some integrity!

GOP senator '''disturbed''' by McConnell impeachment remark

Well said, Senator Murkowski! I wish the other members of your caucus thought like you!

I'll respect her if she decides to vote against Trump's conviction, but I commend her for saying she won't prejudge, and for deploring Mitch's statement that he will side with the defense, which is the very opposite of his oath to be impartial.

Disagree.

I'm not going to show respect for a senator that votes for acquittal, when the evidence for guilt in what is clearly a high crime is obvious. That's especially the case if that senator also refuses to hear from the very witnesses they say are critical to the credibility of the charges against the President.

Now, if Murkowski votes to allow the House to present both their witnesses and call the witnesses Trump has blocked, then I'll show some respect for her.

In the meantime, don't count on her to do the right thing.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't think you know what 'strategic' means- try looking up 'partisan hack'... eace

Tell me...why on earth would McConnell tell the public that he was going to work with the Trump administration? It's stupid to reveal his plans...unless there is another good reason. Such as giving the likes of Murkowski to use that as an excuse to vote against Trump.

Whatever you think McConnell is...he's not stupid.

 

[Mycroft]

Disagree.

I'm not going to show respect for a senator that votes for acquittal, when the evidence for guilt in what is clearly a high crime is obvious. That's especially the case if that senator also refuses to hear from the very witnesses they say are critical to the credibility of the charges against the President.

Now, if Murkowski votes to allow the House to present both their witnesses and call the witnesses Trump has blocked, then I'll show some respect for her.

In the meantime, don't count on her to do the right thing.

What makes you think there'll be any vote regarding witnesses?

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Wow! Finally a Republican senator with some integrity!

GOP senator '''disturbed''' by McConnell impeachment remark

Well said, Senator Murkowski! I wish the other members of your caucus thought like you!

I'll respect her if she decides to vote against Trump's conviction, but I commend her for saying she won't prejudge, and for deploring Mitch's statement that he will side with the defense, which is the very opposite of his oath to be impartial.

I'm glad she made these comments. However, why would you "respect" her if she votes in favor of Trump's acquittal?

The evidence against Trump is already overwhelming. You should not let her off the hook that easily, just because she criticized McConnell.

 

[notquiteright]

Tell me...why on earth would McConnell tell the public that he was going to work with the Trump administration? It's stupid to reveal his plans...unless there is another good reason. Such as giving the likes of Murkowski to use that as an excuse to vote against Trump. Whatever you think McConnell is...he's not stupid.

He wanted to send a clear message to the American people, the Senate, and of course tRump.

Moscow Mitch isn't stupid but arrogance can temporarily lower a life long politician's IQ... eace

 

[GreatNews2night]

Disagree.

I'm not going to show respect for a senator that votes for acquittal, when the evidence for guilt in what is clearly a high crime is obvious. That's especially the case if that senator also refuses to hear from the very witnesses they say are critical to the credibility of the charges against the President.

Now, if Murkowski votes to allow the House to present both their witnesses and call the witnesses Trump has blocked, then I'll show some respect for her.

In the meantime, don't count on her to do the right thing.

Yeah, I think you're right. I'll make my respect more conditional as well. If some senators join the Dems in a 51-49 vote to force witnesses, I'll respect those who do it. But I do agree with her that the House shouldn't have rushed the process, and should have asked the courts to quash the refusal of compliance with witness subpoenas. That was the House's job, not exactly the Senate's, and they didn't take it to the ultimate consequence. So now we need the Senate to fix it, and it will be hard to get 4 GOP senators to agree. I hope Murkowsky is one of them, but I'm aware that not even that is guaranteed, despite her statements.

My point in respecting her is if she reaches her conclusion about the articles of impeachment in an impartial way like she is saying she will do. Because, while I am thoroughly convinced that what the president did is wrong and impeachable and has been well-demonstrated, I won't pretend that everybody will feel the same way and everybody will sincerely believe that what he did is worthy of impeachment. For me, it is, but for someone else, maybe not. I'm OK with someone who reaches this conclusion through a truly impartial examination of the issue. I'm definitely not OK with what Mitch is doing, that is, being a juror that sides with the defense beforehand.

 

[GreatNews2night]

I'm glad she made these comments. However, why would you "respect" her if she votes in favor of Trump's acquittal?

The evidence against Trump is already overwhelming. You should not let her off the hook that easily, just because she criticized McConnell.

True; see post #9.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Tell me...why on earth would McConnell tell the public that he was going to work with the Trump administration? It's stupid to reveal his plans...unless there is another good reason. Such as giving the likes of Murkowski to use that as an excuse to vote against Trump.

Whatever you think McConnell is...he's not stupid.

McConnell is not stupid, but he definitely made a mistake regarding his foolish comments to Sean Hannity. If he had kept his mouth shut about being in the bag for Trump, Pelosi may have sent the impeachment articles to the Senate.

 

[Dayton3]

Wow! Finally a Republican senator with some integrity!

GOP senator '''disturbed''' by McConnell impeachment remark

Well said, Senator Murkowski! I wish the other members of your caucus thought like you!

I'll respect her if she decides to vote against Trump's conviction, but I commend her for saying she won't prejudge, and for deploring Mitch's statement that he will side with the defense, which is the very opposite of his oath to be impartial.

Why does your thread title describe her as "shocked" when she says nothing of the sort at the link?

 

[GreatNews2night]

What makes you think there'll be any vote regarding witnesses?

If Schumer can secure the support of 4 GOP Senators, he can force the calling of witness by a simply majority vote 51-49. Senators can demand that vote even against Mitch McConnell's will. Remember, Mitch will not be presiding over the trial. Chief Justice Roberts will. The rules are such that a majority of senators can change the proceedings even against Mitch's intention.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Why does your thread title describe her as "shocked" when she says nothing of the sort at the link?

Oh, whatever. Disturbed, then. I'd gladly change it if I could, but you have to be a moderator to change a thread's title.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

True; see post #9.

I'm glad you revised your initial post. However, I disagree with your comment about "rushing the process" as well. It could literally take the courts over a year to get Bolton and Mulvaney to testify. Trump is attempting to run out the clock and the Democrats did the right thing proceeding with the impeachment articles.

 

[GreatNews2night]

I'm glad you revised your initial post. However, I disagree with your comment about "rushing the process" as well. It could literally take the courts over a year to get Bolton and Mulvaney to testify. Trump is attempting to run out the clock and the Democrats did the right thing proceeding with the impeachment articles.

So what if it took one year? This would literally continuously expose to the electorate Trump's effort at obstructing justice, and would keep the issue alive for the campaign, while NOT tying up the Dems who are senators and are campaigning for the nomination (as the process would continue in the House rather than in the Senate). This would also rob Trump of the ability to be vindicated by the Senate. In electoral terms it might be even better for the Dems to drag the process.

Is Trump attempting to run out the clock? Word is that he is actually very frustrated with Pelosi stalling in sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, because he was vying for a speedy trial in which he'd be vindicated.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yeah, I think you're right. I'll make my respect more conditional as well. If some senators join the Dems in a 51-49 vote to force witnesses, I'll respect those who do it. But I do agree with her that the House shouldn't have rushed the process, and should have asked the courts to quash the refusal of compliance with witness subpoenas. That was the House's job, not exactly the Senate's, and they didn't take it to the ultimate consequence. So now we need the Senate to fix it, and it will be hard to get 4 GOP senators to agree. I hope Murkowsky is one of them, but I'm aware that not even that is guaranteed, despite her statements.

My point in respecting her is if she reaches her conclusion about the articles of impeachment in an impartial way like she is saying she will do. Because, while I am thoroughly convinced that what the president did is wrong and impeachable and has been well-demonstrated, I won't pretend that everybody will feel the same way and everybody will sincerely believe that what he did is worthy of impeachment. For me, it is, but for someone else, maybe not. I'm OK with someone who reaches this conclusion through a truly impartial examination of the issue. I'm definitely not OK with what Mitch is doing, that is, being a juror that sides with the defense beforehand.

I agree that Murkowski deserves some credit, but am not naive to believe her vote will be strictly motivated her conscience.

Having said that, it’s also worthy to note that she has voted against her party several times.

“She voted against the Senate's Trump-backed effort to repeal Obamacare in 2017, but later came out in support of repealing the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. She also voted against the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. And Murkowski refused to sign a GOP-backed resolution denouncing the House Democrats' fast-moving impeachment inquiry back in October.”
GOP Sen. Murkowski '''disturbed''' by McConnell comments about impeachment trial

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

So what if it took one year? This would literally continuously expose to the electorate Trump's effort at obstructing justice, and would keep the issue alive for the campaign, while NOT tying up the Dems who are senators and are campaigning for the nomination (as the process would continue in the House rather than in the Senate). This would also rob Trump of the ability to be vindicated by the Senate. In electoral terms it might be even better for the Dems to drag the process.

Is Trump attempting to run out the clock? Word is that he is actually very frustrated with Pelosi stalling in sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, because he was vying for a speedy trial in which he'd be vindicated.

Because it could take well longer than a year. And then Trump could play the political game that the Democrats don't have the "guts" to take an impeachment vote, which is what a lot of uninformed Americans would have believed, especially the moronic Trump cultists.

Plus, by impeaching now it sends the message that the Democrats take 2020 election interference by Russia seriously and that they want Trump removed immediately, before he attempts to steal the election with Putin's help.

 

[Mycroft]

McConnell is not stupid, but he definitely made a mistake regarding his foolish comments to Sean Hannity. If he had kept his mouth shut about being in the bag for Trump, Pelosi may have sent the impeachment articles to the Senate.

Or maybe he wanted to give her an excuse...

 

[Mycroft]

If Schumer can secure the support of 4 GOP Senators, he can force the calling of witness by a simply majority vote 51-49. Senators can demand that vote even against Mitch McConnell's will. Remember, Mitch will not be presiding over the trial. Chief Justice Roberts will. The rules are such that a majority of senators can change the proceedings even against Mitch's intention.

What makes you think any Senator can "force a vote"?

You should be thinking this as a trial. The Senators are the jury.

Juries don't get to vote on whether the prosecuting or defense attorneys get to call witnesses.

 

[PLizzy]

Yeah, I think you're right. I'll make my respect more conditional as well. If some senators join the Dems in a 51-49 vote to force witnesses, I'll respect those who do it. But I do agree with her that the House shouldn't have rushed the process, and should have asked the courts to quash the refusal of compliance with witness subpoenas. That was the House's job, not exactly the Senate's, and they didn't take it to the ultimate consequence. So now we need the Senate to fix it, and it will be hard to get 4 GOP senators to agree. I hope Murkowsky is one of them, but I'm aware that not even that is guaranteed, despite her statements.

My point in respecting her is if she reaches her conclusion about the articles of impeachment in an impartial way like she is saying she will do. Because, while I am thoroughly convinced that what the president did is wrong and impeachable and has been well-demonstrated, I won't pretend that everybody will feel the same way and everybody will sincerely believe that what he did is worthy of impeachment. For me, it is, but for someone else, maybe not. I'm OK with someone who reaches this conclusion through a truly impartial examination of the issue. I'm definitely not OK with what Mitch is doing, that is, being a juror that sides with the defense beforehand.

The problem there is that it would have taken the better part of at least a year or two years before those cases were decided. The courts move very slowly compared to the rocket speed of the Watergate court cases. Today the courts don't care if the House is conducting impeachment hearings, they'll take their sweet time, and Republicans know this, and that's why they want to play rope a dope in them.

The fact that the circuit courts have already handed down opinions that the WH is making frivolous privilege claims, supports the House charge of congressional obstruction, even if the cases are still in appeal purgatory.

There's a world of difference between saying particular documents and conversations are privilege, and just boycotting congressional oversight like a king. It is the responsibility of the House to reign in a President that does that ****, not the courts; the courts will tell them so.

My problem with this hunt of the WH aides is that they are unlikely to say anything new. The testimony of Sondland, Taylor, Vindmann, Hale, and Hill is credible enough. The House should be pushing for them to testify in the well of the Senate.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Because it could take well longer than a year. And then Trump could play the political game that the Democrats don't have the "guts" to take an impeachment vote, which is what a lot of uninformed Americans would have believed, especially the moronic Trump cultists.

Plus, by impeaching now it sends the message that the Democrats take 2020 election interference by Russia seriously and that they want Trump removed immediately, before he attempts to steal the election with Putin's help.

Those are good points but it's all a risky political game anyway. It may or may not backfire on the Dems. Sure, Trump would say they don't have the guts to vote, but they'd counter-say "stop obstructing, allow us to conclude the investigation, and we'll vote."

One solution would be: vote for ONE article of impeachment: obstruction. Pass it, but then don't send it to the Senate, and continue to conduct investigation and court appeals on the OTHER article, abuse of power, and say that once the sought witnesses are heard and the vote on the second article is finished, they'll send both articles to the Senate.

This would make of Trump an impeached president but not vindicated by the Senate, and would keep the issue alive for the entire campaign.

 

[hermit]

McConnell is not stupid, but he definitely made a mistake regarding his foolish comments to Sean Hannity. If he had kept his mouth shut about being in the bag for Trump, Pelosi may have sent the impeachment articles to the Senate.

I agree.

 

[GreatNews2night]

What makes you think any Senator can "force a vote"?

You should be thinking this as a trial. The Senators are the jury.

Juries don't get to vote on whether the prosecuting or defense attorneys get to call witnesses.

You're misinformed. Yes, the senators can force a change in the proceedings (such as calling witnesses) by a 51-49 vote. Look it up. There is an ANALOGY with a trial but it is fundamentally a political process with its own rules. It's NOT a criminal trial. Yes, even if this may surprise you, 51 senators CAN change the way the Senate proceeds in an impeachment trial.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Or maybe he wanted to give her an excuse...

Excuse for what??