The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
McConnell: Republicans don't have the votes to block witnesses in impeachment trial, reports say
McConnell told Republicans in a closed-door meeting Tuesday that they did not have the votes to block additional witnesses from being called in the president's impeachment trial, according to multiple media reports. The revelation, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, means that A HOST OF WITNESSES could be considered as part of the trial, potentially lengthening the proceedings significantly. Allowing witnesses would give Democrats a major win.
The revelation, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, means that A HOST OF WITNESSES could be considered as part of the trial, potentially lengthening the proceedings significantly.
Allowing witnesses would give Democrats a major win.
If there are 51 votes, senators could propose hearing from a VARIETY OF WITNESSES and asking for A HOST OF DOCUMENTS. It could open the door for both Democrats and Republicans to call those at the top of their list, including John Bolton, the president's former national security adviser, Mick Mulvaney, Trump's acting chief of staff, along with GOP-witnesses, such as the whistleblower whose complaint helped launch the impeachment inquiry and Hunter Biden, the former vice president's son.
A senior Republican aide noted the headlines and pointed out that a lot could change in the days before the vote on witnesses, which currently is planned for Friday.
....many more mistakes of judgement, gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2020
....many more mistakes of judgement, gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?
Politico | 12 questions to expect at Trump's impeachment trial Conclusion seems to rely on private agreement between minority and majority leaders or an interpretation of Clinton trial procedures, which is not cited.
NPR | Impeachment Trial Moves To Question Phase, While Witness Vote Looms Does not corroborate Politico procedural assumptions. -- Neither mentions 5-min. time limit for managers' responses.
Neither contemplates rebuttal by "managers" to each response to alternating questions by senators.
Neither expects the purported "clearing house" (Politico) to order questions submitted by senators dynamically, ie. as pertinent to response immediately preceding the alternate question.
supra amateur transcript Congressional Record (pdf, p 9)
Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. Chief Justice, I have reached an agreement with the Democratic leader on how to proceed during the question period. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the question period for Senators start when the Senate reconvenes on Wednesday; further, that the questions alternate between the majority and minority sides for up to 8 hours during that session of the Senate; and finally, that on Thursday, the Senate resume time for Senators' questions, alternating between sides for up to 8 hours during that session of the Senate. [...] The CHIEF JUSTICE. During the impeachment trial of President Clinton,The CHIEF JUSTICE. During the impeachment trial of President Clinton, Chief Justice Rehnquist advised "counsel on both sides that the Chair will operate on a rebuttable presumption that each question can be fully and fairly answered in 5 minutes or less." The transcript indicates that the statement was met with "laughter." Chief Justice Rehnquist advised "counsel on both sides that the Chair will operate on a rebuttable presumption that each question can be fully and fairly answered in 5 minutes or less." The transcript indicates that the statement was met with "laughter."
McConnell recaps. Majority leads with a collective Q submitted by 4 (R) senators (There's a twist!), addressed to (R) managers by COLLINS, concerning MOTIVE
< wipes tears >
Recaps amount and value of aid to Ukraine. Flogs necessity to call BOLTON "a subpoena away" testimony.
My work is done here. Checks watch. Returning at lunch. Buh bye.
The letter from the White House National Security Council to Bolton's attorney, Charles Cooper, and seen by Reuters, said the manuscript contained some material that was considered "TOP SECRET" that could reasonably be expected to cause "exceptionally grave harm" to U.S. national security if disclosed without authorization.
The letter, which was sent via email to Cooper, was dated Jan. 23. [...] The letter, signed by Ellen Knight, the senior director for records, access and information security management, said Bolton's manuscript was still being studied. "The manuscript remains under review in order for us to do our best to assist your client by identifying the classified information within the manuscript," it said. "We will do our best to work with you to ensure your client's ability to tell his story in a manner that protects U.S. national security."
"The manuscript remains under review in order for us to do our best to assist your client by identifying the classified information within the manuscript," it said. "We will do our best to work with you to ensure your client's ability to tell his story in a manner that protects U.S. national security."
by gmoke - Jun 19
by Oui - Jul 6 1 comment
by gmoke - Jun 24
by gmoke - Jun 22
by Oui - Jul 102 comments
by Oui - Jul 9
by Oui - Jul 7
by Oui - Jul 61 comment
by Oui - Jul 6
by Oui - Jul 5
by Oui - Jul 4
by Oui - Jul 2
by Oui - Jul 26 comments
by Oui - Jul 16 comments
by Oui - Jun 301 comment
by Oui - Jun 303 comments
by Oui - Jun 295 comments
by Oui - Jun 29
by Oui - Jun 28
by Oui - Jun 2810 comments
by Oui - Jun 27
by Oui - Jun 263 comments
by Oui - Jun 26