Murkowski wants to hear case before deciding on witnesses
Source: Associated Press
Becky Bohrer, Associated Press
Updated 4:10 pm CST, Saturday, January 18, 2020
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) Alaska U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she's comfortable waiting to decide if more information is needed as part of the Senate's impeachment trial until after hearing arguments from House managers and attorneys for President Donald Trump and questions from members.
The Republican said Saturday she wants to make sure there's a process that allows senators to really hear the case and ask questions before we make that determination as to, what more do we need. I don't know what more we need until I've been given the base case.
. . .
'If Democrats try to add certain witnesses to an organizing resolution, Murkowski said she expects Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would move to table such a request and that she would support a tabling motion.
Because what Ive worked hard to do is make sure that we have a process that will allow for that determination whether witnesses or documents are needed, she said. But I want to have that at a point where I know whether or not I'm going to need it.
Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Murkowski-wants-to-hear-case-before-deciding-on-14986516.php
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)So Moscow Mitch made a promise,nothing new.
SunSeeker
(51,662 posts)cstanleytech
(26,317 posts)people and the rule of law.
mucifer
(23,559 posts)elleng
(131,076 posts)a kennedy
(29,699 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,258 posts)Trump will be acquitted. But it's ok. Republicans will be driving the country off a cliff, and themselves along with it. They can deal with Trump now, or they can deal with voters in November. Republicans are screwed no matter what they do. Democrats on the other hand, can hardly mess up. They've stood on rule of law, principle, the U.S. Constitution. Voters know. Look at the polls.
Murkowski? This fake move will not be good enough. It's a feint, and everyone knows it. It's Susan Collins without concern.
cstanleytech
(26,317 posts)have a hope of salvaging something.
As I said on another thread though if they do not remove him then I will completely support a Democratic President with a slim Senate majority increasing SCOTUS to 13 seats and packing every spot with a liberal and then launching an RICO investigation against the Republican party leadership with no mercy being shown to any Republican for a criminal act.
That means zero plea bargains for any of them and hard time along with seeking asset seizure for everything they own including any property they try to hide by giving it or selling it to a spouse or other family member.
klook
(12,164 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)turbinetree
(24,713 posts)to vote to allow the traitor to dismiss....................its right here...................after all you took an oath..................that basically means nothing.......................right....................
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142421204
your party reminds me of Bullwinkle..........................
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Then shell roll over as soon as Trump snaps his fingers...
joshdawg
(2,651 posts)going on the last month or two??!?
Wants to hear the case? Seriously? How much more does she need to hear?
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,591 posts)"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first."
"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
"I won't!" said Alice.
"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
"Who cares for you?" said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) "You're nothing but a pack of cards!"
12. Alice's Evidence
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll
This chapter is worth reading as preparation for the upcoming trial.
GeorgiaPeanut
(360 posts)This protects her better than allowing witnesses at the outset. After the case is heard, she can say I need corroboration of this and that and a witness is needed.
MissMillie
(38,574 posts)I'll bet there's online video of the hearings in the House
Not to mention, the House just delivered 100 pages laying out their case....
Seriously, she knew this was coming. Why wasn't she preparing herself? Did she have something more important to do besides her Constitutional duty?
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Either that or she is playing dumb. But it makes her look dumb. Bolton, Mulvaney and company were named in documents as witness to the facts. Indeed, Mulvaney was the one who ordered the aid to Ukraine be stopped. How could she not know that these witnesses are up to their eyebrows and with constant direct contact with Trump. Yes, she is looking really dumb for making such a statement.
mackdaddy
(1,528 posts)Article II, Obstruction of Congress, states that President Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole Power of Impeachment.
Specifically, the article goes on, Trump:
Directed the White House to defy a subpoena for documents
Directed other executive branch agencies, such as the State Department and Defense Department, to defy subpoenas
Directed current and former executive branch officials to refuse subpoenas for their testimony.
This abuse of office served to cover up the Presidents own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment, Article II reads.
https://www.vox.com/2019/12/10/20998680/articles-of-impeachment-trump-abuse-power-obstruction-justice