To me, this means no witnesses:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that Republicans have enough votes to proceed with President Trump’s impeachment trial with no agreement with Democrats on witnesses.
The announcement came as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) faced increasing pressure to send articles of impeachment to the Senate, including from some in her own party, to allow a trial to begin. Pelosi has held on to the documents as Democrats seek guarantees about the scope of a trial, including witnesses. Earlier Tuesday, Trump highlighted objections to the prospect of testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton, as Bolton’s announcement that he is prepared to appear at a trial continued to roil Capitol Hill.
As I said yesterday, Bolton’s offer to testify is the sleeves of a vest when there’s not going to be any testimony.
Baud
It was still worth the fight. The show trial will be more apparent to the public by having made witnesses an issue.
Ronno2018
No idea how this will shape the fall election. At this point I want a Dem ticket ASAP and mass protests. Seems like the Senate could be more in play. On the other hand we have Faux News pushing insanity to 40% crazification factor, etc. FFSI do not want four more years of this criminality.
TaMara (HFG)
Does the article state who the “some” are, or is it that generic “some” in order to create the “Dems in disarray!” narrative? (I’d click over but my WP free articles are up for this month)
Jeffro
Just hold onto the Articles and keep adding to them, Nancy. No downside there.
Or, if you send them over, have something planned – mass protests in every vulnerable GOP Senator’s home state, a march on the Mall – that helps our national snooze media find a blessed ‘narrative’ here. Otherwise, the ‘narrative’ will be “meh, nothing to see here”
15 flush mistermix
@TaMara (HFG): No and she’s always under pressure from “some”. So what?
Also, I think it was the right tactic. It brought attention to the issue and made them squirm a bit.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@TaMara (HFG): at least one has said it out lout
Baud
@TaMara (HFG):
Doug Jones and Angus King have made statements.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Jeffro:
that’s up to Dems in those states. Barack Obama couldn’t do everything for Dems, neither can Nancy Pelosi
Baud
I believe Dem senators can still file motions to call witnesses and make the Republicans vote against it.
Another Scott
Eh?
TheHill:
Emphasis added.
I read somewhere that 67 votes are required to change the impeachment rules. McConnell doesn’t have 67 votes.
It’s not clear to me that this is anything more than McConnell is trying to get the press to stampede Nancy and the Democrats into surrendering.
Corrections welcome.
Cheers,
Scott.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I’ve never heard about anything but a simple majority being needed, that’s why everyone keeps talking about four Republicans
Roger Moore
I will believe McConnell has the votes after they’re recorded. This would not be the first time he claimed to have the votes as a way of trying to whip the vote.
TaMara (HFG)
I hate the press.
And I agree, it was definitely the right move. And keep it up, Nancy. Let them continue to squirm as the polls climb higher and higher against #impotus45
Mallard Filmore
By convention, Senators taking part in this trial event raise their right hand and place the left on a Holy Book (a Bible for Republicans) when taking the oath.
In no way will McConnell or Graham “do impartial justice” as required by their oath. Some, or most, or all Republicans will follow their lead and simply vote to acquit Trump when the trial is over, no matter what evidence is presented.
All Republicans who go down this path will put their hand on a Bible, look their God in the eye, and lie like hell. It should not be surprising that a group of men that can turn their backs on Trump’s baby snatching and child trafficking at our southern border, will use the impeachment occasion to spit in God’s face.
Patricia Kayden
This is utter madness.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Patricia Kayden: I got into my car about half an hour ago in time to hear a reporter ask about the letter. He doesn’t know anything about it, it was unsigned– look for that to be the meaningless, endlessly repeated talking point, and finished with “maybe it’s a hoax”
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@Mallard Filmore:
This is what happens when you believe the other side, your political opponents, are not only illegitimate but pure evil.
Well, if the other side is evil, then anything done to stop them or to them is justified. This is a partial explanation for the true believers. Others know better but either don’t care and want the power/grift or are too spineless to do the right thing
Patricia Kayden
Patricia Kayden
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Another Scott
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
WaPo from the 5th:
It’s certainly possible that what McConnell is talking about doing isn’t “changing” the rules in a way that would require such a vote. (Or if such a vote actually were required, he would make up some stupid ‘Biden Rule’ to get around it, of course.)
FWIW.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
Major Major Major Major
If I were Adam Schiff (or whoever is the right person), I’d subpoena Bolton today.
germy
germy
@Patricia Kayden:
Fake Letter
feebog
This is more about the optics than the mechanics. A large majority of the country and a not insignificant plurality of Republicans believe a Senate trial should include witnesses and relevant documents. The Democrats know the chances of that are slim and none. But it is important they be seen as fighting tooth and nail for witnesses because it will have consequences for the November election. Democrats are positioning McConnell and his cronies as willing participants in a whitewash rather than fair and impartial jurors.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@Another Scott:
But how can they have an impeachment trial without the Articles?
mrmoshpotato
@TaMara (HFG): That bastard Some People is probably at it again. I really wish he or she would shut the fuck up.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@Major Major Major Major:
Question is, would Bolton appear or try to fight the subpoena? I know some commenters have said Bolton isn’t willing to go to jail for Trump, but Bolton does want war with Iran more than anything else. It’s been his entire career. It’s possible Bolton only said he’d be willing to testify at a Senate trial because he knows that the chances of being called as a witness are slim.
There’s also a question of how useful his testimony would be. If he follows the template other R witnesses have done in the past before the various House oversight committees, he’ll muddle his answers.
Doesn’t mean the Dems shouldn’t try.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): Copy them off the internet.
trollhattan
@Patricia Kayden:
“Witch hunt invitation!”
“Witch letter!”
“Witch postcard!”
Another Scott
From 3 hours ago. I haven’t seen any Pelosi or other Democratic reactions to Moscow Mitch’s assertion yet.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Lapassionara
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I think that 67 votes are needed to change the Senate’s rules, whereas the mode of trial can be determined by a simple majority.
also, I resist using the term “conviction” and “acquittal.” This is not a criminal proceeding, and if the Senate does not vote to remove, then Trump is just not removed, but he isn’t acquitted.
trollhattan
@Major Major Major Major:
I’m beginning to suspect Bolton likes attention, so who knows, maybe a little camera time for the Walrus of War is enticement enough?
Baud
@Patricia Kayden:
To be fair, the letter was sent by I.P. Freely.
Just Chuck
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: It requires a simple majority to change the rules at the start of a session. Mid-session it takes 2/3. Otherwise the filibuster would have died decades ago. Of course these are just rules, so I’m not sure the GOP cares about them any more than they do about decency, truth, or the rule of actual law.
Still, I think even the average person will pick up on the fishiness of a “trial” in which the prosecution is not allowed to call witnesses.
West of the Rockies
@Patricia Kayden:
Pompeo is also a piggy-eyed, thin-lipped, uncharismatic dolt. He thinks himself worthy of the presidency and has no awareness of his cornucopia of short-comings.
Immanentize
@Another Scott: I agree with you — he has said he had the votes for somethings before and he didn’t. I am not ready to give up on Nancy strategy yet.
trollhattan
@Baud:
Coauthor: Seymour Butts. Illustrations: Ivana Laya
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Lapassionara: Yeah, the acquittal terminology has bother me too.
MJS
The Democratic Senators need to STFU, immediately. If they haven’t figured it out by now, all the cards that Democrats hold are in the House. Why are they saying anything other than, “New evidence comes out daily establishing the corrupt nature of this president and his administration. The House is absolutely right to hold on to the Articles of Impeachment until we have done everything we can to ensure a fair, open trial”?
Immanentize
@West of the Rockies: You left out fat bully boy. Yes, body shaming included. Whenever he says “That’s outrageous” you know he has been caught in a lie or misdeed. It’s his go-to bully anger response. Biggest tell in all of politics poker.
randy khan
@Roger Moore:
I am fully in favor of Pelosi saying what she’s been saying all along, which is that she won’t send the articles to the Senate until she knows what the rules will be (ostensibly because it affects who will be the managers, but obviously not really). Then we’ll see if McConnell has the votes.
Another Scott
This Reuters piece seems to me to be clearer:
Ok. So the Democratic demand to set the rules about witnesses before the start of the trial got shot down (as expected). But it’s still possible that witnesses will be called (though that seems unlikely as the GOP (almost) always sticks together. (But perhaps Rmoney and the rest who have spoken up have no choice but to demand such things now.)
It’s not over, even if Nancy does send over the Articles soon. It’s clear that Schumer is going to demand votes.
Cheers,
Scott.
randy khan
@Lapassionara:
“Conviction” is the right word. It’s in the Constitution. Article I, Section 3:
Omnes Omnibus
@Another Scott: But I was told right here on this very blog that Schumer is MIA….
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Omnes Omnibus: Be careful on what you read on the internets.
germy
@Omnes Omnibus: In the comments section? Anything can be said in the comments section. It’s a big tent.
James E Powell
@MJS:
In my whole life, there’s never been a time when Democrats keep their mouths shut or speak with one voice. I get that we are a coalition of diverse people, but we just don’t excel at the team concept.
Omnes Omnibus
@germy: Anything can be said and often is.
MJS
I can’t link to it, but Benjamin Wittes has a Twitter thread on what Pelosi’s next steps could be, and the opportunity Bolton’s offer to testify if subpoenaed has presented. So, again, Democratic Senators asking for the Articles now, STFU.
MJS
@James E Powell: And the most maddening part is, it’s for no good reason. Maybe you can excuse Jones for some of the things he’s said, because of his state and the fact that he’s up this year, but not one person in Connecticut is going to base their vote on Murphy’s position on when the Articles get sent to the Senate. Just plain stupid.
janesays
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: The only thing that ever requires 67 votes to pass in the U.S. senate is a “guilty” vote on an article of impeachment. The 67 vote threshold doesn’t exist for anything else – including changing rules for impeachment procedures.
JGabriel
mistermix @ Top:
I’m thinking it may also mean that Pelosi holds on to the impeachment articles until Trump has a total and undeniable episode of cognitive breakdown / senile dementia in public.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@janesays: well, treaty ratification and veto overrrides
@MJS:
zhena gogolia
@MJS:
Yeah, I’m disappointed in Murphy.
Aleta
<a href=”#comment-7536789″>@MJS</a>:
Here’s some of it:
catclub
@Another Scott: The key difference in the Clinton impeachment trial was that both sides were satisfied that all relevant witnesses had already testified in the investigation phase. Today, not so much.
catclub
@janesays: also,
Amendment to the Constitution?
janesays
Looks like Neal Katyal and George Conway have penned another NYT op-ed, this time calling McConnell out for his refusal to commit to allowing Bolton to testify…
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/opinion/john-bolton-testify.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
I really, really am absolutely clueless about how George and Kellyanne are still married. I keep hearing “grift, grift, grift”, and you know, I get that, but… it’s pretty hard to come to any other conclusion than that George Conway really, really does not like Donald Trump and absolutely considers him a criminal occupant in the White House who needs to be removed post-haste. If this is all some sort of long con, the man has one hell of a poker face.
LongHairedWeirdo
With all respect, we know precisely what the Senate trial’s goal is: to claim exoneration for the President, without any damaging leaks or testimony.
We also know what it would take to change it – political pressure. The Republicans don’t care about the facts, the law, the Constitution, or the “damage to our institutions” – you know, like, how our military won’t engage in war crimes, because if they do, they might get pardoned and lauded as heroes.
As long as they see good electoral chances, and a Republican coalition going forward, they don’t care if he’s caught with the proverbial dead prostitute and live boy… unless it hurts their electoral chances.
catclub
@janesays: Katyal and Conway:
Important if true. I have doubts. I think Bolton will refuse a House subpoena.
I also think it is criminal how much lawbreaking we now take for granted – all the other high officers in the Whitehouse who have refused subpoenas, all the refusals to turn over documents to the investigating committee. Are water under the bridge.
Another Scott
@catclub: Yeah, Moscow Mitch citing a 100 : 0 vote then as precedent for what he wants to ram through now is, er, a bit rich.
But he doesn’t care about appearances or norms or the rule of law. After all, he said long ago that the three most important things in politics were:
Grr…
Cheers,
Scott.
Kent
Well…and constitutional amendments.
John Revolta
@JGabriel: I agree. Yertle is bluffing. He really really wants to put the impeachment behind him. Fuckem.
sdhays
After this week, I wonder if even John Bolton wants to go war with Iran with the fuckups we currently have running things. At this rate, a war with Iran would probably end with us ceding them Alaska and Hawaii.
catclub
@Kent: Ha! beatcha – in at #57
janesays
@catclub: Ah yes, forgot about that one. It’s been more than 40 years since the senate has voted on and passed any amendment to the Constitution – the DC Voting Rights Amendment passed the Senate 67-32 on August 22, 1978. The last constitutional amendment to be ratified (XXVII) was actually passed by both houses of Congress in 1789, even though it’s ratification wasn’t complete until 1992.
Jinchi
I’m still curious why the House doesn’t subpoena Bolton, now that he has declared he would appear. I don’t think he could reasonably argue that he’d only agree to testify before the Senate. Either he’s bound by executive privilege or he isn’t.
The House Dems could argue that if the Senate won’t call witnesses, they’ll do it themselves. That would answer the question about why Pelosi is waiting to send the articles forward and prolong Trump’s agony.
Jinchi
@sdhays: Right. Bolton will be furious if Trump screws up his war.
Another Scott
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Thanks for the pointer to the Atlantic piece:
So, Moscow Mitch saying today that he has 51 votes is a big deal. If true.
We’ve known conviction was an almost impossibly long-shot. The question is how will the trial play out, and how much damage will it do to the GOP.
I’m old enough to remember that it was a foregone conclusion that the House would send the Articles over to the Senate almost instantly after the vote. It will be interesting to see how Nancy SMASH responds.
Cheers,
Scott.
zhena gogolia
@catclub:
This piece by Harold Koh is good too (NYT):
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/opinion/trump-impeachment-congress.html
yellowdog
Bolton’s lawyers still say that if he is subpoenaed by the House, he will sue and they will be locked up in the courts for an extended period of time. A House subpoena is not an option.
Kent
@yellowdog: It’s an option to call his bluff.
The case against Trump is absolutely fucking air-tight anyway without Bolton or Mulvaney or any of the rest. It would make zero difference to get them to testify and could actually backfire if they are skilled enough to obfuscate and distract and give GOP Senators cover.
WaterGirl
@Another Scott: That reads to me like “We might give you what you are asking, later, after you have given up every bit of leverage you have now”.
Yeah, right, I believe that. Trust Us!
Barbara
@yellowdog: Of course it is. The fact that he offered to testify for the Senate is evidence that he doesn’t really believe there is any legal bar to his testimony. House can subpoena Bolton, and if he refuses to testify, it makes it look like he is playing games, which I am convinced he is.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Barbara: as I understand it, IANAL, the federal district court judge dismissed Kupperman’s suit after the House had withdrawn its subpoena. The judge ruled the suit without merit, but is that now binding on Bolton? So…. Schiff issues a new subpoena, Bolton goes back to (the district?) court, where Leon’s ruling would be what, an argument for the House? Then the Appellate Court, then the Supremes? How long does all that take.
Frankensteinbeck
@Kent:
He released a typed confession of his own free will, then defended it repeatedly in public, apparently unaware that asking another country to interfere in an American election is a crime. You don’t get a Hell of a lot more air tight than that.
joel hanes
@catclub:
The key difference in the Clinton impeachment trial
Another is that Clinton and his administration duly complied with every subpoena. IIRC, the Republican House filed literally hundreds.
Another Scott
@Frankensteinbeck: It was the “Perfect!!” crime.
Cheers,
Scott.
Barbara
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: The point is to call his bluff, not get an actual ruling.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Leader McConnell is the handsomest, bravest, most patriotic….
Omnes Omnibus
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Obligatory.
janesays
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: It would almost certainly drag out past the election, but this is where Democratic messaging is key: they need to hammer home the fact that Bolton is playing games, and he has no valid excuse to refuse a House subpoena after he’s publicly indicated that he would obey a Senate subpoena. The trial is only being held up because a man who said on the record that he is willing to testify is refusing to testify.
sab
@TaMara (HFG): Free Washington Post articles are up. One week into the month? And it’s only January.
hueyplong
If McConnell had the votes for a vote that could be held today, he’d be holding the vote today.
Keep the drips dripping. This is a game that ain’t up until the election.
MisterForkbeard
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: A decent press corps would have replied to Romney on the spot that McConnell had already explicitly said he won’t be impartial.
Seriously, this is such an easy dunk that the failure to do so is telling.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@MisterForkbeard: they may have, I haven’t seen or heard the whole thing, but all Romney has to do is say “thank you very much” and walk away
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@hueyplong: What he said, the Republicans own the emmo knee-jerk politics, the Dems need to drag every situation out long enough tell people start thinking. Just look at the Solomini killing as it loses it’s luster as as the cold light of reason shines on it.
Chris T.
They can’t—but remember, the press is all about “narrative”. There has to be a story. The press will print a story, and summarize it with a one line headline, and put any actual facts on page A14.
The story was: House Democrats Impeached Trump. If the Senate held a trial today and acquitted* Trump, the story would reduce to this headline: Not Guilty: Dems Impeach, Reps Acquit.
After several weeks of stories that read “Dems won’t give articles until they find out if there will be witnesses at trial”, the story will reduce to this headline: Reps Hear Nothing And Acquit with sub-heading: No witnesses, no testimony.
Since the average voter reads only the headlines (if that), this will be the November election story: Reps Turn Blind Eye to Accusations.
Conclusion: WAIT.
*Yes, it’s not actually “acquit”. But that’s what the headline writers will use.
Another Scott
For completeness, Warning – Politico:
Good, good.
Cheers,
Scott.