Lamar Alexander’s full statement. (entire text statement below the spoiler.)
If the vote for Bolton ends 50-50, Roberts will not break the tie. Senate rules determine that a motion fails if the vote is tied. Murkowski might end up voting no to spare placing Roberts in that position.
Washington, D.C., January 30, 2020 – United States Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today released the following statement on his vote regarding additional evidence in the impeachment proceedings:
“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.
“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.
Summary
“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But 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.
“The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘mountain’ of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.
“The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.
“Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”
Yeah, fuck that snowflakes. Engage. Or enjoy the age of Trump.
Not entirely sure what you’re driving at here, but if you’re imploring Americans to protest (like they would in most other countries if their leaders were as rampantly corrupt as our current regime) - that’s not likely I fear. Americans don’t call in to work when they’re sick, they don’t take their (for many, meager) vacation time. Not so much because of some Protestant work ethic, but rather they’re afraid of losing their job. Such is the state of our labor laws (and, inexplicably, Americans seem to be okay with. Something something liberty.)
This might be (probably is) hyperbole and despair talking, but this week we saw our Congress take the first step on the path to fascism. I’d not be one bit surprised if the GOP passed the Enabling Act if they could - which essentially is what they did just did. trump can - and will - do anything he likes without fear of reprisal or repercussion. It’s an open question if we have fair and free elections come November.
All this blabber said, engage is indeed sage advice.
Quoting yourself is the greatest sin, and this thread is the greatest shame.
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WILL BE ACQUITTED
HARD STOP
Motherfucking because…
Let’s make make one thing clear: We all knew trump was getting acquitted. That was a fait accomplii and it comes as no surprise. But at least there would be some pretense of Constitutional duty, no matter how hollow or insincere - or so we thought. (Edit: And that the evidence presented would clearly and unambiguously show abuse of power despite any Republican attempts to obfuscate, thus putting them in the potentially politically damaging position of defending it.)
What is so dispiriting is the manner of acquittal. Not that trump didn’t do as he is accused, not that there is insufficient evidence to vote for removal, not that there is any doubt about the transgression.
Rather, it is this:
Yeah, trump did it. So what?
Edit:
The closing questions and debates in this impeachment trial represent much more than a partisan fight over power. They represent a fundamental challenge to the rule of law and the separation of powers. If hyper-partisan polarization is enough to make Senators forget their oaths and even their own power as a co-equal branch of government, they will be setting a dangerous precedent that takes aim at the heart of our democracy at a time when autocracies are on the rise around the world.
In its place will be a President of low character who will be unleashed in pursuing his re-election by any means necessary.
This is happening right under the chief justice’s nose – and the question is whether he will let it happen without uttering a word of warning about the massively destabilizing impact it could have on the Constitution he has devoted his life to defending.
Tim_N
6461
Do you know this for a fact or are you guessing? I did read that him breaking a tie would be unprecedented, but these are unprecedented times.
I read it somewhere on the intertubes. But I just googled it:
(Edit: Roberts voting one way or the other would impugn his role as neutral arbiter. There is virtually no chance he breaks that tie.)
As for the question of whether the chief justice could break a tie if it were to occur, a report from the Congressional Research Service put it this way: “The Chief Justice, when presiding over an impeachment trial, would not be expected to vote, even in the case of a tie. If a vote on a question results in a tie, the question is decided in the negative.”
TANGENT:
Last Sunday morning while driving to visit my mom, a vole was running in circles in the middle of the road. I stopped and managed to herd the suicidal rodent to the woods. Thankfully it was in the wee hours and there was no traffic. Couldn’t imagine why it was doing that, so I googled it, and sure enough found the answer: This behavior is the result of an inner ear infection.
This is the age we live in: Information at our finger tips and we elected and subsequently broke our democracy for Donald fucking Trump.
I should be over being shocked, but Alexander’s statement is shocking. He effectively admits that the House Managers have proven the crime of bribery (an official act in exchange for something of personal value), then says that the Senate can’t remove him.
JoshL
6464
Furthermore, he says that it isn’t impeachable because it isn’t bipartisan. In other words, it totally is a crime, but if Republicans agree to cover it up, then it isn’t. Of course, he is a Republican, so he could make it bipartisan if he wanted to.
So basically his statement is, “this is a crime and I am covering it up”
I completely agree with everything in your excellent post. It’s exactly why I think the Democratic strategy from this point forward should be “gloves off”. The GOP has gerrymandered the shit out of many states. They are going to let Trump walk and send the signal that it’s OK to ask (or blackmail) foreign governments to meddle in our elections. They are destroying the foundations of the Democratic system that makes America a free nation. The media won’t run with these headlines because they make more money playing to both sides. So the candidates themselves, along with PACs and other groups, need to get this message out in every form of media possible. Candidates need to hammer this stuff relentlessly starting today. States that are gerrymandered need to be targeted, organized GOTV campaigns in those states need to get voters on the roll and make sure they get to polling places.
It CAN be changed, but it will take a massive voter education, engagement and turnout effort. 2018 was a good start, but Dems need to build momentum from that. What is happening now needs to be broadcast to America as the disaster it is. No more “if only we could work together to achieve whatever…”, the current GOP has ZERO interest or motivation to compromise on anything. They need to be utterly, completely destroyed, and the sooner Democratic candidates see that and begin acting on it, the sooner we can take back America.
Sorry if that sounds angry, it’s not aimed at anyone here on the forum, but rather I am pissed off that the Democrats still seem to think they can win this war in the courtrooms and the Senate floor, when the real fight is in the streets.
It was “inappropriate” not “bribery”. We all know he did it, but even if the charges were true the Constitution says, “The power of impeachment doesn’t apply to a president because the voters can decide”
I think the Dems should argue that if everyone knows he did it but they don’t want to take away the people’s ability to vote for Trump, they should remove him from office but allow him to appear on the ballot.
Is there any legal precedent that says an impeached/removed president couldn’t run again? It’s not brought up in the Constitution.Having served one (or less than one) term, Trump could in theory pull a Grover Cleveland. Or, I guess, an accelerated Grover Cleveland.
All of this is academic, of course.
antlers
6468
It is mentioned in the Constitution; the penalty for conviction is defined as removal from office and being prohibited from ever holding any future Federal office.
Some have argued that these are distinct penalties, and the Senate could impose one and not the other.
Andrew Johnson, after his impeachment, ran for a Senate seat and won. He is actually the only former POTUS to serve in the Senate. But Johnson (like Clinton and probably Trump) was acquitted in the Senate, which meant he was not forced from office due to the process.
Here’s how it works: Impeachment is nothing but a high-level censure if the Senate votes to acquit. It’s shameful, but has no “real” consequences.
Impeachment followed by Senate conviction removes you from office. If that happens, a standard follow-on to that conviction is a further vote in the Senate that can bar the convicted person from holding future office in the US.
The Constitution imposes a maximum penalty of removal and disqualification from public office. It doesn’t impose a minimum penalty. It would be a bit weird to convict but neither remove the person nor bar him from office, though Alexander is effectively claiming that’s exactly what should be done.
Tom Nichols pointed out Susan Collins only declared her yes vote after Alexander released his statement
Clay
6472
May she wander into a bush full of chiggers.
Edit: and ticks.
KevinC
6473
Seriously. Susan Collins infuriates me more than a lot of the other openly awful GOP. Not that I ever believed for an instant she was considering actually voting for witnesses, but the fact that every time she plays this game trying to come across as “moderate” when she votes in lockstep 100% of the time… just own it, you’re a GOP hack. You have a lot of company.
I sure hope her constituents are well aware of how transparent she is. She’s near the top of my list for GOP senators I want to see voted out of office.
So Alexander essentially gets to be the lightning rod and provide cover for the others, since he’s retiring anyway?
newbrof
6475
this is just like a banana republic or some eastern european country state during cold war. Having a show trial, a fake trial. Not to have additional witnesses, when additional information is coming up.
Also, who in the world will take any moral statements coming from to US regarding democracy etc serious from now on?
