Maybe the Chiefs will have President Trump run out on the field with them during the pregame. Give roger an excuse to cheer for Trump. maybe unknowingly .
Boy it takes a vivid imagination to find that an impeachment hearing in which the Democrats called 17 witness and allowed the President to call none...
and then are upset because they wanted to call "more" witnesses at trial (to basically repeat with most of the other witnesses said) while demanding that the President's witnesses would be "irrelevant" to the proceedings...
is somehow unfair towards the accused?
If they cannot get the job done with a 17-0 witness advantage!
The Nancy Palsy picture with Eric Ciaramella is priceless the arm around her. So is the one with Chucky Schumer. And that Biden/obama/Kerry had him as a quest at a Party is cool too.
Great question just now from Republicans for House managers, pointing out that under their standard, Democrats would be guilty of foreign interference for the Steele dossier.
@RepJeffries says it's different, because Democrats PURCHASED that information!
LOL
looks like james is now lying by the graveyard. Like the dems are dead and about to face a firing squad.
Asked whether, under the Dems' impeachment standard, the Clinton campaign's solicitation of the Steele dossier would be considered foreign interference, illegal, or impeachable, @RepJeffries says no -- because the Steele dossier "was purchased."
Carter Page Sues DNC and Perkins Coie in ‘First Step’ to ‘Expose and Remedy’ FISA Abuse
January 30, 2020
Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page has filed a lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the law firm Perkins Coie for funding the fraudulent dossier that served as the basis for illegal surveillance warrants against him.
“The Defendants are private actors who used false information, misrepresentations and other misconduct to direct the power of the international intelligence apparatus and the media industry against a private individual, Plaintiff Carter Page, to further their political agenda,” the complaint states.
“This is a first step to ensure that the full extent of the FISA abuse that has occurred during the last few years is exposed and remedied,” attorney John Pierce said Thursday. “Defendants and those they worked with inside the federal government did not and will not succeed in making America a surveillance state.”
Perkins Coie was used by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to secretly pay opposition research firm Fusion GPS and former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele to concoct a dossier with unverified rumors alleging Trump and Moscow were colluding to hijack the 2016 presidential election.
The dossier alleges that Page was an agent of the Russian government, and acted as an “intermediary” between former Trump Campaign manager Paul Manafort and Moscow. It further alleges that Igor Sechin, the CEO of Russia’s state oil company, offered Page and his associates a stake in the company in exchange for the lifting of US sanctions on Russia. None of that was true, but the FBI used the unverified rumors to obtain the FISA warrants to spy on Page.
At least one lawyer from Perkins Coie met with former FBI general counsel James Baker to talk about the allegations before the bureau secured the first search warrant in October of 2016.
She is Part of the "Cover up". "Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview Thursday that the Senate will soon “cut to the chase” and acquit President Donald Trump".
George Conway: “Corruption, for all the Trump lawyers’ attempt to muddy the waters with tortured interpretations of the Constitution, is what this impeachment is all about. Trump acted with corrupt intent to damage a political opponent. Testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton seems certain to underscore that point.
“Which is precisely why Republican senators seem so desperate not to hear it and so willing to entertain a false reading of the Constitution that would effectively render the impeachment clause a nullity. Should they do that, they will have sacrificed their own oaths to protect their own electoral prospects, and the country and the Constitution will have been saddled with a terrible precedent. The Senate will have told Trump that, indeed, he can do whatever he wants.”
“It’s more than frustrating—it’s pathetic. If you had any regard at all for the prerogatives of the legislative branch, to allow the White House to stonewall the House of Representatives in a completely unprecedented way, and then accept a set of rules … that are just a cover up for what the President has done, I think demonstrates a complete lack of regard for what this institution is supposed to be about.” — Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Pathetically and sycophantically, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) announced that he will not support calling new witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial.
What happens if there's a tie vote at the impeachment trial? It's complicated.
A lot depends on the chief justice Posted Jan 30, 2020 4:02 PM
The next stage of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will sharpen focus on Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s role as presiding officer and a looming question: Does he have the power to decide whether the Senate should hear more witnesses and evidence?
A deep dive into the details of Senate rules and impeachment history comes to this conclusion: No, although he might in two less-likely scenarios related to breaking a tie vote.
Ready?
Generally, the Senate’s impeachment rules give Roberts little true power. It sounds important that the chief justice “may rule on all questions of evidence” such as relevancy, materiality and redundancy.
But the rules allow the Senate to vote to overrule him, so a majority of the Senate retains the ultimate power on questions of whether to issue subpoenas for witnesses or documents. Roberts also can decline to rule on a motion either way, and instead ask the senators to vote on it.
So if there is a motion to call witnesses, such as former national security adviser John Bolton, that decision almost certainly would not rise and fall on Roberts. Rather, it would come down to which side has at least 51 senators.
Republicans hold a 53-47 advantage, which is why Democrats have repeatedly said they need four Republicans to join them to get to 51 votes to allow for more witnesses and documents.
“Look, right now our focus is on getting four Republicans. We shouldn’t have to rely on what the chief justice will or will not do,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer of New York said Thursday.
But what if only three Republicans vote along with the Democratic caucus on the first big question, whether to allow subpoenas for more witnesses, resulting in a 50-50 tie vote? Things get more interesting and unsettled.
That scenario appears possible, with Republicans Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah so far expressing an openness to hear from Bolton or other witnesses.
To get this out of the way: Vice President Mike Pence, who can typically break a tie vote in the Senate, does not have a vote or role in impeachment trials, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office.
While the Constitution expressly gives the vice president the power to break ties when he presides over other business, it is silent on the question of whether a chief justice can break ties in impeachment trials, said Jeff Blattner, who served as chief counsel to Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
McConnell’s office said Thursday that a motion that ends in a tie vote would fail. Keep that in mind for these scenarios.
If the Senate ties 50-50 on whether to allow motions for subpoenas and witnesses, Roberts could decide not to vote. That would mean the effort would be defeated.
That scenario seems the most likely, since legal experts who have watched Roberts’ career say he is likely to defer to the Senate and not heavily direct the proceedings. The Constitution gives the Senate the authority to conduct impeachment trials, not the federal courts.
His instincts as chief justice have been to try to keep the Supreme Court from appearing political or stepping into the role of the political branches.
But Democratic senators have voiced support for Roberts to vote to break the tie, appealing to his instinct to not preside over what the public could consider a sham trial.
What if Roberts surprises and decides, as presiding officer, that he could cast a vote to break that Senate tie?
There is a precedent for the chief justice to do so.
In the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, then-Chief Justice Salmon Chase had to rule on motions and issues about live witnesses and more.
Chase sometimes broke ties on a procedural vote. Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts made a motion that one of Chase’s tiebreaking votes was “without authority under the Constitution of the United States,” but the motion failed.
If Roberts follows Chase’s lead, then he could cause the motion to be agreed to, 51-50. Motions on subpoenas for witnesses would be allowed.
In that situation, a senator could call for a vote and a majority could overturn his decision to cast that tiebreaking vote. Subpoena motions would then not be allowed.
But if that vote to overturn Roberts results in another 50-50 tie, then the motion would be rejected because it did not get a majority. Subpoena motions would be allowed.
After that, there are three main scenarios.
Scenario 1: If there is a motion to subpoena Bolton to testify, and Roberts does not rule but instead defers to the Senate, and that results in a 50-50 tie, the motion would be rejected because it did not get a majority. Bolton would not be subpoenaed.
Scenario 2: If Roberts again surprises and decides, as presiding officer, that he could cast a vote to break that Senate tie, then he could cause the motion to be agreed to, 51-50. Bolton would be subpoenaed.
In that situation, a senator could call for a vote and a majority could overturn his decision to cast that tiebreaking vote. Bolton would not be subpoenaed.
But if that vote to overturn Roberts results in a 50-50 tie, then the motion would be rejected because it did not get a majority. Bolton would still be subpoenaed.
Scenario 3: Roberts could surprise and, on that original motion to subpoena Bolton, decide to rule in favor of the motion rather than defer to the Senate. Bolton would be subpoenaed.
In that situation, a senator again could call for a vote to overturn his ruling, and a majority vote could do so. Bolton would not be subpoenaed.
But if that vote to overturn Roberts results in a 50-50 tie, then the motion would be rejected because it did not get a majority. Bolton would still be subpoenaed.
Bolton Defends Those Who Testified In Impeachment Probe January 30, 2020 at 11:26 pm EST
Speaking at a private event in Austin Thursday, Former National Security Advisor John Bolton defended government officials who testified in front of the U.S. House impeachment inquiry, KXAN reports.
Bolton defended former diplomatic and state department officials Fiona Hill, Tim Morrison, Alex Vindman, Bill Taylor, and Marie Yovanovitch.
Said Bolton: “All of them acted in the best interest of the country as they saw it and consistent to what they thought our policies were.”
WASHINGTON - Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., announced Thursday night he will vote against calling witnesses to the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, likely ending the last real suspense of the trial and opening the door for a speedy conclusion Friday or Saturday.
“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter,” Alexander said late Thursday in a statement, after another day-long session in the Senate, the ninth day of the trial overall.
Alexander said the charges against the president – that he inappropriately pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens – had been “proved” by the House managers, and that the president had acted improperly.
“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,” Alexander said, adding that the president’s actions were the kind that “undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.”
“But,” he added, “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.”
What if there's a tie vote? Everything you need to know about witnesses and Trump's trial
The vote on additional testimony — expected on Friday — looks like it could be exceptionally tight.
Mitt Romney of Utah is the only Republican senator so far to say he will vote to call witnesses in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial.
Ahead of the vote Friday afternoon on whether to call witnesses at President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, GOP Senate leaders believe they will have just enough votes to block additional testimony and documents.
For witness testimony to be approved, four Republican senators would need to vote alongside all Democrats.
So far, only Mitt Romney of Utah has indicated that he will vote in favor of witnesses, and Susan Collins of Maine has said it is likely she will, too. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has hinted at an interest in hearing from witnesses but has not provided a strong indication of how she will vote.
Other Republicans who were Democratic targets have recently said they will not be voting with the Democrats. They include Cory Gardner of Colorado, Pat Roberts of Kansas and Steve Daines of Montana. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said it is "very, very unlikely" he will vote for witnesses, and Jerry Moran of Kansas is also unlikely to do so.
A couple of GOP senators are leaning no at the moment: Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Rob Portman of Ohio. If Romney, Collins and Murkowski vote for witnesses, either Alexander or Portman would be crucial to Democrats in breaking a tie and getting the 51 votes needed for additional testimony.
In the event of a 50-50 tie, the vote is expected to fail, as Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, is highly unlikely to weigh in.
Speaking on "Fox & Friends" on Thursday, Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., said a tie vote would be "tricky," adding that's "because there's a question of how much sway the presiding officer would have over that dynamic."
Braun said Roberts "could" decide to break the tie.
"And then, if 51 senators don't like the decision, you could overrule the presiding officer," he said. "So we are getting into some territory that's probably uncharted here."
Democrats have demanded that the Senate call a series of witnesses, including Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton and his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney. This week, The New York Times reported that, according to a manuscript of Bolton's coming book, Bolton alleges that Trump directly linked Ukrainian aid and the investigations of Democrats he was seeking in an August conversation. Trump has denied having such a discussion.
NBC News has not seen the manuscript or verified the claim.
If witnesses are approved, Republicans have pledged to call for testimony from people like former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden and the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the impeachment proceedings, among others.
Every impeachment trial in history has had witness testimony. Twenty-six witnesses testified in the 2010 trial of Judge Thomas Porteous, the most recent impeachment trial, including 17 who did not testify before the House.
i'll bet you're just giddy at how fauxcohantas managed to viciously insult the man with a seriously nasty question.:
“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?”
heh.
smooth. real smooth.
the dumb bitch certainly scored a lot of style points with that one. what a fucking asshole.
Trump Economy and the Millennials boom. "Nearly three in four millennials said they were putting away money, a 10-percentage-point increase from two years ago. Roughly a quarter of millennials have stored away $100,000"
45 comments:
Winning.
John Hayward
@Doc_0
Latest Democrat presidential poll rankings:
Bernie Sanders 27%
Joe Biden 22%
Chief Justice John Roberts 18%
Pete Buttigieg 12%
Qasem Soleimani 10%
Elizabeth Warren 9%
John Bolton 7%
it's tightening, but the Senators will be back campaigning next week
Brokered Convention
The Daily Wire
@realDailyWire
WATCH: Kansas City Chiefs DE Frank Clark wears @realDonaldTrump sweater to his Super Bowl press conference.
https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1222989898396782592
Maybe the Chiefs will have President Trump run out on the field with them during the pregame. Give roger an excuse to cheer for Trump. maybe unknowingly .
Mini mike super bowl ad, out of touch and socialist.
"The 60-second ad, which cost an estimated $10 million, focuses on gun control, a centerpiece of Bloomberg's campaign."
Comfortably Smug
@ComfortablySmug
Debate one with Trump:
- Trump has the stripper holding Hunter's baby in the front row
Debate two with Trump:
-"Why was Hunter paid 80k a month? Explain that Joe! He was on drugs!!! He was sleeping with his brother's wife, Joe!"
Trump WILL do that
Dems really want this??
2:33 PM · Jan 30, 2020
The best is yet to come.
Yep. 54% Trump defeat in the coming election.
Donald Trump is trying to avoid impeachment by blocking testimony and hiding evidence that he abused his office. The latest revelations:
John Bolton, the former national security advisor, now confirms that Trump abused his power to put his personal interests above our national security.
Mitch McConnell and Republican leaders are blocking crucial evidence from coming out.
Trump is doing everything he can to distract from his impeachment and smear his political rivals.
Boy it takes a vivid imagination to find that an impeachment hearing in which the Democrats called 17 witness and allowed the President to call none...
and then are upset because they wanted to call "more" witnesses at trial (to basically repeat with most of the other witnesses said) while demanding that the President's witnesses would be "irrelevant" to the proceedings...
is somehow unfair towards the accused?
If they cannot get the job done with a 17-0 witness advantage!
Then guess what?
they are loooooooosers! Loooooosers!
Did you see Warren's dumbass question? Would not calling more witnesses result in a loss of confidence in the supreme court and chief Justice?
Damn she is stupid.
I bet tickets to the State of the Union are going to cost more than the best Super Bowl tickets. For the few who can score them.
Unless Nancy calls in sick.
Trump is going to be on fire !!!
The Nancy Palsy picture with Eric Ciaramella is priceless the arm around her.
So is the one with Chucky Schumer.
And that Biden/obama/Kerry had him as a quest at a Party is cool too.
Alexander Will Announce Decision on Witnesses
January 30, 2020 at 7:31 pm EST
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) will announce later tonight his decision on whether to call new witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial.
Unless he has had a "come to Jesus and the truth" experience, I assume he will say No.
But the "victory" for the right may turn out to be a defeat, ultimately.
Whistling by the graveyard there James.
Not one of the Three Socialist Stooges of CHT will commit to supporting one of the Dwarfs.
James did his best Alky.
Socialist wins the White house with 54 % of the Electorial College Votes.
Joel B. Pollak
@joelpollak
Great question just now from Republicans for House managers, pointing out that under their standard, Democrats would be guilty of foreign interference for the Steele dossier.
@RepJeffries says it's different, because Democrats PURCHASED that information!
LOL
looks like james is now lying by the graveyard. Like the dems are dead and about to face a firing squad.
Aaron Maté
@aaronjmate
Asked whether, under the Dems' impeachment standard, the Clinton campaign's solicitation of the Steele dossier would be considered foreign interference, illegal, or impeachable, @RepJeffries says no -- because the Steele dossier "was purchased."
video: https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1223025756764299264
that will be making the rounds. except on the FAKE NEWS media
What is Schumer going to do with his case of souvenir pens ?
And sounds like if Clinton had won Jeffries was getting ready to be her AG
Carter Page Sues DNC and Perkins Coie in ‘First Step’ to ‘Expose and Remedy’ FISA Abuse
January 30, 2020
Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page has filed a lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the law firm Perkins Coie for funding the fraudulent dossier that served as the basis for illegal surveillance warrants against him.
“The Defendants are private actors who used false information, misrepresentations and other misconduct to direct the power of the international intelligence apparatus and the media industry against a private individual, Plaintiff Carter Page, to further their political agenda,” the complaint states.
“This is a first step to ensure that the full extent of the FISA abuse that has occurred during the last few years is exposed and remedied,” attorney John Pierce said Thursday. “Defendants and those they worked with inside the federal government did not and will not succeed in making America a surveillance state.”
Perkins Coie was used by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to secretly pay opposition research firm Fusion GPS and former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele to concoct a dossier with unverified rumors alleging Trump and Moscow were colluding to hijack the 2016 presidential election.
The dossier alleges that Page was an agent of the Russian government, and acted as an “intermediary” between former Trump Campaign manager Paul Manafort and Moscow. It further alleges that Igor Sechin, the CEO of Russia’s state oil company, offered Page and his associates a stake in the company in exchange for the lifting of US sanctions on Russia.
None of that was true, but the FBI used the unverified rumors to obtain the FISA warrants to spy on Page.
At least one lawyer from Perkins Coie met with former FBI general counsel James Baker to talk about the allegations before the bureau secured the first search warrant in October of 2016.
continues : amgreatness.com/2020/01/30/carter-page-sues-dnc-and-perkins-coie-in-first-step-to-expose-and-remedy-fisa-abuse/
Page deserves a BUNDLE, DNC may have to file bankruptcy if there is real justice.
and the day just gets better and better
She is Part of the "Cover up".
"Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview Thursday that the Senate will soon “cut to the chase” and acquit President Donald Trump".
This Impeachment Is All About Corruption
George Conway:
“Corruption, for all the Trump lawyers’ attempt to muddy the waters with tortured interpretations of the Constitution, is what this impeachment is all about. Trump acted with corrupt intent to damage a political opponent. Testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton seems certain to underscore that point.
“Which is precisely why Republican senators seem so desperate not to hear it and so willing to entertain a false reading of the Constitution that would effectively render the impeachment clause a nullity. Should they do that, they will have sacrificed their own oaths to protect their own electoral prospects, and the country and the Constitution will have been saddled with a terrible precedent. The Senate will have told Trump that, indeed, he can do whatever he wants.”
It's Pathetic
“It’s more than frustrating—it’s pathetic. If you had any regard at all for the prerogatives of the legislative branch, to allow the White House to stonewall the House of Representatives in a completely unprecedented way, and then accept a set of rules … that are just a cover up for what the President has done, I think demonstrates a complete lack of regard for what this institution is supposed to be about.”
— Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Pathetically and sycophantically, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) announced that he will not support calling new witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial.
Alexander Will Vote Against New Witnesses
January 30, 2020 at 11:01 pm EST By Taegan Goddard Leave a Comment
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) announced that he will not support calling new witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial.
For what it’s worth, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) will vote in favor of calling new witnesses.
It’s possible that Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) will join Collins, resulting in a 50-50 tie.
Yes, the Chief Justice Could Break a Tie on Witnesses Says Taegan Goddard
What happens if there's a tie vote at the impeachment trial? It's complicated.
A lot depends on the chief justice
Posted Jan 30, 2020 4:02 PM
The next stage of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will sharpen focus on Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s role as presiding officer and a looming question: Does he have the power to decide whether the Senate should hear more witnesses and evidence?
A deep dive into the details of Senate rules and impeachment history comes to this conclusion: No, although he might in two less-likely scenarios related to breaking a tie vote.
Ready?
Generally, the Senate’s impeachment rules give Roberts little true power. It sounds important that the chief justice “may rule on all questions of evidence” such as relevancy, materiality and redundancy.
But the rules allow the Senate to vote to overrule him, so a majority of the Senate retains the ultimate power on questions of whether to issue subpoenas for witnesses or documents. Roberts also can decline to rule on a motion either way, and instead ask the senators to vote on it.
So if there is a motion to call witnesses, such as former national security adviser John Bolton, that decision almost certainly would not rise and fall on Roberts. Rather, it would come down to which side has at least 51 senators.
Republicans hold a 53-47 advantage, which is why Democrats have repeatedly said they need four Republicans to join them to get to 51 votes to allow for more witnesses and documents.
“Look, right now our focus is on getting four Republicans. We shouldn’t have to rely on what the chief justice will or will not do,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer of New York said Thursday.
But what if only three Republicans vote along with the Democratic caucus on the first big question, whether to allow subpoenas for more witnesses, resulting in a 50-50 tie vote? Things get more interesting and unsettled.
That scenario appears possible, with Republicans Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah so far expressing an openness to hear from Bolton or other witnesses.
To get this out of the way: Vice President Mike Pence, who can typically break a tie vote in the Senate, does not have a vote or role in impeachment trials, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office.
While the Constitution expressly gives the vice president the power to break ties when he presides over other business, it is silent on the question of whether a chief justice can break ties in impeachment trials, said Jeff Blattner, who served as chief counsel to Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
McConnell’s office said Thursday that a motion that ends in a tie vote would fail. Keep that in mind for these scenarios.
If the Senate ties 50-50 on whether to allow motions for subpoenas and witnesses, Roberts could decide not to vote. That would mean the effort would be defeated.
That scenario seems the most likely, since legal experts who have watched Roberts’ career say he is likely to defer to the Senate and not heavily direct the proceedings. The Constitution gives the Senate the authority to conduct impeachment trials, not the federal courts.
His instincts as chief justice have been to try to keep the Supreme Court from appearing political or stepping into the role of the political branches.
But Democratic senators have voiced support for Roberts to vote to break the tie, appealing to his instinct to not preside over what the public could consider a sham trial.
What if Roberts surprises and decides, as presiding officer, that he could cast a vote to break that Senate tie?
There is a precedent for the chief justice to do so.
In the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, then-Chief Justice Salmon Chase had to rule on motions and issues about live witnesses and more.
Chase sometimes broke ties on a procedural vote. Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts made a motion that one of Chase’s tiebreaking votes was “without authority under the Constitution of the United States,” but the motion failed.
If Roberts follows Chase’s lead, then he could cause the motion to be agreed to, 51-50. Motions on subpoenas for witnesses would be allowed.
In that situation, a senator could call for a vote and a majority could overturn his decision to cast that tiebreaking vote. Subpoena motions would then not be allowed.
But if that vote to overturn Roberts results in another 50-50 tie, then the motion would be rejected because it did not get a majority. Subpoena motions would be allowed.
After that, there are three main scenarios.
Scenario 1: If there is a motion to subpoena Bolton to testify, and Roberts does not rule but instead defers to the Senate, and that results in a 50-50 tie, the motion would be rejected because it did not get a majority. Bolton would not be subpoenaed.
Scenario 2: If Roberts again surprises and decides, as presiding officer, that he could cast a vote to break that Senate tie, then he could cause the motion to be agreed to, 51-50. Bolton would be subpoenaed.
In that situation, a senator could call for a vote and a majority could overturn his decision to cast that tiebreaking vote. Bolton would not be subpoenaed.
But if that vote to overturn Roberts results in a 50-50 tie, then the motion would be rejected because it did not get a majority. Bolton would still be subpoenaed.
Scenario 3: Roberts could surprise and, on that original motion to subpoena Bolton, decide to rule in favor of the motion rather than defer to the Senate. Bolton would be subpoenaed.
In that situation, a senator again could call for a vote to overturn his ruling, and a majority vote could do so. Bolton would not be subpoenaed.
But if that vote to overturn Roberts results in a 50-50 tie, then the motion would be rejected because it did not get a majority. Bolton would still be subpoenaed.
Bolton Defends Those Who Testified In Impeachment Probe
January 30, 2020 at 11:26 pm EST
Speaking at a private event in Austin Thursday, Former National Security Advisor John Bolton defended government officials who testified in front of the U.S. House impeachment inquiry, KXAN reports.
Bolton defended former diplomatic and state department officials
Fiona Hill,
Tim Morrison,
Alex Vindman,
Bill Taylor, and
Marie Yovanovitch.
Said Bolton:
“All of them acted in the best interest of the country as they saw it and consistent to what they thought our policies were.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/trump-s-senate-trial-scores-questions-still-no-answer-witnesses-n1126916
WASHINGTON - Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., announced Thursday night he will vote against calling witnesses to the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, likely ending the last real suspense of the trial and opening the door for a speedy conclusion Friday or Saturday.
“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter,” Alexander said late Thursday in a statement, after another day-long session in the Senate, the ninth day of the trial overall.
Alexander said the charges against the president – that he inappropriately pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens – had been “proved” by the House managers, and that the president had acted improperly.
“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,” Alexander said, adding that the president’s actions were the kind that “undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.”
“But,” he added, “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.”
What if there's a tie vote? Everything you need to know about witnesses and Trump's trial
The vote on additional testimony — expected on Friday — looks like it could be exceptionally tight.
Mitt Romney of Utah is the only Republican senator so far to say he will vote to call witnesses in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial.
Ahead of the vote Friday afternoon on whether to call witnesses at President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, GOP Senate leaders believe they will have just enough votes to block additional testimony and documents.
For witness testimony to be approved, four Republican senators would need to vote alongside all Democrats.
So far, only Mitt Romney of Utah has indicated that he will vote in favor of witnesses, and Susan Collins of Maine has said it is likely she will, too. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has hinted at an interest in hearing from witnesses but has not provided a strong indication of how she will vote.
Other Republicans who were Democratic targets have recently said they will not be voting with the Democrats. They include Cory Gardner of Colorado, Pat Roberts of Kansas and Steve Daines of Montana. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said it is "very, very unlikely" he will vote for witnesses, and Jerry Moran of Kansas is also unlikely to do so.
A couple of GOP senators are leaning no at the moment: Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Rob Portman of Ohio. If Romney, Collins and Murkowski vote for witnesses, either Alexander or Portman would be crucial to Democrats in breaking a tie and getting the 51 votes needed for additional testimony.
In the event of a 50-50 tie, the vote is expected to fail, as Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, is highly unlikely to weigh in.
Speaking on "Fox & Friends" on Thursday, Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., said a tie vote would be "tricky," adding that's "because there's a question of how much sway the presiding officer would have over that dynamic."
Braun said Roberts "could" decide to break the tie.
"And then, if 51 senators don't like the decision, you could overrule the presiding officer," he said. "So we are getting into some territory that's probably uncharted here."
Democrats have demanded that the Senate call a series of witnesses, including Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton and his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney. This week, The New York Times reported that, according to a manuscript of Bolton's coming book, Bolton alleges that Trump directly linked Ukrainian aid and the investigations of Democrats he was seeking in an August conversation. Trump has denied having such a discussion.
NBC News has not seen the manuscript or verified the claim.
If witnesses are approved, Republicans have pledged to call for testimony from people like former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden and the whistleblower whose complaint triggered the impeachment proceedings, among others.
Every impeachment trial in history has had witness testimony. Twenty-six witnesses testified in the 2010 trial of Judge Thomas Porteous, the most recent impeachment trial, including 17 who did not testify before the House.
James stop spamming the damn board. 10 straight posts. No one will read them.
Better read them. Breaking news.
The possibility of a tie is looming.
What could then happen is not entirely certain.
You're welcome. :-P
Jane must be Winning the Debate in the US Senate.
James assumes a tie, with all Democrats voting "for" doing the US House's Job.
Who were the witnesses that testified in person in front of the full US Senate in the Clinton case?
🤣"He will not be acquitted," Peloser
so roberts breaks a tie, eh?
i'll bet you're just giddy at how fauxcohantas managed to viciously insult the man with a seriously nasty question.:
“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?”
heh.
smooth. real smooth.
the dumb bitch certainly scored a lot of style points with that one. what a fucking asshole.
Trump Economy and the Millennials boom.
"Nearly three in four millennials said they were putting away money, a 10-percentage-point increase from two years ago. Roughly a quarter of millennials have stored away $100,000"
"Jerry. Jerry. JERRY!"
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/01/30/cant-stop-laughing-adam-schiff-trying-and-failing-to-keep-fellow-dem-from-stealing-last-word-at-impeachment-trial-is-priceless/
fucking hilarious.
Today is acquittal Friday.
Enjoy the Victory of the Constitution over the attempted coup.
LOL Nadler didn't do so badly, however.
And Schiff will have opportunities to speak again.
"$100,000." Is THAT all?
Post a Comment