Looks Like We Might Get A Real Senate Impeachment Trial, Y'all!
Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with the Democratic caucus this morning, and announced there will be a vote tomorrow (Wednesday) on appointing impeachment managers for a trial in the Senate, and to officially transmit the articles of the impeachment all the way down the hall, around the corner, then down another hallway and up some stairs, if the articles need to stop along the way and pee that's fine, there's a bathroom right there, and then eventually into Mitch McConnell's turtle shell, setting the stage for an impeachment trial to begin next week after the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.
And let us tell you, if the news coming out of the newsreels is to be believed, Pelosi's delay may have done exactly what she and we wanted it to do, because Mitch McConnell may not really have the opportunity to conduct the sham exoneration Trump trial of his little wet dreams.
Emphasis on the may not, because we are dealing with Mitch McConnell here.
First of all, know how McConnell has been supporting resolutions to dismiss the articles outright, either by going nuclear and changing the Senate rules before they get the articles, or by just introducing a resolution once they receive them that says "CASE DISMISSED"? Sadly, it appears he does not have the votes for that.
Talking Points Memo quotes Roy Blunt, a Trump lover if there ever was one:
"I think our members generally are not interested in a motion to dismiss. They think both sides need to be heard. They believe the President needs to be heard for the first time in a fair setting," Blunt said.
And also Rob Portman:
"My position has been consistent and clear, which is I think we ought to have the opportunity to hear from both sides, and senators ought to have the opportunity to have their questions answered, and then we'll see where we are," he said.
There's also this quote from John Cornyn, who knows what them clever wise-ass Democrats are really up to right now, can't fool John Cornyn!
.@JohnCornyn On why a motion to dismiss perilous for GOP: “This is about Schumer getting 2020 republican incumbent… https://t.co/oxXDG5xnH7— Leigh Ann Caldwell (@Leigh Ann Caldwell) 1578953030.0
TPM reported a few minutes ago that "at least five" GOP senators have signaled that they are not into dismissing the charges, so probably no motion to dismiss, or at least not a successful one. (There was one in the Clinton impeachment trial, which failed. McConnell and other Republicans say they want to follow the Clinton impeachment rules, so SHRUG.)
But what about a trial without any witnesses, which by definition would really not be a trial? Can they just skip that part? Sadly, it looks like Mitch McConnell may not have the votes for that either, sad trombone.
CBS News is reporting that the White House is fully expecting enough Republican senators to vote with the Democrats in favor of witnesses -- real witnesses, not ADAM SCHIFF SHOULD TESTIFY ABOUT HIS ROMANTIC THREESOME RELATIONSHIP WITH HUNTER BIDEN AND THE WHISTLEBLOWER witnesses. (Of course, we might could still end up with a couple absolute bullshit witnesses, for "fairness to president" purposes. We don't think that would play as well in a public trial as well as Trump and some Republicans think it would, so LOL bring it.)
They're expecting not only the most vulnerable Republicans up for re-election in the fall, but also maybe probably also some others:
Senior White House officials tell CBS News they increasingly believe that at least four Republicans, and likely more, will vote to call witnesses. In addition to Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah and possibly Cory Gardner of Colorado, the White House also views Rand Paul of Kentucky as a "wild card" and Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee as an "institutionalist" who might vote to call witnesses, as one official put it.
Lamar Alexander told CNN, "Yes I am," when asked if he was cool with the idea of having witnesses, under certain conditions. IN fact, he wants a guarantee that there will at least be a vote on calling witnesses. So there's that. Susan Collins told her local Maine news that she's working with GOP senators to allow for witnesses, saying the GOP "should be completely open to calling witnesses."
So just doing some quick math here, but Collins plus Murkowski plus Romney plus Alexander plus Gardner plus maybe a couple others equals we might just have a real Senate trial, y'all!
CBS News reports that the White House is worried enough about this that, if necessary, it's going to try to invoke bullshit executive privilege claims to keep John Bolton's mustache in the closed position. But they seem to be getting resigned to the idea that yeah, there will probably be witnesses, if this "Fox & Friends" quote from White House comms idiot
Toboggan Giblets Brody Snifflets Hogan Gidley is any indication:
WH now claims it's open to witnesses: If you'd been falsely accused of a crime, "you want ever witness to come forw… https://t.co/lkRCwkzE1f— TPM Livewire (@TPM Livewire) 1579018588.0
"The President is not afraid of a fight and if you or anyone within the sound of our voices had been falsely accused of a crime, with no proof, and no evidence, for more than three years, you'd want every witness to come forward too and say, 'this man did nothing wrong.'"
Well yeah you'd want that. But considering how every impeachment witness totally incriminated Donald Trump and all this evidence keeps coming out that just makes Trump more guilty, we don't think that's in the cards. But sure, little buddy.
Let the shitshow begin!
UPDATE: Oh, WOMP WOMP.
GRAHAM says there will be a guaranteed vote on witness testimony and that a motion to dismiss would be a “waste of… https://t.co/0d912KgjTt— Kyle Cheney (@Kyle Cheney) 1579029446.0
Well there you go.
Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT HERE, DO IT RIGHT HERE!
Wonkette is fully funded by readers like YOU. If you love Wonkette, SUPPORT WONKETTE FINANCIALLY.