Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Rand Paul threatens fellow Republicans with explosive witness votes

  1. #1

    Rand Paul threatens fellow Republicans with explosive witness votes

    Wow. Rand is threatening to get AGGRESSIVE. I like it..

    Sen. Rand Paul is waging a fierce campaign to prevent the Senate from hearing witnesses in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, vowing to force tough votes on his fellow Republicans if they break with the president or back Democrats' demands for new evidence.

    The Kentucky Republican is occasionally at odds with Trump, from his killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani to his national emergency to build his southern border wall. But when it comes to impeachment, Paul is taking the hardest line possible in Trump’s favor.

    Paul says if four or more of his GOP colleagues join with Democrats to entertain new witness testimony, he will make the Senate vote on subpoenaing the president’s preferred witnesses, including Hunter Biden and the whistleblower who revealed the Ukraine scandal — polarizing picks who moderate Republicans aren’t eager to call. So he has a simple message for his party: end the trial before witnesses are called.

    “If you vote against Hunter Biden, you’re voting to lose your election, basically. Seriously. That’s what it is,” Paul said during an interview in his office on Wednesday. “If you don’t want to vote and you think you’re going to have to vote against Hunter Biden, you should just vote against witnesses, period.”

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has warned Republicans not to divide the party and endanger his slim GOP majority, but Paul’s play could be useful to him. If the pressure campaign stifles the small group of Republicans open to hearing from witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton, McConnell will be able to conclude the trial in the swift fashion he’s long sought.

    But if a majority of the Senate agrees to hear witnesses, Paul is ready to go all out to make sure everyone in the Senate is on the record about whether they stand with Trump.

    “My first preference would be to be done with it as soon as possible and not to have any witnesses,” Paul said. “If they insist on having people like Bolton coming forward, my insistence will be not just one witness. But that the president should be able to call any witnesses that he deems necessary to his defense.”

    Paul’s threat is backed up by real power under the process envisioned by McConnell and allowed for under Senate rules.

    After hearing opening arguments and questioning from House impeachment managers and the White House counsel, the Senate is expected to take a vote on whether to consider the witness issue at all, according to senators familiar with McConnell’s plans. If the Senate agrees to hear witnesses, every senator will have the chance to force a motion seeking testimony.

    An initial vote to consider witnesses has been sought by GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. If it fails, the trial is likely to head to closing arguments. The question of witnesses might mimic the motion to dismiss impeachment that was considered and rebuffed during former President Bill Clinton’s Senate trial.

    Both Collins and Murkowski said on Wednesday they aren’t advocating for specific witnesses but simply want to retain the right to hear more evidence during the trial. Collins even said she agrees with Paul’s view on witness parity.

    “If he’s saying that both sides should have an opportunity, I agree with that, to call witnesses. We’ll make the call on which ones. But it isn’t fair to just let one side call witnesses,” she said.

    But asked about Paul’s contention that she and other Republicans risk a collapse in support from the GOP base if they side with Democrats on procedural votes, she demurred: “You know, it’s not my focus. My focus is to be fair. And to have a dignified trial.”

    Paul is perhaps the most aggressive user of Senate procedure to get his way, forcing votes on budget-cutting amendments on spending bills; briefly shuttering the Patriot Act; and even forcing his a brief government shutdown in 2018. And he often draws significant blowback from his party for his tactics.

    But this time around, Paul is acting as his own version of a team player. He’s not going to offer a motion to immediately dismiss the trial despite pressure from Trump’s allies to do so. He’s even talking about party unity — even though he’s usually the most likely Republican to deviate from McConnell’s line.

    “Sometimes it’s good to have people unified. ... I’m for immediate dismissal, but I know it’s not just four [senators]. There might be 10 that are against immediate dismissal. It’ll just be a vote that fails,” Paul said. “When it’s something that we’re trying to stay together and there is the other team trying to attack our leader, I think it behooves us to have as much unanimity as we can.”

    Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) are arguing that Republicans are in danger of giving Minority Leader Chuck Schumer the witnesses he wants by even considering a debate over new testimony. And that has Paul in the good graces of senior Republicans who have spent years dealing with his parliamentary antics.

    “He’s just showing he’s not going to go quietly. If there’s some witnesses allowed, he wants to make sure there’s some reciprocity,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is close to McConnell. “His point is that it shouldn’t be just a one-way street. He’s got a good point.”

    It’s easy to see how the witness debate could get out of control for vulnerable senators in both parties. In addition to Paul’s plans, Democrats would also be sure to offer difficult votes for Republicans facing reelection like Collins, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Martha McSally of Arizona. And Democrats have a pair of incumbent senators up for reelection in November in states Trump won in 2016, as well: Doug Jones of Alabama and Gary Peters of Michigan.

    “I don’t know if somebody proposes Rudy Giuliani as one of the reciprocal witnesses, how many votes that will get,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin said.

    By threatening to create the circus-like atmosphere the GOP is trying to avoid, Paul could in fact shut down the witness debate and help Senate Republicans protect their majority. Just three Republicans are strongly considering voting to hear witnesses, one short of the simple majority needed. Senators like Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) are undecided and want to wait until they hear the opening arguments, meaning the whip count is unsettled.

    And senior Republicans believe the specter of a chaotic witness debate could stifle the thirst for hearing new evidence.

    “I certainly don’t think it’s to anybody’s advantage to have this constant offering of motions and back and forth that goes on indefinitely in terms of who may or may not be called,” Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said.

    But if there are 51 votes for witnesses and the trial is extended, Paul’s tactics will become a huge problem for vulnerable GOP incumbents. His motions will put them between swing voters and Trump’s base, a poor position to be in during an election year.

    Paul said he doesn’t want to let it get to that point. But if it does, he’s ready to go. And he thinks Trump will be, too.

    If “some Republicans help Democrats get witnesses and there are no witnesses for the president, I think the end result is a revolutionary tide against those people,” Paul said. “I can’t imagine that [Trump] will let it go by if someone votes to bring in witnesses that his administration isn’t interested in.”
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...achment-099407



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Brilliant strategy.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  4. #3
    This raises a big question.

    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
    What exactly was this “try all Impeachments” supposed to entail at the time it was written? Trials have prosecution and defense. They have witnesses. What are the limits and constraints? How long can a trial go on? What happens in a normal trial? What role does the judge (Chief Justice) play in making the rules?

    Now all of those questions are probably moot, as we are talking about the Senate, and they believe themselves to be unconstrained by anything. Precedent shows that they make rules, change rules, over-rule the Chief Justice, or accept rules from the Chief Justice.

    Should be quite a ride.

    Rand is logically correct. If Schumer gets to call new witnesses, then all bets are off, and the defense has every right to call witnesses. As a matter of fact, the defense should always have that right, as they must react and respond to the prosecution.
    Last edited by Brian4Liberty; 01-15-2020 at 11:35 PM.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  5. #4
    Good. I Stand with Rand.

  6. #5
    Honestly I don't care. We now know that according to the GAO that Trump broke the law, but I didn't get the impression that's what the Democrats were going for. At no point did I hear anybody talking about the specific regulation.

    But it seems ludicrous not to allow defense witnesses.

    Thank you, Warlord, for the article that isn't Gateway pundit.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Honestly I don't care. We now know that according to the GAO that Trump broke the law, but I didn't get the impression that's what the Democrats were going for. At no point did I hear anybody talking about the specific regulation.

    But it seems ludicrous not to allow defense witnesses.

    Thank you, Warlord, for the article that isn't Gateway pundit.
    The GAO is lying.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #7
    by all means, have a long, drawn out trial that is in tandem with the caucuses and primaries that stretch from now until early summer.
    lets have the senators vote on donald john trump's innocence or guilt by june, but not earlier. lets give folks at the RNC time to have
    multiple ballots so that a "dark horse" can emerge from that convention, to unify today's GOP, if our current president is found guilty.

  9. #8
    in 1868 there were those who had hoped the impeachment trial could be over and done with, in just a few weeks. it took longer.
    after being put on trial, Andrew Johnson campaigned for the Democratic nomination and lost. he returns to the senate in 1875...



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Honestly I don't care. We now know that according to the GAO that Trump broke the law, but I didn't get the impression that's what the Democrats were going for. At no point did I hear anybody talking about the specific regulation.
    The GAO? Well that is certainly an unbiased source, oh wait, nevermind:

    Certainly not coincidentally, the GAO issued a report in time to toss it into the impeachment debate, claiming that the president’s several week holdup of aid to Ukraine violated the Impoundment Control Act. As we argue below, it did not violate that Act. The GAO report was a partisan ploy and if the report’s findings were factual, it would violate the Constitution by circumscribing the authority of the chief executive.

    ...the GAO is not nonpartisan, it is “a creature of Congress…” “whose bureaucrats are represented by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers whose PAC in 2016 gave 100% of it donations to Democrats... its opinion was rendered at the request of Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.)...
    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...sy_theory.html

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by RPtotheWH View Post
    The GAO? Well that is certainly an unbiased source, oh wait, nevermind:



    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...sy_theory.html
    Maybe you don't follow them very closely, but that theory doesn't hold up. In fact, they decreed that Obama was guilty of the same thing. I'm sort of a financial geek - I actually subscribe to their releases, and I've never seen any hint of partisanship in them. They tell us over and over how we're getting screwed no matter who is in charge.

    Clarice Feldman, on the other hand, is a neocon "Israel First!" hypocritical partisan hack.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Aratus View Post
    by all means, have a long, drawn out trial that is in tandem with the caucuses and primaries that stretch from now until early summer.
    lets have the senators vote on donald john trump's innocence or guilt by june, but not earlier. lets give folks at the RNC time to have
    multiple ballots so that a "dark horse" can emerge from that convention, to unify today's GOP, if our current president is found guilty.
    I hate to break it to you, but if Trump was actually removed, which will never happen, then he will win the next election by an extra 5-10 point margin. I've also heard that he may be able to get an extra term thanks to the criminal Democrats illegally sabotaging his first term.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Maybe you don't follow them very closely, but that theory doesn't hold up. In fact, they decreed that Obama was guilty of the same thing. I'm sort of a financial geek - I actually subscribe to their releases, and I've never seen any hint of partisanship in them. They tell us over and over how we're getting screwed no matter who is in charge.

    Clarice Feldman, on the other hand, is a neocon "Israel First!" hypocritical partisan hack.
    So you think they aren't partisan, but they give all of their money to Democrats.

    That makes sense.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    So you think they aren't partisan, but they give all of their money to Democrats.

    That makes sense.
    Logic has never been a strong point around here. Of course it makes sense, but you've got Trump Delusional Syndrome so bad the cognitive dissonance won't ever allow you to see it.

    ASFAIK, all government workers are represented by unions. That does not mean their members are all Democrats, nor does it mean their decisions are partisan. Not that you'll see that, of course.

    David Walker, a name we used to cite with regularity, is a former head of the GAO.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post

    David Walker, a name we used to cite with regularity, is a former head of the GAO.
    Interestingly enough, it was Walker's attempts to drive some fiscal conservative policies into the day to day administrative policies that got the employees to form the union. They didn't want their benefits cut, I guess.

    Labor-management relations became fractious at the end of Walker's nine-plus year tenure as Comptroller general. On September 19, 2007, GAO analysts voted by a margin of two to one (897–445), in a 75% turnout, to establish the first union in GAO's 86-year history. At the same time, despite controversy over GAO's internal reclassification effort, GAO employees rated the agency as the second best place to work in the federal government.
    Seriously, this declaration means absolutely nothing. They said the same thing 8 times about Obama - it's toothless. An opinion. Seeing how hard it triggers the TDS on the right is beyond me.

    But then again, at this point I'm over Trump. He's just another guy who increased spending, made government bigger and didn't end any wars. He's a master of persuasion though, I'll give him that.

  17. #15
    Nadler: Hunter Biden Must Not Be Called

    I have been writing on the obvious relevance of Hunter Biden as a defense witness and the equally obvious hypocrisy of some Democrats in demanding their own witnesses while refusing to consider key White House witnesses. Now. House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., has suggested that, if a trade is needed to secure House witnesses, the managers will not agree to any witnesses if Hunter Biden is part of the deal. If true, is the House prepared to give up on proving its case to protect the Bidens from the ignoble moment of answering questions about the Ukraine contract? That is a considerable price to pay to protect Joe Biden. It is also another reason why the decision to rush the impeachment vote was such a historic blunder by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If they had waited a couple months as I called for in my testimony, they could have called these witnesses and not handed over control to the Senate. Instead, they impeached by Christmas and then waited a month.

    Nadler insisted on Face the Nation that all “relevant witnesses must be heard” — meaning their witnesses. Yet, if allowing witnesses meant Hunter Biden being called, he suggested that they would reject any deal — and any witnesses. He dismissed any negotiation as a cover up: “Any Republican senator who says there should be no witnesses, or even that witnesses should be negotiated, is part of the cover-up.”

    As I previously noted, under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, courts will often review possible testimony under the standard of whether “it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Even before the adoption of the Bill of Rights, Congress enacted a statute reaffirming the right of the “defense to make any proof that he can produce by lawful witnesses” in cases of treason and capitol cases. This right to present a defense has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court including in the 1967 opinion in Washington v. Texas, where the Court ruled that “the right to offer the testimony of witnesses and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present the defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts . . . Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense.”
    Of course, if Biden is called, the House managers would be allowed to cross examine as well as argue their claim of a cover up.

    Nadler suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts should make the decision on relevance. He may want to be careful on such an option. Roberts might rule that Biden is a relevant defense witness or, alternatively, he could reaffirm that this is a matter properly left to the Senate on who should be called.

    https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/2...not-be-called/
    .
    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer

    Ⅎ˥ƎSWIH ˥˥I⋊ ⊥,NᗡIᗡ N
    IƎ⊥SԀƎ

    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-16-2017, 03:25 PM
  2. Terrible: Officer Beats Man in Wheelchair, threatens witness
    By BSU kid in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 04-25-2014, 12:19 AM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-23-2013, 04:41 PM
  4. Ron Paul and fellow Republicans failing history
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum Media Spin
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-30-2011, 11:54 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-12-2011, 05:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •