but says he will vote with Republican majority;
Murkowski ends her wavering on witness issue
Acquittal of President Trump of charges lodged by the Democrat House was certain today after
Republican senators from Tennessee and Alaska announced their decisions to stick with the majority of their Republican colleagues and bar further testimony as unnecessary.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, ended the tension yesterday with her announcement. She had said repeatedly that she was curious about what a former national security adviser, John R. Bolton, had to say. Yesterday she said there was no way to correct the "flawed" impeachment proceedings with more witnesses and documents. She said that, because Congress had "failed," a fair trial was impossible.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., conceded last night that Trump had behaved in an "inappropriate" manner with respect to Ukraine and Joe Biden, a possible Trump rival for the presidency, but argued there is no need for more evidence, for the facts are there for all to see.
Alexander, who is retiring and has nothing to fear from the electorate, was among a handful of Republicans who were seen as potentially siding with Democrats in their demands for testimony from people that the Democrat-run House did not subpoena.
While Alexander said he made sure that senators would retain the right to seek more evidence if that was the consensus, he declared that there is no need for more information because "inappropriate" behavior has already been proved -- but that that behavior was not serious enough to warrant the removal of a president from office.
Murkowski said that she realized that, if she went with the Democrats, a tie vote on the witness issue could have occurred, potentially leaving it to Chief Justice John G. Roberts to break the tie, a possibility not foreseen in the Constitution. She said she preferred not to be the immediate cause of a constitutional crisis.
But Roberts later told Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that he would decline to break any tie votes, according to Fox News, quoting its correspondent, Chad Pergram.
Roberts said that the precedent set in 1868 by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase was insufficient to give Roberts "authority to break ties." Chase, a political activist, broke two tie votes on procedural issues during the trial of President Andrew Johnson. Some senators objected to Chase's tie-breaking and so a vote was held that authorized Chase's decisions. That precedent implies that if Roberts were to break a tie, Senate Republicans could overrule him.
Should Roberts be impeached for muzzling senator?
Democrats needed four Republicans to vote with them on the pivotal question of whether to subpoena witnesses in the trial. But they fell short.
Senators Susan Collins, R-Me., and Mitt Romney, R-Utah, have said they would support the measure. Collins faces a tough re-election fight this year in a state with considerable liberal leanings among voters. Romney has been highly critical of Trump, causing Romney's poll numbers to plummet in his home state, but he is only one year into a six-year term. Murkowski has two years left on her term.
"I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense," Alexander declared, adding:
In a November 2018 interview, Corker asserted that Trump was a divisive figure, setting Americans against each other with his appeals to his core voters -- "instead of appealing to our better angels and trying to unite us like most people would try to do."
Even so, Corker voted to confirm Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Bret Kavanaugh, who had been the target of unsubstantiated claims leveled at him at the last minute.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, ended the tension yesterday with her announcement. She had said repeatedly that she was curious about what a former national security adviser, John R. Bolton, had to say. Yesterday she said there was no way to correct the "flawed" impeachment proceedings with more witnesses and documents. She said that, because Congress had "failed," a fair trial was impossible.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., conceded last night that Trump had behaved in an "inappropriate" manner with respect to Ukraine and Joe Biden, a possible Trump rival for the presidency, but argued there is no need for more evidence, for the facts are there for all to see.
Alexander, who is retiring and has nothing to fear from the electorate, was among a handful of Republicans who were seen as potentially siding with Democrats in their demands for testimony from people that the Democrat-run House did not subpoena.
While Alexander said he made sure that senators would retain the right to seek more evidence if that was the consensus, he declared that there is no need for more information because "inappropriate" behavior has already been proved -- but that that behavior was not serious enough to warrant the removal of a president from office.
Murkowski said that she realized that, if she went with the Democrats, a tie vote on the witness issue could have occurred, potentially leaving it to Chief Justice John G. Roberts to break the tie, a possibility not foreseen in the Constitution. She said she preferred not to be the immediate cause of a constitutional crisis.
But Roberts later told Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that he would decline to break any tie votes, according to Fox News, quoting its correspondent, Chad Pergram.
Roberts said that the precedent set in 1868 by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase was insufficient to give Roberts "authority to break ties." Chase, a political activist, broke two tie votes on procedural issues during the trial of President Andrew Johnson. Some senators objected to Chase's tie-breaking and so a vote was held that authorized Chase's decisions. That precedent implies that if Roberts were to break a tie, Senate Republicans could overrule him.
Should Roberts be impeached for muzzling senator?
Roberts already sparked a severe constitutional problem yesterday by refusing to read aloud a question posed by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., during the trial. Though Paul asked about a National Security Council aide, Eric Ciaramella, the senator did not identify Ciaramella as the "whistleblower," whose complaint sparked the impeachment proceedings. Hence Roberts had no lawful reason to muzzle a member of the Senate.
Even had Paul identified Ciaramella as the whistleblower, the justice still had no lawful reason to muzzle Paul, since Paul is not forbidden by any law to mention any particular name and also because Paul has constitutional protection for anything he says on the Senate floor. It was a grotesque violation of separation of powers for Roberts to make such a decision, as well as an affront to the right of voters of the state of Kentucky to hear the answer demanded by their senator.
The behavior of Roberts in censoring a U.S. senator is so outlandish that a strong case can be made that impeachment proceedings should be opened against the chief justice, who was appointed by President George Bush.
At the very least, the Senate should protect senatorial prerogatives by voting to censure Roberts for blocking a senator's valid and proper exercise of free speech.
Democrats needed four Republicans to vote with them on the pivotal question of whether to subpoena witnesses in the trial. But they fell short.
Senators Susan Collins, R-Me., and Mitt Romney, R-Utah, have said they would support the measure. Collins faces a tough re-election fight this year in a state with considerable liberal leanings among voters. Romney has been highly critical of Trump, causing Romney's poll numbers to plummet in his home state, but he is only one year into a six-year term. Murkowski has two years left on her term.
"I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense," Alexander declared, adding:
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.Tennessee's other Republican senator, Marsha Blackburn, has been an outspoken defender of Trump during the impeachment battle. She replaced Bob Corker, who had publicly expressed disdain for Trump before deciding to get out of politics. Trump is enormously popular in Tennessee.
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.
In a November 2018 interview, Corker asserted that Trump was a divisive figure, setting Americans against each other with his appeals to his core voters -- "instead of appealing to our better angels and trying to unite us like most people would try to do."
Even so, Corker voted to confirm Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Bret Kavanaugh, who had been the target of unsubstantiated claims leveled at him at the last minute.
No comments:
Post a Comment