Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Judi Lynn

(160,215 posts)
Sat Jan 18, 2020, 09:58 PM Jan 2020

Murkowski wants to hear case before deciding on witnesses

Source: Associated Press


Becky Bohrer, Associated Press
Updated 4:10 pm CST, Saturday, January 18, 2020

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Alaska U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she's comfortable waiting to decide if more information is needed as part of the Senate's impeachment trial until after hearing arguments from House managers and attorneys for President Donald Trump and questions from members.

The Republican said Saturday she wants to make sure there's a process that allows senators to “really hear the case” and ask questions “before we make that determination as to, what more do we need. I don't know what more we need until I've been given the base case.”

. . .

'If Democrats try to add certain witnesses to an organizing resolution, Murkowski said she expects Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would move to table such a request and that she would support a tabling motion.

“Because what I’ve worked hard to do is make sure that we have a process that will allow for that determination” — whether witnesses or documents are needed, she said. “But I want to have that at a point where I know whether or not I'm going to need it.”


Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Murkowski-wants-to-hear-case-before-deciding-on-14986516.php

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

cstanleytech

(26,080 posts)
8. More like she will vote whichever way she thinks will benefit her politically and fuck the american
Sun Jan 19, 2020, 12:06 AM
Jan 2020

people and the rule of law.

bucolic_frolic

(42,663 posts)
6. Don't get your hopes up
Sat Jan 18, 2020, 10:20 PM
Jan 2020

Trump will be acquitted. But it's ok. Republicans will be driving the country off a cliff, and themselves along with it. They can deal with Trump now, or they can deal with voters in November. Republicans are screwed no matter what they do. Democrats on the other hand, can hardly mess up. They've stood on rule of law, principle, the U.S. Constitution. Voters know. Look at the polls.

Murkowski? This fake move will not be good enough. It's a feint, and everyone knows it. It's Susan Collins without concern.

cstanleytech

(26,080 posts)
9. They would have been smarter to convict Trump then to be honest as atleast then they might
Sun Jan 19, 2020, 12:08 AM
Jan 2020

have a hope of salvaging something.
As I said on another thread though if they do not remove him then I will completely support a Democratic President with a slim Senate majority increasing SCOTUS to 13 seats and packing every spot with a liberal and then launching an RICO investigation against the Republican party leadership with no mercy being shown to any Republican for a criminal act.
That means zero plea bargains for any of them and hard time along with seeking asset seizure for everything they own including any property they try to hide by giving it or selling it to a spouse or other family member.

turbinetree

(24,632 posts)
11. Hey Lisa are you, and Collins and others in your criminal enterprise going
Sun Jan 19, 2020, 12:56 AM
Jan 2020

to vote to allow the traitor to dismiss....................its right here...................after all you took an oath..................that basically means nothing.......................right....................


https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142421204



your party reminds me of Bullwinkle..........................

joshdawg

(2,637 posts)
13. Has she been watching what has been
Sun Jan 19, 2020, 02:10 AM
Jan 2020

going on the last month or two??!?
Wants to hear the case? Seriously? How much more does she need to hear?

14. "No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first--verdict afterwards."
Sun Jan 19, 2020, 02:42 AM
Jan 2020

"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first."

"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.

"I won't!" said Alice.

"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

"Who cares for you?" said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) "You're nothing but a pack of cards!"

12. Alice's Evidence
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll

This chapter is worth reading as preparation for the upcoming trial.

 

GeorgiaPeanut

(360 posts)
15. I think she will vote to allow witnesses
Sun Jan 19, 2020, 04:14 AM
Jan 2020

This protects her better than allowing witnesses at the outset. After the case is heard, she can say I need corroboration of this and that and a witness is needed.

MissMillie

(38,452 posts)
16. Well, most of it was televised
Sun Jan 19, 2020, 09:30 AM
Jan 2020

I'll bet there's online video of the hearings in the House

Not to mention, the House just delivered 100 pages laying out their case....

Seriously, she knew this was coming. Why wasn't she preparing herself? Did she have something more important to do besides her Constitutional duty?

DallasNE

(7,392 posts)
17. Apparently She Wasn't Paying Any Attention To The House Proceedings.
Sun Jan 19, 2020, 07:27 PM
Jan 2020

Either that or she is playing dumb. But it makes her look dumb. Bolton, Mulvaney and company were named in documents as witness to the facts. Indeed, Mulvaney was the one who ordered the aid to Ukraine be stopped. How could she not know that these witnesses are up to their eyebrows and with constant direct contact with Trump. Yes, she is looking really dumb for making such a statement.

mackdaddy

(1,520 posts)
18. Maybe she should just read Article II of the Impeachment: Obstruction of Congress.
Sun Jan 19, 2020, 07:53 PM
Jan 2020
Article II, “Obstruction of Congress,” states that President Trump “has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its ‘sole Power of Impeachment.’”

Specifically, the article goes on, Trump:

Directed the White House to defy a subpoena for documents
Directed other executive branch agencies, such as the State Department and Defense Department, to defy subpoenas
Directed current and former executive branch officials to refuse subpoenas for their testimony.

“This abuse of office served to cover up the President’s own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment,” Article II reads.


https://www.vox.com/2019/12/10/20998680/articles-of-impeachment-trump-abuse-power-obstruction-justice

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Murkowski wants to hear c...