Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”

Washington Post Catch and Kill, not noticeably better than the Enquirer’s.

Relentless negativity is not a sign that you are more realistic.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

This country desperately needs a functioning fourth estate.

Our messy unity will be our strength.

This fight is for everything.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

Let the trolls come, and then ignore them. that’s the worst thing you can do to a troll.

Dear media: perhaps we ought to let Donald Trump speak for himself!

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

75% of people clapping liked the show!

With all due respect and assumptions of good faith, please fuck off into the sun.

Welcome to day five of every-bit-as-bad-as-you-thought-it-would-be.

Text STOP to opt out of updates on war plans.

We need to vote them all out and restore sane Democratic government.

These are not very smart people, and things got out of hand.

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

Republican speaker of the house Mike Johnson is the bland and smiling face of evil.

I desperately hope that, yet again, i am wrong.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Fight for a just cause, love your fellow man, live a good life.

Republicans do not trust women.

You are here: Home / Open Threads / So Much for Pressure

So Much for Pressure

by | 89 Comments

This post is in: 

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.

Reader Interactions

89Comments

  1. 1.

    Baud

    It was still worth the fight.  The show trial will be more apparent to the public by having made witnesses an issue.

  2. 2.

    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.

  3. 3.

    TaMara (HFG)

    including from some in her own party

    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)

  4. 4.

    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”

  5. 5.

    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.

  8. 8.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Jeffro:

    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’s up to Dems in those states. Barack Obama couldn’t do everything for Dems, neither can Nancy Pelosi

  9. 9.

    Baud

    I believe Dem senators can still file motions to call witnesses and make the Republicans vote against it.

  10. 10.

    Another Scott

    Eh?

    TheHill:

    “We have the votes, once the impeachment trial has begun, to pass a resolution essentially the same, very similar to the 100 to nothing vote in the Clinton trial which sets up, as you may recall, what could best be described maybe as a Phase One,” McConnell said.

    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.

  11. 11.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    I read somewhere that 67 votes are required to change the impeachment rules. McConnell doesn’t have 67 votes.

    I’ve never heard about anything but a simple majority being needed, that’s why everyone keeps talking about four Republicans

  12. 12.

    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.

  13. 13.

    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

  14. 14.

    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.

  15. 15.

    Patricia Kayden

    This is utter madness.

    How does the Trump administration "accidentally" deliver notification to a foreign government of its agreement to withdraw troops—in both English and Arabic and on official letterhead? Or is this another case of the Trumpian chaos in which orders can change after you follow them? https://t.co/2wgjJaKKBO— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) January 7, 2020

  16. 16.

    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”

  17. 17.

    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

  18. 18.

    Patricia Kayden

    Mike Pompeo is officially the Secretary of State. Apparently, he is also unofficially the Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the First Lord of the Admiralty. He’s a Dollar Store Kissinger. https://t.co/JykY6lFtbY— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) January 7, 2020

  20. 20.

    Another Scott

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    WaPo from the 5th:

    But Trump has been eager to get a trial over with and a likely acquittal vote in the Republican-led Senate, a possible reason for Graham to try to find a way to start the trial without the articles.

    Senate rules suggest such a move would be difficult, if not impossible. It would take 60 votes to pass a resolution on impeachment outside a trial and 67 votes to change the impeachment rules. That threshold would require Democratic support, since McConnell has only 53 Republicans — and Democrats would be loath to undercut Pelosi.

    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.

  22. 22.

    germy

    Trey Gowdy thinks the Senate should just “assume jurisdiction” and try to dismiss impeachment charges pic.twitter.com/6xiiQS64IF
    — Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) January 7, 2020

    Republicans keep publicly floating all these wild-sounding schemes to try and force the House to send over the impeachment articles, which makes me think they are feeling more and more pressured and desperate. https://t.co/tZJxDWtJJj
    — Gary Legum (@GaryLegum) January 7, 2020

  24. 24.

    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.

  27. 27.

    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.

  30. 30.

    Another Scott

    From 3 hours ago. I haven’t seen any Pelosi or other Democratic reactions to Moscow Mitch’s assertion yet.

    If any Senate Republican votes to prevent witnesses and documents from coming before the Senate:The American people will see that they are part of a cover-up. pic.twitter.com/Q6UQI3Dkcz— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) January 7, 2020

    FWIW.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  31. 31.

    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.

  34. 34.

    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.

  35. 35.

    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.

  36. 36.

    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.

  39. 39.

    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”?

  40. 40.

    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.

  41. 41.

    randy khan

    @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.

    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.

  42. 42.

    Another Scott

    This Reuters piece seems to me to be clearer:

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday he had enough support from his fellow Republicans to set the rules for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, dealing a blow to Democrats’ efforts to call new witnesses against the president.

    Democrats want several White House officials and Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton to testify at the trial in the Republican-controlled Senate about their knowledge of the president’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

    McConnell has resisted the idea, instead seeking a fast trial based on evidence collected in the House of Representatives before it voted last month to impeach Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

    While Republicans are still divided over whether the Senate should eventually hear more testimony, the vast majority of them have agreed to leave the decision until after the trial has started, McConnell told a news conference.

    Senator Lindsey Graham said 51 of the 53 Republicans in the Senate were backing that plan.

    “We’ve got the votes necessary to start the trial using the Clinton model, which is good news,” Graham said, referring to an arrangement made during the 1999 impeachment trial of then-President Bill Clinton after Republicans and Democrats were similarly deadlocked over the question of witness testimony.

    The House has charged Trump with abusing his power for personal gain by asking Ukraine to announce a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading contender for the Democratic nomination to face Trump in November’s presidential election.

    It also charged the president with obstructing Congress by directing administration officials and agencies not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.

    Trump says he did nothing wrong and has dismissed his impeachment as a partisan bid to undo his 2016 election win.

    Democrats say Bolton and the other new witnesses must be heard for the trial to be a fair one. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats would force votes during the trial to have new witnesses testify.

    “Make no mistake, on the question of witnesses and documents, Republicans may run, but they can’t hide,”

    Schumer said on the Senate floor.

    The trial is likely to lead to Trump’s acquittal before the 2020 presidential election campaign heats up, as no Republicans have voiced support for removing him from office. A two-thirds majority of the Senate is needed to vote to oust a president.

    PELOSI STRATEGY

    No date has been set for the trial yet. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, has so far declined to submit the two articles of impeachment to the Senate, effectively delaying any trial.

    Earlier on Tuesday, Pelosi’s office said no decision has been made on the timeline for sending the articles to the Senate.

    Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said he expected Pelosi would send the articles soon.

    “I would expect that given this announcement that she would likely send them over,” Murphy said, adding that Democrats needed to decide on their best strategy. “At this point our best leverage is probably inside that trial.”

    Bolton is among the potential witnesses Democrats want to testify. On Monday, he said he was willing to do so.

    […]

    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.

  43. 43.

    randy khan

    @Lapassionara:

    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.

    “Conviction” is the right word.  It’s in the Constitution.  Article I, Section 3:

    6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

  47. 47.

    James E Powell

    @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.

    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.

  49. 49.

    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.

  50. 50.

    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.

  51. 51.

    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.

  52. 52.

    JGabriel

    mistermix @ Top:

    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.

    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.

  55. 55.

    Aleta

    <a href=”#comment-7536789″>@MJS</a>:&nbsp;
    Here’s some of it:

    Benjamin Wittes

    But in the context of John Bolton’s announcement yesterday that he’s willing to testify if subpoenaed by the Senate, McConnell’s announcement of his posture creates a strategic opening for Pelosi that she will not fail to notice.

    A subpoena from the Senate is not, after all, legally different from a subpoena from the House. With McConnell now publicly committed to moving forward without hearing from a witness who is willing to testify, Pelosi’s control over the articles becomes highly significant.

        * Here is a card she now has in her hand. She can announce that:
        * (1) She is not willing to hand over the articles so that McConnell can bury them without hearing from a witness who has suddenly made clear that he is, after all, available.
        * 

(2) Since the Senate majority leader appears committed to a trial framework that will not hear all the available witnesses with relevant information, the House Intelligence Committee will issue the subpoena Bolton has invited instead.
        * 

(3) She will hold the articles pending the completion of that testimony—and whatever litigation may be necessary to obtain it.
        *
        * And critically, (4) the House reserves the right to pass superseding or amended articles of impeachment in response to new information it obtains.
        * 

This would put McConnell in the position of paying a significant price for not reaching an accommodation—and put pressure on him to do so. The articles of impeachment will dangle over the president and the Senate for some period of time to come if Bolton resists the subpoena.
        * 

Bolton may well end up testifying, either in the House or the Senate. And McConnell will be unable to play his 51-vote trump card until Bolton does so, because the articles will not be in his hand, and his power only kicks in when Pelosi sends them over.
        * 

What’s more, such a position would be wholly defensible.
        *
        * After all, as McConnell knows full well, there is no right and wrong here. There are only tactics and what works.

    Susan Hennessey
    
‏
I am actually really persuaded by Ben’s idea that the House should now subpoena Bolton and withhold the articles until he testifies and they can decide whether to amend them.


I’m generally really suspicious of procedural gamesmanship. But this strikes me as substantive and logical. Bolton was refusing to testify before, now he isn’t, so go ahead and call him and find out what he knows and then send over the articles.
    * 

If McConnell agrees to call Bolton in the Senate then the House can send the articles once they have reassurance the testimony will be heard.

    Withholding the articles was a risk, but the benefit was to preserve control as circumstances change. And now, circumstances have changed.

  56. 56.

    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.

  58. 58.

    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

    The importance of John Bolton’s offer to testify if subpoenaed in the impeachment proceedings against President Trump cannot be overstated. In a single stroke, Mr. Bolton, the former national security adviser, elevated truth and transparency over political gamesmanship.
    The Senate must take him up on his offer, as well as demand the testimony of President Trump and the administration officials he has barred from testifying. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, reportedly has the votes to proceed with the trial despite no agreement with Democrats on new witnesses and to leave it a question to take up after opening arguments. The Senate still must declare that it will call witnesses during the trial.
    Everyone — Republicans, Democrats and independents — must know that these crucial witnesses will be heard.
    The core principle behind the rule of law is that justice is blind and partisan identity should not influence a trial’s outcome. But anyone watching Mr. McConnell twist himself into knots in trying to block witnesses and documents has to wonder whether this notion ever took root in his mind. He has gone so far as to say that “there will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can.” He also said, “There’s no chance the president is going to be removed from office.”

    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.

  59. 59.

    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.

  60. 60.

    catclub

    @janesays: Katyal and Conway:

    In a single stroke, Mr. Bolton, the former national security adviser, elevated truth and transparency over political gamesmanship.

     

    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.

  62. 62.

    Kent

    @janesays: 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.

    Well…and constitutional amendments.

  64. 64.

    sdhays

    @Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): Bolton does want war with Iran more than anything else

    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.

  66. 66.

    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.

  67. 67.

    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.

  69. 69.

    Another Scott

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    Thanks for the pointer to the Atlantic piece:

    In the tactical pursuit of such goals, the answers are far less clear-cut than they are when dealing with constitutional first principles. A lot of commentators are speaking about the current standoff as though it were not a negotiation between savvy legislators but some great moral crusade. But when and how the House delivers articles of impeachment to the Senate depends, for both Democrats and Republicans, on complicated cost-benefit calculations with many different inputs. And crucially, some of these inputs are not publicly known—and probably not known to McConnell, Schumer, and Pelosi, either. So the best way to understand the current contest is as a game of poker. Some of the cards the public can see; some it can’t. Some the players can see; some they can’t.

    The big unseen cards are the votes of swing Republicans on the questions of early dismissal and calling witnesses. A motion to dismiss requires 51 senators, as does a motion to block a witness. That means that if the 53 Republican senators stick together, they can sustain a motion at any time to dismiss the trial. And they can also, even if they don’t stick together for a motion to dismiss, block the impeachment managers from calling their witnesses. Conversely, if three or four Republicans (the exact number depends on how a specific motion is presented) vote with Democrats, the impeachment managers could keep the trial from being dismissed and could call their witnesses.

    McConnell has not ruled out witnesses altogether. Rather, his pitch is that senators should vote on the question of whether to hear testimony following opening arguments by the House impeachment managers and by the president’s defense—the way the Senate handled matters in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. He hinted in remarks on the Senate floor on Friday that the Senate might take up a motion to dismiss the case against the president following those opening arguments, referencing a similar unsuccessful motion by Democrats during the Clinton impeachment.

    This posture on McConnell’s part could reflect his confidence that he has the votes to dismiss the case. If he knows the votes are there to make this go away, he would not need to give Pelosi and Schumer anything, because he can make short work of a trial if Pelosi ever delivers the articles without an agreement.

    But McConnell’s stance could also be a bluff. That is, by pretending to be confident of the votes of senators like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, and Cory Gardner, McConnell forces Pelosi into a situation in which she either doesn’t get a trial at all (if she does not turn over the articles), or has to move forward not knowing whether the articles will be quickly dismissed—and hopes of a full presentation and elaboration of the evidence against the president will be just as quickly dashed.

    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.

  71. 71.

    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.

  72. 72.

    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.

  73. 73.

    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!

  74. 74.

    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.

  75. 75.

    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.

  76. 76.

    Frankensteinbeck

    @Kent:

    The case against Trump is absolutely fucking air-tight anyway

    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.

  77. 77.

    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.

  80. 80.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Manu Raju‏Verified account@mkraju
    Just asked Mitt Romney if he has any concerns with McConnell coordinating with the WH on trial, and Romney said: “I’m sure the leader will provide impartial justice.”

    Leader McConnell is the handsomest, bravest, most patriotic….

  82. 82.

    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.

  84. 84.

    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.

  85. 85.

    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.

  87. 87.

    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.

  88. 88.

    Chris T.

    @Goku (aka Amerikan Baka): But how can they have an impeachment trial without the Articles?

    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.

  89. 89.

    Another Scott

    For completeness, Warning – Politico:

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi showed no signs of relenting in her impeachment standoff with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Tuesday, even after the Kentucky Republican announced he was moving forward with a partisan trial blueprint over the fierce objections of Democrats.

    In a private meeting with House Democrats Tuesday evening, Pelosi didn’t reveal a timeline for transmitting the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate.

    Her announcement — or lack thereof — comes after McConnell said earlier Tuesday he has the votes to push through a partisan rules package outlining the framework for Trump’s impeachment trial without Democratic support.

    “Sadly, Leader McConnell has made clear that his loyalty is to the President and not the Constitution,” Pelosi said later in a letter to Democrats. “It is important that he immediately publish this resolution, so that, as I have said before, we can see the arena in which we will be participating, appoint managers and transmit the articles to the Senate.”

    […]

    Good, good.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

Comments are closed.