McConnell says GOP lacks votes to block impeachment witnesses, as Bolton book throws trial script in

[txradioguy]

I am going to wait until this plays out before I start condemning Mitch...he has surprised me the last two years so maybe he has a few tricks up his sleeve...

He has a well documented track record of working behind the scenes with the Dems.  He did it all the time with Obama.

The only time Mitch gets tough and plays hardball is when one of his own party dares to challenge him whether it's for his seat (Matt Bevin) about his honesty (Ted Cruz) or someone tries to take the seat of one of his inner circle.

Then the gloves comes off and he becomes a down and dirty fighter.  Same way McCain used to do things.

[skeeter]

He has a well documented track record of working behind the scenes with the Dems.  He did it all the time with Obama.

The only time Mitch gets tough and plays hardball is when one of his own party dares to challenge him whether it's for his seat (Matt Bevin) about his honesty (Ted Cruz) or someone tries to take the seat of one of his inner circle.

Then the gloves comes off and he becomes a down and dirty fighter.  Same way McCain used to do things.

Yes. Mitch is the primary reason we're still having to deal with bottom feeder Lisa Murkowski, rather than the man the GOP primary voters wanted.

[libertybele]

He has a well documented track record of working behind the scenes with the Dems.  He did it all the time with Obama.

The only time Mitch gets tough and plays hardball is when one of his own party dares to challenge him whether it's for his seat (Matt Bevin) about his honesty (Ted Cruz) or someone tries to take the seat of one of his inner circle.

Then the gloves comes off and he becomes a down and dirty fighter.  Same way McCain used to do things.

Also, Mitch was one who vowed long before Trump was even sworn in that he would make sure that he was a one term president.

Nope.  Don't trust Mitch in the least.  He laid out the rules remember -- but somehow it appears that he's allowing the rules to be changed.

[Absalom]

That’s truly the stupidest thing I’ve read here in a very long while.

----------------------------------------
Don't be silly.
Just have someone read your posts to you and you'll be immersed in stupidity.

[DB]

I think Trump made a major tactical error. He should have just come out and said "ya, I was threatening to withhold US aid until some of the major corruption that came to our attention was investigated and cleaned up".

Hard to argue with that. And no added fuel to the fire by fudging the truth.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

He has a well documented track record of working behind the scenes with the Dems.  He did it all the time with Obama.

The only time Mitch gets tough and plays hardball is when one of his own party dares to challenge him whether it's for his seat (Matt Bevin) about his honesty (Ted Cruz) or someone tries to take the seat of one of his inner circle.

Then the gloves comes off and he becomes a down and dirty fighter.  Same way McCain used to do things.

Mitch is tough when he's got the votes.  If he doesn't, then he doesn't fight battles just to put people on the record.

If he gives in on this, it's because he can't force Romney, etc., to vote the way he wants them to vote.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Also, Mitch was one who vowed long before Trump was even sworn in that he would make sure that he was a one term president.

@libertybele

Uh...are you absolutely sure about that? Because Mitch rather famously said that about Obama. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”


https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311

I've never heard that he actually said that about Trump.

[txradioguy]

@libertybele

Uh...are you absolutely sure about that? Because Mitch rather famously said that about Obama. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”


https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311

I've never heard that he actually said that about Trump.

Mitch talked a good game. But the reality was McConnell was the reason so much if Obama's agenda got passed. 

[sneakypete]

They have not even had questions yet and he already threw in the towel.I have always been disappointed with the republicans lack of real fight, have they learned nothing over the last 3 years?

@EdinVA

It's almost like Bob Dolt never left,ain't it?

[sneakypete]

More witnesses mean indefinitely longer time, a big negative for R's.
Suggestion! Vote to impeach Trump now; getting rid of very badly
damaged goods and letting Pence assume the Office as a fresh start.
Let the msm/D's chase Trump across the globe forever but, at least,
this gives the R's a fighting chance w/a new face in Nov.

@Absalom

You miss Boy Jorge,don't you?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

@libertybele

Uh...are you absolutely sure about that? Because Mitch rather famously said that about Obama. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”


https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311

I've never heard that he actually said that about Trump.

@Maj. Bill Martin

That is because it is completely made up.

[Jazzhead]

but Bolton will do a lot of damage --

I like and respect Bolton.  He'll only do a lot of damage if it turns out that the President is lying.  As Andrew McCarthy has pointed out,  it is not necessary to the case for acquittal to claim there was no attempt to leverage the aid to obtain Ukrainian assurances on corruption.   That's legit, IMO - and the fact still remain that the aid was released within the time limit required by Congress without preconditions.   

Lots of the GOP Senators have known and worked with Bolton for a very long time.   They are caught in a seeming dilemma - the NYT report suggests Bolton was told by Trump of the quid pro quo and Trump denies it.   So who to believe?   It would have been far better to admit (if it's the truth)  that the idea of a quid pro quo was strongly considered and ultimately rejected and the aid released.   It's like when Trump bloviated to his White House counsel to fire Mueller - but in the end, the probe was concluded with Trump's cooperation. 

But at this point,  it superficially looks like either Bolton or Trump is lying.  And that's what places the GOP Senators in a conundrum.  Who to believe?  This isn't Blasey-Ford, some unknown dragged out of the woods by partisan Dems alleging a spurious charge.   This is Bolton, a man of integrity and solid conservative credentials, respected by most of the GOP Senators. 

I think there's little choice - let Bolton testify,  and let the White House defense team respond that unimplemented ideas are irrelevant when the Administration ultimately followed the will of Congress.   No other witnesses.  But this one appears to be needed to allow Senators to credibly carry out their responsibility.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

More witnesses mean indefinitely longer time, a big negative for R's.
Suggestion! Vote to impeach Trump now; getting rid of very badly
damaged goods and letting Pence assume the Office as a fresh start.
Let the msm/D's chase Trump across the globe forever but, at least,
this gives the R's a fighting chance w/a new face in Nov.

I've voted uniformly GOP on the national level, in every election, since my first election in 1980.  But if what you suggest actually happened, I would not vote for Pence, and would never vote for another Republican again on the national level.

And I don't think I'd be alone. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Mitch talked a good game. But the reality was McConnell was the reason so much if Obama's agenda got passed.

That doesn't actually address the point I made, which was whether or not McConnell truly said that his goal was to make Trump a one-term President.  I never heard that.

In terms of Obama...what particular piece of Obama's agenda got passed because of McConnell?  I mean immigration reform and the stupid CO2 stuff didn't get through Congress, so Obama was forced into EO's.  And perhaps most importantly, McConnell killed the Garland nomination despite vicious opposition from the Democrats, Obama, and the media.  That was an absolutely critical, ballsy moved that saved the Supreme Court from being controlled by progressives.

[Cyber Liberty]

I like and respect Bolton.  He'll only do a lot of damage if it turns out that the President is lying.  As Andrew McCarthy has pointed out,  it is not necessary to the case for acquittal to claim there was no attempt to leverage the aid to obtain Ukrainian assurances on corruption.   That's legit, IMO - and the fact still remain that the aid was released within the time limit required by Congress without preconditions.   

Lots of the GOP Senators have known and worked with Bolton for a very long time.   They are caught in a seeming dilemma - the NYT report suggests Bolton was told by Trump of the quid pro quo and Trump denies it.   So who to believe?   It would have been far better to admit (if it's the truth)  that the idea of a quid pro quo was strongly considered and ultimately rejected and the aid released.   It's like when Trump bloviated to his White House counsel to fire Mueller - but in the end, the probe was concluded with Trump's cooperation. 

But at this point,  it superficially looks like either Bolton or Trump is lying.  And that's what places the GOP Senators in a conundrum.  Who to believe?  This isn't Blasey-Ford, some unknown dragged out of the woods by partisan Dems alleging a spurious charge.   This is Bolton, a man of integrity and solid conservative credentials, respected by most of the GOP Senators. 

I think there's little choice - let Bolton testify,  and let the White House defense team respond that unimplemented ideas are irrelevant when the Administration ultimately followed the will of Congress.   No other witnesses.  But this one appears to be needed to allow Senators to credibly carry out their responsibility.   

You finally answered what I asked yesterday:  Do you favor Democrat witnesses, but zero for Trump?  You do.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I like and respect Bolton.  He'll only do a lot of damage if it turns out that the President is lying.  As Andrew McCarthy has pointed out,  it is not necessary to the case for acquittal to claim there was no attempt to leverage the aid to obtain Ukrainian assurances on corruption.   That's legit, IMO - and the fact still remain that the aid was released within the time limit required by Congress without preconditions.   

Lots of the GOP Senators have known and worked with Bolton for a very long time.   They are caught in a seeming dilemma - the NYT report suggests Bolton was told by Trump of the quid pro quo and Trump denies it.   So who to believe?

I don't see how the scenario of forcing Senators to choose -- publicly -- between Bolton and Trump isn't bad for Trump.  You've got Kelly coming out and saying he'd believe Bolton.  And even though there are a lot of people who'd believe Trump, some won't, and it would just give the opposition another angle on which to attack him.  Because even if it isn't that important a point, you've now added "lied to the American people during impeachment" -- even if it wasn't under oath -- to the list of things for which Trump will be attacked.

I think it also is bad for Senators caught in the middle to force them to choose, and they will be pressured heavily to say publicly who they believed.  If they say "I think Bolton lied", then they're going to have to explain why they thought he lied.  And if they say "I think Trump lied", then defending a vote to acquit is going to be that much more difficult.

It would have been far better to admit (if it's the truth)  that the idea of a quid pro quo was strongly considered and ultimately rejected and the aid released.

I agree...but that point doesn't really do much good now because it's water over the dam.

But at this point,  it superficially looks like either Bolton or Trump is lying.  And that's what places the GOP Senators in a conundrum.  Who to believe?  This isn't Blasey-Ford, some unknown dragged out of the woods by partisan Dems alleging a spurious charge.   This is Bolton, a man of integrity and solid conservative credentials, respected by most of the GOP Senators. 

The best way out of that conundrum is to say that it doesn't matter who we believe because the aid ultimately went out without any conditions.  That's really the only way out of the "heads I win/tails you lose" position of having to state publicly who they believed and why.  This may be one of those things where Mitch gives a couple of the RINO's up for reelection a "pass" to vote for witnesses, but be outvoted.

[Jazzhead]

You finally answered what I asked yesterday:  Do you favor Democrat witnesses, but zero for Trump?  You do.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I don't disfavor witnesses for Trump,  but I thought the idea was to get the damn thing over with.  Limiting the witnesses to one and only one I think will achieve that.   If the goal has moved beyond mere acquittal to wholesale engagement in political retribution, then by all means call in Schiff and the whistleblower and the Bidens.   But I say be careful what you wish for.  Do you really want to give Joe Biden a platform in the well of the Senate?   And do you really think that prolonging the trial beyond that necessary to secure the President's acquittal is in the President's best interest?   

What the President needs is to be done with this farce so he can get back to the business of governing, and the Senate can get back to the business of confirming his judges.  What will likely happen, by the way, is that the Republicans will amend any Dem call for Bolton to be a witness with a call for Hunter Biden to be a witness.   There will be a "package" vote that will be defeated, and the Senate can then vote to acquit.     

[Maj. Bill Martin]

What will likely happen, by the way, is that the Republicans will amend any Dem call for Bolton to be a witness with a call for Hunter Biden to be a witness.   There will be a "package" vote that will be defeated, and the Senate can then vote to acquit.   

I agree -- that or something very similar is the most likely alternative if there aren't enough votes to stop witnesses all together.  There would be 51 votes to call witnesses, but not 51 votes to agree on the slate of witnesses to be called.

[sneakypete]

I've voted uniformly GOP on the national level, in every election, since my first election in 1980.  But if what you suggest actually happened, I would not vote for Pence, and would never vote for another Republican again on the national level.

And I don't think I'd be alone.

@Maj. Bill Martin  I can give you the rarest of rare things,a 100 percent guarantee that you are not wrong.

[Jazzhead]

I agree...but that point doesn't really do much good now because it's water over the dam.

It's water over the dam because the  President has reverted to idiot mode and directly challenged Bolton as a liar, and a dangerous loon out to start World War Six.   As always,  Trump shoots from the hip and becomes his own worst enemy.   If Trump had merely confirmed that he had vigorous conversations with his advisors about Ukrainian corruption and whether the aid should be delayed while the Ukrainians were sounded out on the subject,  but ultimately that the aid was released without preconditions,  then the need for Bolton to testify would have gone away.   But instead he's challenging GOP Senators to either believe him or Bolton.  And many have known and respected  Bolton for years.

It's madness, @Maj. Bill Martin.   As soon as Trump seems to be emerging from the muck, he dives right back in.  Now he's forcing GOP Senators - folks poised to SUPPORT him - to join in his quest to smear John Bolton.   Well at least some of 'em are going to respond that we need to hear from Bolton.   Trump steps in it,  yet again.   

[aligncare]

I posted this on another thread.

Let’s say McConnell doesn’t have the vote to prevent the call for witnesses. So, what?

Each individual witness must then be approved by a majority of the senate. Who has the majority? Right, the GOP. So, the result would likely be that no witness can get a majority.

In the end, no witnesses testify, and McConnell quickly moves on to a vote on the articles of impeachment, or possibly for dismissal.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't disfavor witnesses for Trump,  but I thought the idea was to get the damn thing over with.  Limiting the witnesses to one and only one I think will achieve that.   If the goal has moved beyond mere acquittal to wholesale engagement in political retribution, then by all means call in Schiff and the whistleblower and the Bidens.   But I say be careful what you wish for.  Do you really want to give Joe Biden a platform in the well of the Senate?   And do you really think that prolonging the trial beyond that necessary to secure the President's acquittal is in the President's best interest?   

What the President needs is to be done with this farce so he can get back to the business of governing, and the Senate can get back to the business of confirming his judges.  What will likely happen, by the way, is that the Republicans will amend any Dem call for Bolton to be a witness with a call for Hunter Biden to be a witness.   There will be a "package" vote that will be defeated, and the Senate can then vote to acquit.   

You are assuming I want the Bidens to testify.  I do not, in fact.  I want to see Schitt and Ciamarella explain their collusion.

[txradioguy]

That doesn't actually address the point I made, which was whether or not McConnell truly said that his goal was to make Trump a one-term President.  I never heard that.

I was addressing the fact that McConnell claimed that's what he was going to do to Obama...not to Trump.  I've never heard him say that about Trump either.

In terms of Obama...what particular piece of Obama's agenda got passed because of McConnell?  I mean immigration reform and the stupid CO2 stuff didn't get through Congress, so Obama was forced into EO's.  And perhaps most importantly, McConnell killed the Garland nomination despite vicious opposition from the Democrats, Obama, and the media.  That was an absolutely critical, ballsy moved that saved the Supreme Court from being controlled by progressives.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/165345-mcconnell-obama-working-behind-the-scenes-to-block-domestic-energy-production-

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/22/mcconnell-gop-obama-tax-impasse

https://www.politico.com/story/2011/08/biden-mcconnell-and-the-making-of-a-deal-060463

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-says-mitch-mcconnell-lies-export-import-bank-120583


He caved every single time on raising the debt ceiling  and debt limit.  As for the SCOTUS pick...he didn't do anything real extraordinary there except for play by the Dem rules from years past.

And lets not forget too the TEA Party candidates he sh*t on to keep his buddies in office with threats to ad agencies and political consultants of cutting them off from ever doing business with the GOP if they supported any one trying to primary  one of "his guys" or in the case of matt Bevin to prevent himself from being primaried.

And lets not forget how he let Obama just walk through the Iran deal without insisting it go through proper channels...and let buddies of his like Bob Corker manipulate Senate rules to get it done.

[Snarknado]

It's baffling to me that House dems can conduct a totally partisan sham "investigation",  impeach with no evidence,  and have Senate repubs give them a free do-over. The dems must be giddy with disbelief that their opponents are stupid enough to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[skeeter]

It's baffling to me that House dems can conduct a totally partisan sham "investigation",  impeach with no evidence,  and have Senate repubs give them a free do-over. The dems must be giddy with disbelief that their opponents are stupid enough to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The rats know a good portion, if not most, republican congresspeople feel a closer association with the state than they do their party.