Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander broke his silence Thursday in the trial of President Donald Trump, asking to compare the present acrimony with the bipartisan nature of the two previous impeachment inquiries in modern history.
While the question was one of nearly 150 so far, it took on additional significance as the first from Alexander, who is considered a crucial vote on whether to allow new witnesses, along with Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Many Republican senators want to block new witnesses from testifying and move to acquit the President as early as Friday. Alexander told CNN he would announce his decision once the questioning period is over on Thursday night.
See Also: Meghan McCain Addresses her Fight with Abby Huntsman: “It’s cruel, it’s very cruel and this has been a really, really, rough few weeks for me."
Alexander's question could be viewed as a call-back to a point Ken Starr on Trump's defense team made days earlier, that Richard Nixon's impeachment inquiry was "powerfully bipartisan" and was thus more credible. No House Republican voted to authorize the inquiry under President Donald Trump, but 31 Democrats broke from Bill Clinton in 1998 and nearly all Republicans broke under Nixon in 1974.
Here is Alexander’s full statement:
“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.“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. 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.“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.“The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘mountain’ of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.“The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.“Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”
This is great news, because even if Murkowski decides to vote with Democrats, it won’t matter because Democrats don’t have the 51 votes needed to pass the motion:
Senate does not appear to have the votes to open the door to witnesses tomorrow night. Collins and Romney for witnesses. Alexander opposed. Even if Murkowski is a yes, they don’t have the votes. 50-50 vote is a tie, which by rule, fails
1,018 people are talking about this
Hopefully Murkowski will vote with Republicans and not even give Robert’s the chance to decide whether or not he’s going to vote. It’s likely he wouldn’t vote, as Republicans have said tonight. But you never know with Roberts. But apart from that possibility, it looks like Republicans will defeat witnesses and then move to final verdict so Trump can be acquitted and America can finally move on.
Comments
Post a Comment