Posted on 01/30/2020 8:07:35 PM PST by CaptainK
“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.
(Excerpt) Read more at alexander.senate.gov ...
“Read it again! He calls Trump guilty.”
He’ll vote no on witnesses and no on guilty.
The circus is over, at least this one. But you can be sure the Rats won’t waste any time concocting a new one.
““There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.
“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.
“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. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.
“The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘mountain’ of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.
“The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.
“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.”
“Can the Chief Justice cast a tiebreaking vote, like the Vice President (as President of the Senate) does?”
That is what Adam Schiff is trying to get Roberts to do.
yep...seems I misunderstood earlier discussions.
The bad news is Lamar Alexander is an idiot.
The good news is he somehow stumbled on the right decision here.
You forgot the two question marks.
Fox confirmed.
I don’t think they’ll get Murkowski now, she’s not going to win any points back home by doing so.
As opposed to Senators Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar who do not have a conflict of interest?
They edited it just moments ago because I copied and pasted it.
The Chief Justice does not have a vote. 50/50 goes to the defendant. Trump wins!
Mark Levin explained that a tie is the same as “not passed” and the measure is dead.
I’m thinking he might be looking forward to playing golf on some really nice courses in his retirement years.
Not one but two elections would be overturned if the Senate voted to remove Trump from office.
Democrats can’t beat Trump in November so this was a Hail Mary pass for them.
Now they’re in a world of hurt.
"Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the chamber, and can afford up to three defections when the Senate considers whether to call additional witnesses on Friday. In the event of a 50-50 tie, by rule, the vote on witnesses would fail in the Senate. Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts is likely to abstain rather than assert his debatable power to cast a tie-breaking vote."
"Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the chamber, and can afford up to three defections when the Senate considers whether to call additional witnesses on Friday. In the event of a 50-50 tie, by rule, the vote on witnesses would fail in the Senate. Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts is likely to abstain rather than assert his debatable power to cast a tie-breaking vote."
I got it the second time.
After saying how guilty the President is he says that isn’t a reason to remove.
However, there are at least two scenarios where Roberts may be called upon to wade into a trial already marked by deep partisan rancor and mutual suspicion. First, if a vote on witnesses or acceptance of claims of executive privilege (or any matter) results in a 50-50 tie, the Chief Justice – and not the Vice President – will be forced to cast a tiebreaking vote.
All the senators running for president should not be allowed to vote.
Conflict of interest.
Yes, even if a Republican Senator votes to hear witnesses, or believes Trump asked for the quid pro quo, that does NOT mean they are voting to convict.
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if the President did link the aid with looking into Biden corruption. I see nothing wrong with that, even if some part of the reason was to damage Joe Biden, i.e., influence the election.
So what.
Look at what they have put President Trump through for four years - a politically motivated attempt to get him thrown out of office on false charges, enlisting the help of anti-Trump Obama holdovers in the bureaucracy - an abuse of power thousands of times worse than anything Trump ever did.
The Democrats are total hypocrites, contradicting everything they said 21 years ago when the shoe was on the other foot - and ALL those Senators know it.
Even Trump-hating senators like Mitt Romney will vote to acquit rather than get their hands dirty with this tainted Democrat impeachment. I think a fair amount of Democrats will vote to acquit as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.