The Impeachment of Donald Trump.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The basic "Republican establishment" perspective on Trump seems to be very much an ends justify the means sort of thing. They don't particularly like the way Trump is and operates on a personal level, but by and large they have the same basic end-game in my mind so they are happy to roll with it (some quibbles about international policy aside).

[Elheru Aran]

The basic "Republican establishment" perspective on Trump seems to be very much an ends justify the means sort of thing. They don't particularly like the way Trump is and operates on a personal level, but by and large they have the same basic end-game in my mind so they are happy to roll with it (some quibbles about international policy aside).

Based upon conversations with individual Republicans (anecdotal, I know)...

This is pretty much it. Most of them are like, "well, yeah, he's not really a nice guy, I don't like him very much as a person and I wish he wouldn't run his mouth so much, but he's doing the right things" (broadly paraphrased). The religious ones throw in a hefty chunk of "we're all sinners so you can't judge." Never mind that they never said *that* about Obama...

But yes. As long as he's appointing conservative judges, thumbing his nose at the heathen foreigners, bashing dem illegals, and doing his damnedest to revoke The Dread Obama's legacy, they'll swallow the mountains of shit he excretes from both ends.

[B5B7]

I saw Trump talking about good and bad presidents and he of course claims he is a good president.
I also saw that his impeachment defense team will include Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, both notorious. Starr of course was the one who with much vigor went after President Clinton over nothing.

[The Romulan Republic]

Dershowitz is just standing by his fellow Epstein rape buddy.

It looks like Bolton, meanwhile, has decided not to wait for the Senate Republicans to decide whether subpoenaing him to testify poses too great a risk of angering the Dear Leader, and has gone public, in the form of leaked excerpts from the draft of his upcoming book:

https://theguardian.com/us-news/2020/ja ... ays-report

The draft of a book by former US national security adviser John Bolton reportedly describes how Donald Trump told him about his determination to delay US military aid to Ukraine until its government agreed to investigate his Democratic rival Joe Biden.

The explosive manuscript details the kind of material that Bolton could be expected to reveal publicly were he to be called as a witness in Trump’s impeachment trial now going on in the US Senate.

The account undermines Trump’s claims that the delay in aid to Ukraine last summer and the president’s efforts to persuade Ukraine to investigate US Democrats were unconnected, the New York Times said as part of its article on Sunday night revealing the Bolton manuscript.

The manuscript reportedly contains new details about the actions of senior cabinet officials including secretary of state Mike Pompeo, attorney general William Barr and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

Bolton has been circulating the draft passages from his planned book to associates and has sent the manuscript to the White House for what would be a mandatory review process for someone who was in Bolton’s position in the government before exiting the post last year, the NYT reported.

The White House could censor the manuscript before Bolton’s planned book is published. The Room Where It Happened is slated for publication on 17 March.

As the president’s defence team prepares to make its main presentations to the Senate on Monday and Tuesday, in the second week of Trump’s impeachment trial, the details in the new report strongly bolster Democrats’ case that there should be new witnesses called at the trial – Bolton first among them.

Trump ousted Bolton in September last year after a widening gulf opened up between them on policy, with the then national security adviser particularly aggrieved at the president’s apparent Russian sympathies.

Senate minority leader and New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, who is keen to force a vote on witnesses and pressure moderate Republicans into supporting the Democrats in this effort, took to Twitter on Sunday evening, saying: “John Bolton has the evidence.”

Chuck Schumer
(@SenSchumer)
John Bolton has the evidence.

It’s up to four Senate Republicans to ensure that John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, and the others with direct knowledge of President Trump’s actions testify in the Senate trial.https://t.co/JbazBaYdRU

January 26, 2020
Leading House Democrats acting as prosecutors in the impeachment trial said the new information reported from Bolton goes to the heart of the case against Trump.

Lauren Gambino
(@laurenegambino)
Impeachment managers responding to NYT report: “There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the President’s defense and therefore must be called as a witness at the impeachment trial of President Trump.”

January 27, 2020
House Democrat and impeachment manager, aka prosecutor, Zoe Lofgren earlier on Sunday said the case against Trump is “overwhelming”, that he abused the power of his office and then obstructed Congress in its investigation, and that Senators should be prepared to deliver impartial justice.

Trump is accused of undermining US national security by soliciting the help of a foreign government in his domestic 2020 reelection campaign.

During the House’s initial investigation into Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, the White House blocked senior aides from agreeing to testify in the impeachment inquiry.

Bolton later said he would be prepared to testify if subpoenaed to appear in the Senate and tension has been building ever since over whether witnesses will be called in the trial and perhaps offer a damning inside account of Trump’s allegedly corrupt dealings with Ukraine.

This includes the president conducting policy in the country allegedly to serve his own ends by deploying his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to pursue a parallel agenda to the State Department’s foreign officials, which included destroying the career of highly-regarded US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who was fired.

[Knife]

Might be enough to get him in the Senate. Not a slam dunk though.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not really understanding why media outlets are portraying Bolton's testimony as such a "bombshell"? I mean, he's basically just saying what we already have known for a while, that Trump withheld the military aid to get electoral assistance from Ukraine. From what I can tell, the Republican defense of Trump isn't even denying that Trump did that anyway; the entire Senate defense is centered around whether or not that is an impeachable offense, and is focused on almost trivial procedural matters of whether it meets the "high crimes and misdemeanors" qualification and whether the House followed the right procedures and so on. Hell, I can't remember the last time a Republican actually made any attempt to claim Trump didn't do this, their defense relies on saying it's not that big a deal that he did. Why does one more person saying that Trump did what we already knew he did make any difference?

[Knife]

Pretending they didn't know if Bolton hasn't testified is different than pretending they don't know when a book comes out saying exactly that. Sure Ted Cruz isn't worried about it, but so called moderates are.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Bolton leaks have shaken the Red Wall in the Senate:

https://cnn.com/2020/01/27/politics/mit ... index.html

Washington (CNN)Republican Sen. Mitt Romney said Monday that he has had discussions with his GOP colleagues and it is "increasingly likely" that others would join his ongoing push for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

"I've said for some time that I would hope to hear from John Bolton. I think with the story that came out yesterday that it is increasingly apparent that it would be important to hear from John Bolton," the Utah Republican said. "I think it's increasingly likely that other Republicans will join those of us who think we should hear from John Bolton."

Romney, who has before expressed frustration with Trump, previously indicated that he would be interested in hearing testimony from Bolton. "I think it's very likely I'll be in favor of witnesses, but I haven't made a decision finally yet and I won't until the testimony is completed," he said.

"I am not going to speak for any other Republican senators," Romney said when asked Monday who he has spoken with. "I have spoken with others who have opined on this as well."

The President's legal team resumed its second day of arguments on Monday, but all of the attention will be focused on the Republican senators sitting in the chamber and how they react to Sunday night's New York Times bombshell that Bolton's draft manuscript says Trump told him US security assistance to Ukraine was conditioned on investigations into Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden. Trump's attempts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, his potential general election rival, are at the center of the President's impeachment trial.

Trump has repeatedly made unfounded and false claims to allege that the Bidens acted improperly in Ukraine. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden.

Democrats need four Republicans to vote with them in favor of subpoenas for witnesses or new evidence in order to extend the trial and gather new information. Four senators, specifically, are being closely watched to vote for those subpoenas. That short list includes Romney, moderate Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and endangered senators up for reelection like Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado.

Collins said Monday morning that "the reporting on John Bolton strengthens the case for witnesses and has prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues."

"I think fairness requires us to allow both sides to present their cases before we move to the issue of witnesses, and I've worked very hard to get language in the governing resolution that would ensure a vote on whether or not to call witnesses and subpoena other documents," she told a small group of reporters in the Capitol. "I've also said from the beginning that it was very likely that I would vote for witnesses. And that has not changed."

Murkowski released her own statement Monday, saying "I stated before that I was curious as to what John Bolton might have to say.
"From the outset, I've worked to ensure this trial would be fair and that members would have the opportunity to weigh in after its initial phase to determine if we need more information," Murkowski said. "I've also said there is an appropriate time for us to evaluate whether we need additional information —that time is almost here. I look forward to the White House wrapping up presentation of its case."

CNN's Manu Raju, Haley Byrd, Jeremy Herb, Lauren Fox and Veronica Stracqualursi contributed to this report.

In the last couple days, we've gone from "there will probably be no witnesses" to "there will probably be witnesses". Romney is leaning that way, it appears, and seems to think other Republicans will join him.

CIndependent Angus King reportedly has predicted 5-10 Republicans will cross the isle on this vote.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, John Bolton has basically become the living embodiment of the phrase "a broken clock is right twice a day". Because let's not forget here: John Bolton is scum. He's the arch-war monger, the man who's always pushing to pit the US in armed conflict against foreign dictators. But it seems that that twisted sense of patriotism also made him one of the few high-level people in Trump's regime willing to confront him on his cozying up to dictators and throwing our allies under the bus.

We live in strange times.

[Rogue 9]

Also, John Bolton has basically become the living embodiment of the phrase "a broken clock is right twice a day". Because let's not forget here: John Bolton is scum. He's the arch-war monger, the man who's always pushing to pit the US in armed conflict against foreign dictators. But it seems that that twisted sense of patriotism also made him one of the few high-level people in Trump's regime willing to confront him on his cozying up to dictators and throwing our allies under the bus.

We live in strange times.

Bolton is reliably consistent. He's an enemy of foreign dictators, and he remains so regardless of the current President. It follows that he wasn't going to lie down for a President currying favor with foreign dictators, regardless of party and probably especially if the President went out of his way to insult Bolton, which Trump did.

[The Romulan Republic]

New poll has support for witnesses at 79%, including 49% of Republicans.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480 ... rcent-poll

Going to be real hard for Senate Republicans to ignore those numbers, though McConnell is reportedly doing his best to bully Senators into doing just that. But this is going exactly the way Democrats hoped it would. The Republicans are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Either they go against the will of the vast majority of voters, including at least half their own party, to conduct a blatant show trial, or they go against their Dear Leader and risk losing the support of him and his rabid base. Either way, it seriously endangers any chance they had of holding the Senate.

And of course, the longer the trial goes on, the longer Trump and the Republicans are going to be running with this hanging over their heads.

Couldn't have happened to nicer guys.

[The Romulan Republic]

McConnell admits that he doesn't have enough votes to block witnesses:

https://globalnews.ca/news/6475388/repu ... peachment/

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told senators privately Tuesday he does not yet have the votes to block new witnesses in U.S. President Donald Trump‘s impeachment trial.

McConnell convened a closed-door meeting of GOP senators shortly after Trump’s legal team made its closing arguments in the trial, the third and final day of defence proceedings punctuated by revelations from John Bolton, the former national security adviser. A Republican familiar with the meeting was not authorized to describe it by name and requested anonymity.

The GOP leader faced a handful of potential defections, but several days remained before any potential witness vote would be taken.

A decision to call more witnesses would need 51 votes to pass. With a 53-seat majority, Republicans can only afford to lose three Republicans to prevent more debate over witnesses.

McConnell has been trying to prevent a prolonged trial. Republicans were warned that subpoenaing testimony from Bolton or other witnesses could run quickly into legal challenges that could drag out for weeks.

But Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, has said he wants to hear what Bolton has to say. Two other Republicans, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, also want to hear from more witness.

The White House has blocked its aides from appearing in the impeachment proceedings and would almost certainly claim some sort of executive privilege or national security objections over Bolton testifying.

One closely watched Republican, retiring Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, told reporters as he exited the private meeting he would wait for the next few days of the trial and make his decision.

Some senators have discussed trying to reach a deal with Democrats in which each side would call a witness _ for example, Bolton and Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice-President Joe Biden whose work in Ukraine has been referenced by Trump’s team in the impeachment proceedings. Such a deal, so far, has had few takers as most Republicans don’t want to hear from Bolton and few Democrats want to draw the Bidens into the impeachment proceedings.

© 2020 The Canadian Press

SUCK IT, MOSCOW MITCH!

[Khaat]

Luckily, it has already been determined that Executive Privilege has limits, like, say when attempting to conceal a crime. Huh, after the limits of attorney-client privilege was explained to Cheeto, he really should have had the other Get out of Jail Free card he was clutching explained to him.

Fletcher: "Your honor, I object!"
Judge: "And why is that, Mr. Reede?"
Fletcher: "Because it's devastating to my case!"

[The Romulan Republic]

Luckily, it has already been determined that Executive Privilege has limits, like, say when attempting to conceal a crime. Huh, after the limits of attorney-client privilege was explained to Cheeto, he really should have had the other Get out of Jail Free card he was clutching explained to him.

Fletcher: "Your honor, I object!"
Judge: "And why is that, Mr. Reede?"
Fletcher: "Because it's devastating to my case!"

Two possibilities:

1. His legal team didn't explain it to him, because Trump tends to fire people who tell him what he doesn't want to hear.

2. They told him, and he ignored it, because he's Donald Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

Looks like McConnell is having some success at bullying Republican Senators into line, so we may not get witnesses after all:

https://nytimes.com/2020/01/29/us/polit ... hment.html

Now would be a good time to call some Senators, folks.

Also, the latest argument from Trump's defense team, courtesy of disgrace to the legal profession/accused child molester Alan Dershowitz, is literally "Trump can't be impeached for asking Ukraine to interfere in the election because his reelection is in the national interest". Yeah. Their defense is literally "I am the State". And Republicans are going along with it.

Let's hope that 75% who want witnesses remember this when its time to cast their vote for Senate. Presuming they're allowed to vote- Republicans will be doing everything they can to suppress that.

[The Romulan Republic]

First day of questions today- Chief Justice Roberts actually did his first real judging (rather than just staying "neutral"), and blocked a question from that scumball Rand Paul on the grounds that it might have outed the whistleblower:

https://cnn.com/2020/01/29/politics/ran ... index.html

Washington (CNN)Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky expressed frustration with Republican leadership during the Senate impeachment trial Wednesday night after it was made clear Chief Justice John Roberts would not read his question that named the alleged Ukraine whistleblower, sources with knowledge of the situation said.

The development brought Roberts into an unusual position in the trial, where he has served in large part to guide the proceedings, not to decide or make any rulings on how they proceed.

But prior to the 16-hour question-and-answer period for the trial, Roberts made clear that he would not read the name of the alleged whistleblower, nor would he consider questions that would move to clearly identify the individual, the sources said. Roberts, in his role, reads each question submitted by senators.

He was able to review questions from senators who submitted them prior to the start of Wednesday's proceedings, according to two sources. Paul's question, which sources said was revised several times but explicitly would have named the alleged whistleblower, ran afoul of the line Roberts drew on the matter.

Paul, for his part, could be seen and overheard expressing his frustration on the Senate floor during a break in the proceedings. "If I have to fight for recognition, I will," he was heard telling a Republican staffer.

The dispute created a behind-the-scenes issue that Republican leaders were attempting to resolve, though no solution had been reached by Wednesday evening.

Paul said during a break during Wednesday night's proceedings that "it's still an ongoing process" and the question "may happen tomorrow."

There have been several other whistleblower questions, some that even included identifying information, which Roberts has read. It's the alleged name itself that is his red line, sources said.

The disputed question -- an unprecedented situation -- comes on the first day senators have had a chance to be heard in the impeachment trial by submitting questions to be read aloud by Roberts directed at one or both of the legal teams. While several Republicans have called for the whistleblower's identity to be revealed in the past, Paul's attempted question on the Senate floor marks the most notable escalation to date.

The question falls in line with President Donald Trump's own repeated calls for news organizations to identify the whistleblower.
"There have been stories written about a certain individual, a male, and they say he's the whistleblower," Trump said in November, referring to reports in conservative media outlets purporting to identify the author. "If he's the whistleblower, he has no credibility. Because he's a Brennan guy, he's a Susan Rice guy, he's an Obama guy. And he hates Trump."

Days after the whistleblower complaint had been released publicly last September, Trump tweeted that he deserved to "meet my accuser."

"Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called 'Whistleblower,' represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way," he said.

Roberts' refusal to read Paul's question also marks a rare moment of meaningful authority as he presides over the trial -- a position that is highly public but has largely seen him recite procedural rules, keep the clock and read aloud vote tallies.

The chief justice has long been known for his extensive preparation and an ability to foresee what's ahead, which some colleagues have likened to three-dimensional chess.

Glad to see that there's still some limit to how much Roberts will slavishly enable Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

In response to the "He did it but its not criminal, so its not impeachable" argument (which is bullshit anyway, according to most lawyers), here's a breakdown of how much prison time Trump's actions qualify him for in the Ukraine scandal alone:

https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/trump-crimes-law/

IN THE FACE of an overwhelming pile of evidence suggesting that President Donald Trump pressured a foreign country to damage a political rival, most Republicans have chosen either to remain silent or to deny outright that anything out of the ordinary occurred. Others have taken a more sophisticated route: Concede his wrongdoing, but argue that it’s not impeachable.

“Donald Trump should not have been on the phone with a foreign head of state encouraging another country to investigate his political opponent, Joe Biden. Some Republicans are trying, but there’s no way to spin this as a good idea,” wrote Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel recently in The Daily Caller. But, they add importantly, that doesn’t mean his error rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

They are, however, indictable. A variety of felony criminal statutes plainly implicate Trump’s behavior, and come with lengthy prison sentences — the types of sentences doled out for high crimes, to say nothing of misdemeanors. Indeed, many of them are straightforward. Altogether, if the impeachment inquiry is limited simply to Trump’s pressure on Ukraine, the charges could amount to more than 10 years in prison.

Take 18 U.S. Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” It’s not hard to grasp:

“Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

The only question, here, is the definition of extortion. The law describes it as “the extraction of anything of value from another person by threatening or placing that person in fear of injury to any person or kidnapping of any person.” Was the Ukrainian president, or any other person, put in “fear of injury” by Trump’s move? As Trump’s envoys made clear in their since-disclosed text messages, Ukraine’s cooperation in the investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden was driven by the promise of a White House visit for President Volodymyr Zelensky and the threat of withholding military aid. That’s not just wrong, as Carlson and Patel rightly acknowledge, it’s also a felony, as the president and other Ukrainians no doubt had “fear of injury.”

Attorney General William Barr’s Department of Justice has declined to press charges against Trump, though the House of Representatives is pushing forward with its impeachment inquiry. In the meantime, Trump has said that he will refuse to cooperate with lawful subpoenas — itself a prima facie violation of 2 U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers,” punishable by a year in prison.

Coercing his deputies into joining in the conspiracy would also runs afoul of the law. “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Bill Taylor, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, reiterated in a text message to Trump official Gordon Sondland, strongly suggesting he was pursuing the strategy against his own wishes.

If Taylor felt coerced into helping with “a political campaign,” that implicates 18 U.S. Code § 610, which covers that crime rather clearly under the title: “Coercion of political activity.”

The law reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government … to engage in … any political activity.” The sentence caps at three years.

It’s also illegal, according to 18 U.S. Code § 595, when a government official, “in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President.” That statute could add another year to the sentence.

Prosecutors, in trying to pressure defendants into a plea bargain, often engage in what’s known as “stacking,” where they find every conceivable charge and stack them to the ceiling, threatening decades in prison if the defendant contests all the charges. A prosecutor who wanted to stack charges against Trump could ding him for 18 U.S. Code § 607, “Place of solicitation,” and 52 U.S. Code § 30121, “Contributions and donations by foreign nationals.” Essentially, it’s illegal to solicit contributions to your presidential campaign from the Oval Office and illegal to solicit from foreign nationals no matter where you do it from: “It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President … to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United States, from any person.”

That’s another three years.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, its time for the last push for votes on witnesses. Barring a miracle, we'll probably see things wrap up tomorrow with no witnesses, and it'll be down to the voters to make the fuckers pay in November.

The highlight of the day might have been the absolutely vicious burn Senator Warren landed on Chief Justice Roberts while submitting questions:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=2uyY7i1WsWc

At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican Senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence, contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?

Man, Roberts' face after reading that line.

Edit: Its a question of some significance, as a (very possible) tie vote on calling witnesses could be broken by the Chief Justice:

https://cnn.com/2020/01/30/politics/tru ... index.html

Washington (CNN)With a pivotal vote on witnesses fast approaching in the Senate's impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, there's buzz in the Capitol over the possibility that Chief Justice John Roberts might break a tie vote -- and while many senators in both parties believe that's an unlikely scenario, some are still holding out hope.

The chamber could take votes on that question as soon as Friday. Democrats, who have been pushing for witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton, have been calling for at least four Republicans to join with them to hit the 51-vote threshold to win the vote to allow witnesses. But what happens if there's a tie vote, resulting in a 50-50 split among senators?

There has been simmering debate over the question, with some Democrats openly speculating that Roberts, who is presiding over the Senate trial, might step in to break a tie. Overall, however, there is a widespread expectation on Capitol Hill -- on both sides of the aisle -- that a tie vote would fail.

"If it ends in a tie? Well, I mean if you don't have a majority, then it fails, yeah, the motion fails," Sen. John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota and a member of GOP leadership, told CNN on Wednesday when asked about the vote on witnesses.

"I think the likelihood is -- strong likelihood -- is he would not break a tie and I would respect his position if he didn't," Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said of the chief justice.

Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania said, "I'm assuming that on something that fundamental, he's gonna make — he'll have the Senate make the determination."

Asked then if a 50-50 vote would fail, Casey responded, "That's my understanding."

Typically, when the Senate is not sitting as a court of impeachment, the vice president is permitted to step in and break tie votes, a power outlined in the Constitution.

The Constitution also dictates that the chief justice must preside during a presidential impeachment trial, but nowhere does it say that the chief justice would have tie-breaking power while serving in that role.

Some Democratic senators, however, are still hoping that Roberts might intervene in the event of a tie.

"There is actually precedent for that," Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware told CNN, when asked if there's been discussion among Democrats over whether the chief justice could break a tie vote on witnesses, pointing to the impeachment trial of former President Andrew Johnson.

During that trial, in 1868, Chief Justice Salmon Chase broke tie votes twice, but those moves and his political stance throughout that trial remain controversial today.

Asked if Democrats believe that the chief justice could potentially break tie votes again during the current impeachment trial, Coons said, "Yes, I mean, I don't speak for all Senate Democrats. It's something I think could happen."

In contrast, during the 1999 impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton, Chief Justice William Rehnquist saw his role as limited, famously remarking that he "did nothing in particular, and did it very well."

"There is precedent," Blumenthal said, but he added, "It's not modern precedent."

During lunch on Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not indicate whether he believes he has the votes to block witnesses -- but the GOP senators did discuss the possibility of a 50-50 tie on witnesses.

Sen. Mike Braun, an Indiana Republican, confirmed that the topic came up and said "there's a lot of uncertainty" about what would happen if there's a tie in the Senate.

"There's a lot of uncertainty in terms of what happens with the presiding officer," Braun said, referring to Roberts.
And while some Democrats are calling on Roberts to break any 50-50 ties, Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, said that he is uncomfortable with the idea given the potential repercussions and precedent it would set.

"I don't want Roberts voting," he said. "That to me is pretty clear that the Constitution specifically gives the power to the vice president to break ties, it's silent on that matter in an impeachment trial. Which leads me to the opinion that he's not supposed to vote."

Senate Democrats have argued strongly in favor of calling witnesses during the trial, saying that a fair trial demands the ability to hear from additional witnesses, such as Bolton who has said he's willing to appear if subpoenaed. Bolton, according to a draft manuscript first reported by The New York Times earlier this week, alleges that Trump told him over the summer that he wanted to continue holding military aid to Ukraine until the country helped with investigations into his potential political opponents.

Senate Republicans with only a few exceptions, however, have pushed back, arguing that calling witnesses would unnecessarily delay the trial and that the Senate is not responsible for pursuing lines of inquiry that the House of Representatives did not in its own impeachment investigation.

The partisan divide has led to tense debate over whether additional testimony should be allowed and intense speculation over what will happen when the Senate votes to decide whether to permit calling witnesses -- a vote expected to take place on Friday following the conclusion of Thursday's question-and-answer session.

As for the question of whether the chief justice could break a tie if it were to occur, a report from the Congressional Research Service put it this way: "The Chief Justice, when presiding over an impeachment trial, would not be expected to vote, even in the case of a tie. If a vote on a question results in a tie, the question is decided in the negative."

This story has been updated with additional developments Thursday.

CNN's Phil Mattingly, Manu Raju, Laurie Ure, Joan Biskupic and Ali Zaslav contributed to this report.

[The Romulan Republic]

Lamar Alexander will announce tonight whether he will vote for witnesses (he is, along with Collins, Murkowski, and Romney, one of the four considered most likely to split).

[The Romulan Republic]

And Lamar Alexander is a no. Worthless fascist lickspittle.

[The Romulan Republic]

Update on the state of the trial:

Romney and Collins have confirmed themselves to be Yes votes for witnesses. Murkowski's position remains unknown. It is expected that all 47 Democrats (including the Independents) will vote Yes.

Even with Murkowski, though, this would give us a tie- so, barring a highly unexpected case of another Republican flipping, or the Chief Justice's intervention, the motion will fail and the "trial" will conclude with no additional witnesses or documents. And Lamar Alexander will go down in history as the man who single-handedly ended the rule of law in America and elevated the President to a dictator.

The trial may still extend to Saturday or next week, due to the number of procedures they may have to go through, how many motions the Democrats may file, etc. But the push seems to be to wrap it up before the Iowa caucuses and the State of the Union (the latter presumably so that Trump can use the address to crow to the whole country about how he was totally vindicated by the Senate from the "Deep State witch hunt").

Whether this attempt to uphold the rule of law was worth it, or just a chance for the Republicans to drive the last nail in the coffin of the American Republic, will depend on whether enough voters reject the Republicans' narratives in November.

I will say that, as appalling as the near-unanimous defense of Trump by the Republicans is, the Democrats have (additional witnesses aside) gotten everything we realistically could have hoped to get out of the trial thus far- we have sent a clear statement about Trump's criminality, and we have forced the Senate Republicans to go against both the evidence and the wishes of the American people to conceal it and acquit him. Now its just a question of what effect that will have in November.

https://cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/sen ... index.html

(CNN)The end appears on the horizon for the third impeachment trial of a president in US history, with the Senate poised to defeat a motion on Friday to seek witnesses and documents in the trial of President Donald Trump.

The biggest mystery remaining is how long the trial will last after the witness vote before the Senate takes a final vote on acquittal.

GOP aides say while they want the trial to end quickly following Friday's vote on witnesses, it's possible it could extend into Saturday or even next week.

Senate Republican leaders need 51 votes to do anything, and they were gauging how quickly they can conclude the trial without drawing objections from several members of the conference, specifically on the issue of deliberations, according to two sources. Senate deliberations, which would take place in closed session, are a wild card, with GOP leaders saying they'd like to move without them.

There's also the uncertainty of how many motions Democrats will offer before a final vote, another factor that Republicans warn could push the acquittal vote to Saturday or next week.

"My guess is it probably is going to carry us over to the first part of next week, but obviously we have the Iowa caucuses on February the 3rd, and we have the State of the Union the next day," Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, told reporters Friday morning. "So I think for all sorts of reasons it's probably a good idea to bring this thing to a close in the near future."

Regardless of when it happens, the outcome of the trial is all but certain. Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, shot down the last Democratic hope that the Senate would seek witnesses such as former national security adviser John Bolton, when he announced late Thursday he would oppose Friday's witness vote. Alexander said in a statement that the Democrats proved their case Trump withheld US security assistance to Ukraine in order to pressure the country to investigate his political rival — but the conduct was not impeachable, he said, and Bolton's testimony would not change that.

The Senate will debate the motion for witnesses for four hours on Friday when the trial gavels in at 1 p.m. ET before the vote. Two Republican senators will vote for witnesses, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah, along with all 47 Democrats. A third Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, remains undecided. But barring a miraculous turnaround from another Republican — or the highly unlikely intervention of Chief Justice John Roberts in the event of a 50-50 tie — the witness vote will fail on Friday.
At that point, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could move to an acquittal vote. But Democrats will have the ability to amend and debate such a motion, meaning the trial could stretch on for many hours after the witness vote. GOP senators and aides are predicting the final vote isn't likely until the early morning hours on Saturday.

"Things here almost always take longer than you think they're going to take," said Sen. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican in GOP leadership.

When the final vote does occur to acquit the President, it will mark the end of a remarkable, whirlwind four-month impeachment that began when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry on September 24, leading to the President's impeachment on two articles — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — less than three months later.

After a month delay, the Senate trial began two weeks ago. The House managers, led by House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, presented a detailed case arguing they had overwhelming evidence that Trump withheld $400 million in US security aid and a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky while he pressured Kiev to open investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

The President's team argued there was no quid pro quo — but also that even if there was one, it was within the President's rights if it was in the national interest.

Collins and the other Republican moderates included a provision in the Senate trial rules to allow for Friday's witness vote, but the odds looked long for Democrats to convert four Republicans to back the vote until Sunday — when The New York Times reported Bolton's draft book manuscript alleged that Trump told him the US security aid was conditioned on investigations into Democrats, including Joe Biden.

But McConnell held his conference together enough to keep the witness vote at bay, with Alexander the lynchpin of his bend-but-not break strategy. Until Thursday, Alexander did not tip his hand on which way he was leaning, declining to speak to reporters about it and staying quiet in GOP conference meetings. He finally asked two questions at the tail end of the two-day Senate question period in the trial, which hinted at his eventual position.

"The question then is not whether the President did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did," Alexander said in his statement Thursday. "I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. ... Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with 'the consent of the governed,' not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide."

Shortly before Alexander's statement, Collins became the first Republican to back witnesses. "I believe hearing from certain witnesses would give each side the opportunity to more fully and fairly make their case, resolve any ambiguities, and provide additional clarity," Collins said.

Romney will also vote for the motion to call witnesses, a Romney aide told CNN on Friday.

The one true undecided vote left in the Republican conference is Murkowski. She and Collins, sitting side-by-side in the Senate chamber, were two of the senators watching most intently throughout the course of trial.

"I'm going to go back to my office, put some eye drops in so I can keep reading," Murkowski said on Thursday evening, adding she would announce her decision on the witness vote on Friday.

This story has been updated with additional developments Friday.

CNN's Ted Barrett and Ali Zaslav contributed to this report.

[The Romulan Republic]

And Murkowski is a No. So much for being a "moderate".

[The Romulan Republic]

Some have also noted, not without reason, that Dershowtiz's "defense" of Trump, that anything he does to win reelection is in the national interest and therefore not impeachable, is also a precedent to justify him using fraud or force to overturn the election.

That's what Republicans are voting for. President for Life Donald Trump.

[FaxModem1]

Motion for witnesses fails, 51 to 49.

[The Romulan Republic]

Motion for witnesses fails, 51 to 49.

The American Republic. July 4th, 1776-January 30th, 2020.

Rest In Peace.


The Senate is going to put off the final vote until Wednesday, it looks like. Some Senators want to make closing statements, either to support the impeachment case or to try to justify their complicity in the cover-up. Schumer just called out Chief Justice Roberts' lack of involvement, citing the precedent of Chief Justice Chase breaking ties during the Johnson impeachment trial. Roberts basically replied that those were just a couple of votes on whether to continue/adjourn, and he doesn't feel its enough precedent for him, as a member of a different branch of government, to act as a tie-breaking vote.

The Dems have introduced resolutions calling for subpoenaing various witnesses. All expected to fail, no doubt, but at least they're fighting it out, and forcing the Republicans to show the American people exactly how corrupt they are on live television. As someone who's often criticized the lack of spine from Democratic leadership, I must applaud them for a capable and valiant effort. Their case was overwhelming, and in anything remotely resembling a fair court, it would have been unassailable.