Posted on 12/13/2019 7:26:28 AM PST by EyesOfTX
Mitch McConnell made a fairly rare, long-ish appearance on the Sean Hannity Tick-Tock hour last night. – The Senate Majority Leader made a lot of very important statements during this interview, including an ironclad guarantee – a la Joe Willie Namath before the 1968 Super Bowl – that there is “zero chance” the President will be convicted and removed by the Senate. Given that the media reports I’ve seen on it are woefully inadequate, I thought it was important to provide readers here a more fulsome summation of the interview.
Because the segment is almost 11 minutes long and the video clip provides closed captioning, I haven’t compiled a full transcript. However, key outtakes – which constitute virtually all of his own remarks – from McConnell’s remarks appear below.
[Apologies to readers: This video clip, for whatever reason, will not play when embeded within this piece, so please follow the link provided above to view it.]
Key Outtakes:
The Democrats have been wanting to do this for three years. The first headline in the Washington Post after the President was inaugurated was that they were going to impeach him. Well, they finally got around to it, and we assume we will see two articles of impeachment, both of them pretty weak stuff, coming over to us.
Under the rules of impeachment, the Senate then turns to it – has no option, but to turn to it – and it’s the sole business until we finish.
How we can impact that, really, is just with 51 votes. The Chief Justice is in the Chair, I don’t expect the Chief Justice to try to tilt the playing field either way. We will listen to the opening arguments by the House prosecutors, we will listen to the President’s lawyers respond, and then we’ll have to make a decision about the way forward.
Everything I do while we’re doing this will be coordinated with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the President’s position and our position as to how to handle this, to the extent we can.
We don’t have the kind of ball control on this…a typical issue, for example, comes over from the house, and if I don’t like it, we don’t take it up. We have no choice but to take it up, but we’ll be working through this process, hopefully in a very short period of time in close cooperation with the White House counsel’s office.
You raise the issue of whether there will be witnesses; It will be up to the President’s counsel to decide if they want to have witnesses.
The case is so darn weak coming over from the House – we all know how it’s gonna end. There is no chance the President’s gonna be removed from office.
My hope is that there won’t be a single Republican who votes for either of these articles of impeachment, and Sean, it wouldn’t surprise me if we got one or two Democrats.
Over in the House, the Republicans are solid and the Democrats seem to be divided.
[On the Obstruction of Congress charge:]
This is a thoroughly political exercise. This is not like a courtroom experience, this is a political exercise. They’ve been trying to do this for three years, they’ve finally screwed up their courage to do it.
It looks to me like it may be backfiring on them, particularly in swing districts that the Speaker’s party managed to win in order to get to the majority. Most of the nervousness I see on this issue, particularly among the politicians since it’s a political exercise, is on the Democratic side.
[On whether to bring in witnesses like Schiff, Quid Pro Joe and Hunter Biden:]
Again, I’m going to take my cues from the President’s lawyers.
But, yes, if you know you have the votes, you’ve listened to the arguments on both sides, and believe the case is so slim, so weak that you have the votes to end it, that might be what the President’s lawyers would prefer.
You can certainly make a case for making it shorter rather than longer since it’s such a weak case.
[On the Abuse of Power charge:]
Well, this is a really weak case [laughing], and that’s why I think you’re gonna see bipartisan opposition to the articles over in the House.
[How long will it last?]
Well, if they do it [pass the articles in the House] next week, we will get consent to go home for Christmas. We would turn to it right around the first of the year, and we would stay on it until we finish. My hope is that it would be a shorter process rather than a longer process.
[On his and President Trump’s tremendous success on Judicial confirmations:]
It’s all about putting strict constructionists on the court. We put our 50th Circuit judge on the bench last week.
To put that into perspective, Barack Obama did 55 Circuit judges in 8 years, we’ve done 50 in 3 years. We have at least a year left for sure, we’re gonna do more.
One-fourth of the Circuit judges…remember, the most cases don’t make it to the Supreme Court. Most complex litigation never makes it beyond the Circuit court. This has been the most long-lasting, important contribution the President could make, well into the future, far beyond his tenure in office.
So, we’ll have a judiciary more inclined not to make it up on the fly. You know, President Obama said he wanted to appoint judges who had ’empathy.’ Well, that makes great sense if you’re the litigant before the judge for whom the judge has empathy. Its not so good if you aren’t.
[On how Mitch would proceed if a Supreme Court seat came open next year.]
Absolutely [he would proceed to fill the seat]. We definitely would do that.
The most important decision I have made in my career was the decision not to fill the seat of Justice Scalia after he had passed away. That was the beginning, and now we have this exclamation point after three years.
[Hannity says he’s surprised Obama left so many vacancies.]
I’ll tell you why – I was in charge of what we did the last two years of the Obama Administration [laughs].
[Will there be any GOP defections on impeachment?]
I doubt it. There’s zero chance the President would be removed from office, and I’m hoping there will be no defections at all.
[End]
That is all.
Has McConnell seen the light or merely the handwriting on the wall?
Did The Turtle go on Hannity wearing a fur coat?
Nah, he just wants his constituents to remove some of the pins from his effigy. He’s a spineless wonder, and this bravado will fade soon enough.
You can certainly make a case for making it shorter rather than longer since it’s such a weak case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The word is that the President now wants a full trial to exonerate himself and reveal the crookedness of the Democrats to the electorate, using the venue just as the Democrats have been allowed to do, as a tool to affect the election.
I can’t blame him. A full length trial will denude the Dems of their pretenses to power, and loft the president. I am leaning to support of the presidency, so that history is very clear about the Democrat weaponizing our system against the People who voted for President trump.
>>>Has McConnell seen the light or merely the handwriting on the wall?<<<
He might recall how the republicans got trounced after watergate. From Wikipedia: Democrats won net gains of four seats in the Senate, 49 seats in the House of Representatives, and four seats in the gubernatorial elections.
It’s in everyone’s best interest on the right to stick together.
After the House votes they have consent to go home for Christmas?
Forget that! Stay there and put it to bed in the senate, then have your break.
I hope he wasn’t drunk.
Nope, just the panty hose. We’re talking about Mitch here.
Mitch McConnell made a fairly rare, long-ish appearance on the Sean Hannity Tick-Tock hour last night. – The Senate Majority Leader made a lot of very important statements during this interview, including an ironclad guarantee – a la Joe Willie Namath before the 1968 Super Bowl – that there is “zero chance” the President will be convicted and removed by the Senate.
*************
Super Bowl III, where the Jets shocked the Colts 16-7, was played on January 12, 1969.
Was a good interview and I’ve been a Hannity critic. McConnell was solid. The president isn’t removed and his strategy and the presidents’ attorneys will be one and the same. He said it more than once.
And he wants judges that uphold the constitution. He even said that the reason Obama didn’t fill more vacancies was because of him. We are lucky to have him.
> Forget that! Stay there and put it to bed in the senate, then have your break.
Hmmm, maybe not. If the Donald wants a full trial there isn’t time to do the whole show in December. It could be instructional to have the whole cast of characters - Comey, Brennan, McCabe, Strozk, Page, et. al. testify under cross examination or plead the 5th. Drag that Mifsud guy back from Cyprus or where ever. For myself, I’d like to see EVERYTHING - classifications be damned - laid out in the open so that it can become an incontrovertible part of our nation’s historical record.
Or make a pass at a woman after a few too many drinks?
The Murder Turtle has actually been very good on Judges. He has helped POTUS greatly on that front and it is the most lasting legacy a President can have.
Under the rules of impeachment, the Senate then turns to it - has no option, but to turn to it - and it's the sole business until we finish.Maybe "sole business" on a technicality, but the Clinton impeachment spanned a month, and was split into two chunks. All sorts of legislating was going on at the same time the trial was going on, if you measure on a few days basis.
Go Mitch!
“I can’t blame him. A full length trial will denude the Dems of their pretenses to power, and loft the president. I am leaning to support of the presidency, so that history is very clear about the Democrat weaponizing our system against the People who voted for President trump.”
If there is a full length trial, what is the role of Justice Roberts? Is he just the presiding judge and the senate determines innocent or guilt? Is there anything Roberts can do to throw this to the rats?
Thanks for emphasizing that point. Mitch may not be everything we might want in an aggressive majority leader but he does well within his sphere of competence.
To lump him with the egregious Paul Ryan, as some FReepers have done on these threads, is pretty unfair.
Yertle has his yuses.
If the president is allowed his day in court and can force the testimony of real fact witnesses, I will have no quarrel with Mitch. The president exposing the dem witch hunt by interrogating them in the senate, an indictment filled Durham report, the replacement of RBG in an election year by McConnell and Trump’s re-election is all I ask for in 2020.
Thanks for posting just what I wanted to say.
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.