Schumer calls Collins' bluff, will force Senate votes on impeachment witnesses

[kpete]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has locked down every Republican senator in his plan to hold a sham impeachment trial for Donald Trump, even though he is allowing Sen. Susan Collins to pretend that she's working on a plan to secure witness testimony. What Collins did in that stunt, though, was show weakness. She, along with every other vulnerable Republican, knows that the public wants a fair hearing. So Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is going to press that, the one advantage he has. He will force a series of procedural votes to hear from witnesses and obtain new documents.

He's using Collins to justify it, telling Politico that support for hearing witnesses and bolstering the documentation in the case is "even stronger than we thought, with large numbers of Republicans supporting it. […] And when you go against what the American people feel strongly about, on an issue they're paying attention to, it's not a good idea." That's not particularly subtle, but it's true. Politico cites polling by Hart Research in four 2020 Senate battleground states—Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina—that finds 63% of voters would "react unfavorably" if their senator voted against calling more witnesses or subpoeaning documents. They cite another poll from Morning Consult showing that 57% of voters nationally believe the Senate should hear from witnesses.

In response, Collins is maintaining the fiction that she's trying really, really hard to get witnesses and throws in a gratuitous attack on Schumer, who she's peeved at for having the temerity to work to get a Democrat elected to her seat. In a completely meaningless statement to Politico, she said "I am hopeful that we can reach an agreement on how to proceed with the trial that will allow the opportunity for witnesses for both the House managers and the president's counsel if they choose." Because she has such a great history of hoping McConnell will do the right thing. "It is unfortunate that Chuck Schumer—who voted against witnesses in the Clinton trial and prejudged its outcome—and his allies are seeking to politicize this process," she sniffed, in a completely non-politicized way, of course.

...........

Anyway, Schumer is going to give Collins and her colleagues a chance to put their votes where their mouths are. They want witnesses? They can prove it. Democrat Brian Schatz, junior senator from Hawaii, put it bluntly. "This is a true binary test: Of whether or not you are all in for Trump, or whether you will occasionally demonstrate that you're going to use your own mind and your own spine."

MORE:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/1/13/1911202/-Schumer-calls-Collins-bluff-will-force-Senate-votes-on-impeachment-witnesses?utm_campaign=trending
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/13/chuck-schumer-trump-impeachment-trial-097296

[LakeArenal]

1. I'm guessing.... No spine, no mind, no witnesses

[OnDoutside]

2. Couldn't McConnell allow two rats to jump ship, and use the casting vote of

Pence ?

One, if no tie breaker.

[wnylib]

6. I think Pence has no tie-breaking vote in this

because the Chief Justice presides over the Senate trial, not the VP.

[OnDoutside]

7. That's what I wasn't sure about... whether Roberts had any casting

vote, I didn't think he did. Even still, they could do 51-49.

[wnylib]

11. I'm reasonably sure that Roberts would have

no vote. The VP only gets to vote in case of a tie when he is presiding over the Senate, according to the constitution. Also, in cases of impeachment trials, there is a conflict of interest regarding the VP, who would succeed a removed president. Nothing in the constitution or elsewhere gives a justice a vote in Senate proceedings, AFAIK.

So Pence and Roberts are both out of this. Perhaps Roberts could issue a ruling decision that would amount to a vote. I'm sure he would, if it is possible.

[OnDoutside]

13. That would be an interesting outcome. That said, I hope Collins

votes for no witnesses.

[DallasNE]

10. The VP Has No Role In An Impeachment Trial

Now The VP may have a vote if there is a tie in a rules change for the Senate. A rule change to dismiss an impeachment may have to be reviewed by the Senate Parliamentarian. But this is just guessing on last two points.

[Mr.Bill]

3. Pence will not have a vote as a tie breaker.

This is because the VP technically has a stake in an impeachment trial. I believe Justice Roberts would be the tie breaking vote.

[wnylib]

8. I don't think the Chief Justice can have a

tie-breaking vote. The constitution specifically gives the VP a vote only in case of a tie in the Senate. Don't know of anything that gives a presiding justice a vote in any Senate proceeding.

[Mr.Bill]

12. There is some gray area here.

Here's a link: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/the-role-of-the-chief-justice-in-an-impeachment-trial/

[11 Bravo]

4. La Suze will doubtless be "deeply concerned", yet still find a way...

to fall obediently into line.

What a fucking fraud.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Hoping Matt Gaetz' war powers vote was the canary in the coal mine

but I think they were just testing the waters or taunting Democrats

[ProudMNDemocrat]

9. Republicans are setting themselves up for losses come November. ...

Because Democrats will be on the attack defining Republicans loyal to Trump and NOT for the Constitution or the rule of law. These be damned. Republicans are all about protecting Trump.

Democrats have a valid talking point come election cycle time.