The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Collins Announces ‘Yes,’ Alexander ‘No’ on Calling Impeachment Witnesses: TIE?

Posted on | January 31, 2020 | Comments Off on Collins Announces ‘Yes,’ Alexander ‘No’ on Calling Impeachment Witnesses: TIE?


Last night, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine announced that she would vote to open the impeachment trial to more witnesses and documents, while Sen Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said he would vote against more witnesses. Mitt Romney, worthless backstabber that he is, says he wants John Bolton to testify. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski is probably a “yes.” If the known whip count stays the same — that is, if there are no surprise “yes” votes — then the result would be a 50-50 tie, and the motion for new witnesses would fail, unless Chief Justice John Roberts intervened to cast a “yes” vote, which would be controversial.

This is Alexander’s explanation for his “no” vote:

“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. …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.”

Alexander cedes two points: First that the House Democrats have proven their case, and second that Trump’s conduct was “inappropriate,” while at the same time asserting that what has been proven falls short of the “high bar for an impeachable offense.” This is shrewd, and probably reflects what a lot of independent voters think about the case, that the attempt to influence Ukraine was “inappropriate” (i.e., it doesn’t look good), but the Democrats went too far with their rush to impeachment.

In other words, you can disapprove of what Trump did without believing that he needs to be immediately removed from office for it. With the election barely nine months away, let the people decide. The fact that the Democrats rushed to impeach was essentially a vote of “no confidence” in their field of presidential candidates. Meanwhile . . .

Trump’s approval ratings have gone up since the impeachment began, and this despite (or perhaps because of) liberal media bias:

Jake Tapper doesn’t want you to know the name of the so-called “whistleblower” who caused the impeachment drama. Of course, the identity of Eric Ciaramella was never much of a secret — lots of people in D.C. knew that the former National Security Council staffer was the reputed source for California Rep. Adam Schiff’s investigation of President Trump’s July 25 phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Ciaramella’s name has been in many news stories in recent months: “Report: Anti-Trump Complainant Eric Ciaramella Worked With Brennan, Biden, and DNC Operative Chalupa” (American Greatness, Oct. 30, 2019) and “Open Society Emails Show Anti-Trump CIA ‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella Was Updated on George Soros’s Personal Ukraine Activities” (Gateway Pundit, Nov. 17, 2019), to cite just a couple. But CNN viewers have never heard Ciaramella identified, and Jake Tapper evidently wants to prevent anyone else from reporting this fact, either.
Wednesday afternoon, Tapper tweeted, “A Trump campaign official just RTed a tweet containing the name of the alleged whistleblower.” Tapper’s third-grade tattletale behavior was in response to Trump campaign deputy communications director Matt Wolking retweeting investigative journalist Paul Sperry, with a photo showing Ciaramella meeting with Ukrainian officials in 2015.
Why doesn’t Tapper want anyone to see that photo? . . .

Read the rest of my latest column at The American Spectator.



Comments are closed.