Former GOP Rep Tells Democrats To 'Go Big' And Make McConnell Pay For Sham Trial Plot

[babylonsister]

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/12/28/former-gop-red-tells-democrats-go-big-and-make-mcconnell-pay-for-sham-trial-plot.html


Posted on Sat, Dec 28th, 2019 by Sean Colarossi
Former GOP Rep Tells Democrats To ‘Go Big’ And Make McConnell Pay For Sham Trial Plot


Former Republican congressman David Jolly said on Saturday that Democrats should “go big” on highlighting Mitch McConnell’s misconduct in the wake of his comments that he will not be an impartial juror in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.

According to Jolly, McConnell’s admission was a “fatal error” and should be “part of the reason why the articles” are not being sent to the Senate.

“I think his confession that he would not be impartial in this trial is akin to when Kevin McCarthy admitted that the Benghazi hearings were only to sink Hillary Clinton,” the former GOP lawmaker said. “It is a fatal error by Mitch McConnell that needs to be part of history and part of the reason why the articles are not going over.”

Link to tweet

Former Rep. Jolly said:

I mean, he wants the show, because the show will excite his base and honestly allow Donald Trump to continue to put the spotlight on Joe Biden and on Hunter Biden which politically works for Donald Trump, though there’s no parity between the conduct of Joe Biden and the impeachable conduct of Donald Trump, Donald Trump wants to make that case to his base and his base will accept it. Which is why, though, to your point about having a jury and a majority leader that has already expressed partiality and a willingness to rig this trial, I think Nancy Pelosi in withholding the articles needs to put a strong spotlight and almost put Mitch McConnell, not on trial like we’re talking about Donald Trump, but in the House, go big. Bring a heavy spotlight to the misconduct of Mitch McConnell. I think his confession that he would not be impartial in this trial is akin to when Kevin McCarthy admitted that the Benghazi hearings were only to sink Hillary Clinton. It is a fatal error by Mitch McConnell that needs to be part of history and part of the reason why the articles are not going over. It’s not just about the witnesses. It’s about the fact that the majority leader has said we will not have a fair trial in the United States Senate. That’s reason enough to withhold this and what we’ve seen from Mar-a-Lago this weekend, the singular trigger for Donald Trump is Nancy Pelosi and, to an extent, the impeachment articles that she now controls.

Mitch McConnell must be held accountable for undermining democracy

During his time in public office, particularly in recent years, Mitch McConnell has become the face of everything wrong with Washington.

Whether it’s bragging about denying Barack Obama a Supreme Court pick or calling himself the grim reaper of the Senate, McConnell has always been a sharp thorn in the side of democracy.

But the majority leader crossed a line when he admitted that he would happily violate his oath and conduct a sham trial to clear Trump. As former GOP Rep. David Jolly said, Democrats must hold him accountable for it.

[RainCaster]

1. He's right - Moscow Mitch must be held accountable

We now have two DNC Marines running against him in KY.
I would love to see him lose bigly.

[Baked Potato]

2. This is where Chief Justice Roberts can step in and make this more dignified and non partisan

Moscow Mitch just said out loud what Trump wants to hear to keep the big baby happy during Christmas. I think a number of a Republican Senators aren’t very keen to having the majority leader insinuate that Republicans are lock step for Trump.

[PSPS]

3. Sorry. Roberts merely "presides." He can't/won't "step in." Moscow Mitch sets all the rules.

[Baked Potato]

4. Roberts can certainly set the tone of the proceedings

The rules are already in place and Moscow Mitch doesn’t set the rules. I’ve made a couple OPs on this topic.

“In other words, a huge amount in any Senate trial depends on two big variables: the attitudes and views of Chief Justice Roberts and, ultimately, which side controls 51 votes to either sustain or overrule his rulings or to rule on questions he declines to address. An important wrinkle here is that it takes 67 votes, not 51 votes, to change a rule—so one key question is whether a motion would require a waiver of an existing rule or whether it can reasonably be reconciled with the rules. If it requires a rule to be waived or dispensed with, the motion requires a supermajority.”

https://www.lawfareblog.com/imagining-senate-trial-reading-senate-rules-impeachment-litigation

[PSPS]

13. "Setting the tone" maybe. Changing rules is another. 51 votes means Moscow Mitch is in control.

The 67-vote requirement for earth-shattering issues such as "opening the Senate doors during deliberations" won't play any role here.

From your linked article:

Ideally, the president would want to win on a motion to dismiss and jettison the whole trial entirely. So, first things first. Does there have to be a trial? It would be pretty hard to worm out of holding any trial at all. Art. I, § 3 cl. 6 gives the Senate sole power to try impeachments, suggesting though not specifically saying there is a duty to do so, while Rule 3 presumes that a trial will commence after the articles are presented. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged as much recently when he said that the rules “are very clear when it comes to the trial.” Of course, there’s a possibility he could backtrack on this statement. McConnell might, for example, argue that the aforementioned provisions convey the Senate’s power, not its inexorable obligations.

McConnell might try and get the Senate to reinterpret the rules in line with that interpretation, which requires only 51 votes. But such an approach seems unlikely, especially because if McConnell has 51 votes to make the trial go away, there’s a less-controversial mechanism under the rules to do exactly that.

Indeed, just because there has to be a trial does not mean there has to be an extended trial. Republicans could seek a quick dismissal after a few days by moving to adjourn the trial sine die. Indeed, judging from his statements, this may be McConnell’s preference.

[Jake Stern]

15. ". .suggesting though not specifically saying there is a duty to do so"

I remember hearing that same resining from right wingers who supported Senate Republicans in blocking Merrick Garland:

There's nothing in the constitution's wording explicitly obligating the Senate to even consider nominations.

[Baked Potato]

16. Fair enough, I am rarely optimistic with regard to Republicans

but I think Mitch won’t have the votes needed to simply end the trial. There’s a lot of “mays” and “mights” in there.

There’s also a whole other investigation by the House Judiciary looming over Trump. This investigation could result in another impeachment trial. This concerns McGahn and the Grand Jury testimony.

[ooky]

5. Jolly is correct and McConnell should not be allowed to participate in the Senate trial.

He should recuse based on those statements he made. Pelosi has a legitimate argument to keep holding the articles to force Mitch to sit this one out if she so chooses. I would love to see her do that.

[cp]

6. Spotlight on Moscow Mitch

Shining bright, hot, and relentlessly.

[ancianita]

7. This reads like an ad for the Democratic Party even BEFORE the DNC.

“I think his confession that he would not be impartial in this trial is akin to when Kevin McCarthy admitted that the Benghazi hearings were only to sink Hillary Clinton,” the former GOP lawmaker said. “It is a fatal error by Mitch McConnell that needs to be part of history and part of the reason why the articles are not going over.”

[erronis]

8. Wonder if mcTurtle will ban televising his sham trial?

No phones allowed either. No pens/paper.

Star Chamber

[Midnight Writer]

9. I am baffled as to why, but Democrats never seem to "go big", except on each other.

Did you know that President Trump is on camera saying grab their guns first, and worry about due process later?

Don't you think repeating this in ads and on media would be helpful to our side?

But I have yet to see it, and when I tell people about it, they think I am making it up.

Just one example, but, I feel, a representative one.

[LiberalLovinLug]

14. +1000

So right.
They have been handed gift after political gift through the Trump term, but either just issue a strongly worded letter that gets thrown in the trash unread, or just remain silent until Trump's or the GOPs next criminal action is revealed, and the opportunity is lost for good

[erronis]

10. Why should we trust a "former" repuglicon? His recent record doesn't correct his past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Jolly

While I believe in redemption, it should happen based on the hard work of earning the credits - not showing up on T.V. programs with another "view".

He lost his seat in FL only because the criminal (r)epuglicon district-drawing was re-drawn by court action. Now this person has "seen the light"?

Watch him switch back to the dark side when the moment is ripe.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

11. It makes me ill to think how long he's been poisoning the nation.

[yonder]

12. By their statements, McConnell and McCarthy have written

Democratic ad copy all by themselves. I wonder what the delay is in using it?

[bucolic_frolic]

17. Standing for the Constitution and Rule of Law might sway public opinion some

Hold GOP feet to the fire and expose their crooked underbellies. If rule of law doesn't hold, MAGAzi's will be thumbing their noses at it for decades to come. Pockets of civil unrest, chaos, anarchy will follow.