GOP develops aggressive 'Plan B' in impeachment trial, as several Dems appear to support acquittal: source

Fox News ^ | January 28 2020 | Gregg Re

[knighthawk]

With several Democrats openly floating the possibility they might vote to acquit President Trump, congressional Republicans are planning an aggressive "Plan B" strategy in the event some Republicans break off and demand additional witnesses in the president's impeachment trial, Fox News has learned.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., privately said early Tuesday that he wasn't sure there were enough Republican votes to block more witnesses, given that some moderates in the GOP's 53-47 Senate majority were wavering. Any witness resolution would likely require four Republican defections in the Senate, because in the event of a 50-50 tie, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts is highly likely to abstain rather than assert his debatable power to cast a tiebreaking vote.

Late Tuesday night, a Senate leadership source told Fox News that Republicans were specifically assessing the viability of two alternative options.

[entropy12]

Because (1) they are in a bluish state or (2) are jealous they lost election to a community organizer from Chicago while a non-politician who never ran for any election before defeated the sure to win first female president candidate handily, or (3) they are so country-club type personalities, they can not stand a president who is never shy in counter punching attacks immediately.

[entropy12]

No surprise there at Fox News. There several non-conservative talking heads at FN, in addition to stealth Trump haters who try to camouflage their true feelings, but forget that I am an expert on reading facial expressions having raised 2 kids.

[dp0622]

Suck what? You talking to me?

:)

[hattend]

I thought the VP was the deciding vote in the event of a Senate tie.

[txnativegop]

The VP has nothing to do with an impeachment

[entropy12]

hahaha dp0622...

suc·cinct

something written or spoken briefly and clearly expressed.

[dp0622]

Ah, I stole the joke from “Robin Hood: Men in Tights”

a goofy Mel Brooks movie.

Dom Delluise says it :)

[stevio]

Freakin’ Toomey. WTF happened to him?

[TheConservativeTejano]

I agree with you. McConnell needs our support not our darts!

Partner, there appears to be only one Senator that wants witnesses and that is Mittens Romney and he is probably through in the political arena. Romney is being a very vindictive Senator from the Great State of Utah but he is finished winning anymore elections. Thank God for that.

The folks in Utah will let him know how they feel about his performance in the Senate.

President Trump is the best thing that could have ever happened to me since it opened up my eyes to how much Fake News there really is from our MSM. It is sad to say the least.

President Trump has opened up our eyes to see how corrupt our Government has gotten and our tax dollars pay for these type of Government workers.

President Trump is an outsider and he sees how much corruption there is in our government right now. It seems like it has happened because we have had lousy POTUS leadership in the past 28 years before President Trump came to be our POTUS.

[pollywog]

well said!!!!!!!

[TheConservativeTejano]

With what information we have so far, here is my take: 1. Hillary wants to run. Any prolonged witness trial would only harm Warren and Sanders. Biden is finished. He’s trailing Sanders in several states. So with Warren & Sanders unable to campaign, she gets the nom. 2. If there are witnesses, wouldn’t the Defense be allowed to call their own? After all this is a trial. Seems this could be devastating for the Socialists (Romney especially since his son had Ukraine dealings. Graham too as I’ve seen some talk about his own dirty dealings—think John Kerry and McCain. Also for all his bluster where are those hearings Graham promised? Biden has also vowed to ruin Graham I’ve seen. Hum.... What does Biden know.) My guess is that they are going to drag this drama out FOREVER! And I’m sick of it. We need term limits.

Partner, we agree 100% with ya on these points.

Like Mr. Dershowitz said in his defense of President Trump and Mr. Dershowitz is a Democrat but he mentioned that we should not be having an Impeachment Trial on President Trump since Executive Privilege is not an Impeachable offense.

The Sham trial in the "People's House" produced 19 witnesses and "Schiff for Brains" allowed "0" witnesses for the Republicans. "Schiff for Brains" was the Judge, Jury, and Executioner."

I think the only 2 Republicans that are going against McConnell is Mittens Romney and Susan Collins from Maine.
I am hearing that if we do have witnesses that the Democrats will try to extend this fiasco forever.

We saw the rally in NJ last night and it looks like NJ will be a Red State. The last time this happened is when I voted for "President Ronald Wilson Reagan" in that great landslide victory of 1984. The MSM could not even say thing negative about President Reagan.

[TheConservativeTejano]

Partner, we Mitch McConJob barely wins his Senate seat in the great state of Kentucky. He know he is worth $30 Million and all he has been is senator from Kentucky.

We already know McConJob is a real piece of work.

[EnquiringMind]

I saw Manchin earlier on Fox, interviewed by Brett Baier. He was pussyfooting around the tough questions, spouting off democrat BS. My guess is that he is a certain “yes” vote.

[Fledermaus]

VPs back then was whomever came in second in the presidential election.

[Citizen Soldier]

The question is why does WVA keep voting in a democrat for senator?

[Ronniesque]

Byrd brought home the bacon

[BTerclinger]

Seeing mixed reports
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=toomey+impeachment+witnesses

[Syncro]

If McConnell had any balls, he’d offer the prosecution (House Democrats) the very same number of witnesses that the defense (Trump) was allowed in the House trial — ZERO.***

If only he would grow a pair.

I don’t get all this talk about “voting” for or against allowing more witnesses.

An impeachment trial is not like any other trial.

The House of Reps are like the prosecutors.

They had their impeachment inquiry and settled on two articles of impeachment.

They had the opportunity to call as many witnesses as they wanted.

Then they voted to impeach on the ground of their two articles.

Period.

Those are the charges.

Then they gave them to the Senate for them to do their Constitutional duty to have a trial.

Based SOLELY on the articles sent by the House.

Then they got to come to the senate as ‘prosecutors’ to make their case. They were given 3 days, 24 hours and they laid it all out.

Like an opening statement.

Then ‘rested’ their case.

They didn’t call it that, but that was what happened.

Period.

Then the Trump team was given 24 hours for ‘rebuttal’ although that is not what they called it.

Then the Q&A part.

When that is over, it’s time to vote yes or no to impeach Trump.

The House members, nor anyone else, has any rights to ‘demand’ anything. Like the witnesses they could have called when this was in the house.
It’s too late to call more witnesses.
The dems can whine and cry and yell UNFAIR all they want; doesn’t matter.
They had all the time in the world to make their case when this was in the House.

Needs 2 thirds ‘yes’ to impeach.

66.6 (interesting number) votes.

Mitch could cave to Schumer cause he’s a fraidy cat.
Lets hope he doesn’t.

[Syncro]

I am hearing that if we do have witnesses that the Democrats will try to extend this fiasco forever.*****

Yes.

We need to not even have a vote on witnesses.

If we do, that shows that the dems run the senate.

[doug from upland]