Mediaboss Marketing

Republicans will seek to craft rules governing a potential impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on their own if they cant reach an agreement on guidelines with Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday.

The Kentucky Republican has already declared that the GOP-controlled Senate would follow through with a trial should the House impeach Trump. He has also suggested that the Senate would not cut short such a trial, allowing evidence against Trump to be presented.

What remains far less clear, however, is how such a trial would be conducted which witnesses, if any, will be called to testify, which senators will be allowed to speak and for how long, and how much power Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who would preside over the proceedings, will wield.

There is no answer at this point to such questions, McConnell told reporters at his weekly press conference at the Capitol.

Should he fail to reach an agreement with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) at the outset of a trial, McConnell said he would probably come back to my own members and say, OK, can 51 of my own members agree how were going to handle this. If that fails, McConnell described a hypothetical jump ball scenario in which the Senate would vote on witnesses on a case-by-case basis.

During the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, the Republican-controlled Senate reached a bipartisan agreement governing some of the proceedings. It failed, however, to reach a deal on witness testimony. That decision was put to the entire Senate in a series of votes. In one of those votes, the upper chamber voted 70-30 not to call Monica Lewinsky as a live witness because many feared the salacious details involved in the case would tarnish the Senate.

In advance of a Trump impeachment trial, some Republican lawmakers and other allies of the president have expressed a desire to see former Vice President Joe Biden and perhaps his son Hunter Biden testify. They argue that the two would be key witnesses in the case, given that Democrats pushing for impeachment argue that Trump abused his power by allegedly withholding congressionally approved aid to Ukraine in exchange for that countrys leaders announcing an investigation into the Bidens Ukrainian business dealings.

Other possible witnesses floated by some Republicans include the U.S. intelligence community whistleblower whose concerns that Trump pushed for such a quid pro quo in phone call with Ukraines president kicked the impeachment push into high gear. Another of the potential witnesses wanted by the Trump allies is House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who chaired the impeachment hearings in the lower chamber and helped author his panels report citing overwhelming evidence of misconduct by Trump in the Ukraine matter.

If the White House chooses to call witnesses in its defense, and obvious potential witnesses include Hunter Biden or the whistleblower, I believe the Senate should allow the White House to present its witnesses, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said Tuesday.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said Schiff would be one of my favorites on a list of possible impeachment witnesses.

But McConnell acknowledged Tuesday that its possible Republicans would encounter difficulty in getting the 51 votes needed to call some of those witnesses. Joe Biden, for example, is a former senator with decades of relationships with several of the chambers members. He also happens to be running for president in 2020. Insisting he or his son testify could sow further discord in the upper chamber and alienate a small group of moderates and frequent Trump critics who have expressed distaste with his conduct regarding Ukraine.

I dont think that is likely appropriate, but I want to see all of the evidence before making any decisions in that way, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told a reporter last week when asked if either Biden should testify in an impeachment trial.

Republicans have a slim hold on the upper chamber, 53-47, meaning theyd need nearly all their members to sign off on either a rules package or individual witness testimony.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said the trial cant just be a dog and pony show, adding that its got to be serious proceedings. When asked if he wants Hunter Biden to testify, however, Manchin declined to rule out supporting such a motion, saying, Anything that is relevant to this trial should be heard.

Schumer said Tuesday he had not yet begun discussions with McConnell about an impeachment trial. But he added that he hoped the Senate could avoid a partisan proceeding, which appears on track to take place sometime next month.

The best way to do something as important and almost a hallowed procedure as this is in a bipartisan fashion, Schumer said.

CORRECTION: During Clintons impeachment trial, the Senate was controlled by the Republicans not the Democrats, as a previous version of the story mistakenly said.

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.

Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.

The rest is here:
Republicans To Go It Alone In Impeachment Trial If Senate Can't Agree On Rules - HuffPost

Despite the constant posturing by its elected officials, Connecticut has no "crisis" in transportation infrastructure. The transportation problem has nothing to do with transportation. The transportation problem -- state government's problem generally -- is only that state government's personnel costs can't be controlled, since government long ago lost the necessary courage.

This was demonstrated last week when the leader of the Republican minority in the state House of Representatives, Themis Klarides of Derby, proposed removing personnel costs from state government's Special Transportation Fund. Reporting Klarides' idea, the Waterbury Republican-American's Paul Hughes noted that nearly 30 percent of the $1.7 billion allocated to the transportation fund by the state budget this year is spent not on infrastructure but on the ordinary operating costs of the transportation and motor vehicle departments and the boating division of the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection -- salaries, benefits, and pensions.

This has been going on for a long time. While the Special Transportation Fund was established in 1984 to cover infrastructure costs, within three years state government was incurring budget deficits and began spending the fund on transportation personnel as well. Neglecting infrastructure was a lot easier than controlling personnel costs, since the employees involved were members of the unions that controlled and still control the state's majority party.

Because Republicans and a few conservative Democrats commanded a majority on the budget last year, an attempt was made to bolster the transportation fund. Last year's budget placed in the fund the revenue from sales taxes on motor vehicles. But this year an enlarged Democratic majority in the General Assembly and a new Democratic governor diverted the motor vehicle sales tax revenue from the transportation fund back to the General Fund, thereby creating the "crisis" its perpetrators now decry.

But Klarides and other Republican legislators deserve little credit for acknowledging this budget shell game. For just shifting money from the General Fund to the transportation fund, as the Republicans propose, is useless, since it fails to explain how the General Fund revenue is to be replaced or done without. That is, the Republicans do not specify what non-transportation spending must be cut and priorities changed to protect the transportation fund.

Cut spending? Change priorities? Nobody can do that, neither Democrats nor Republicans, since Republicans are just as scared of the unions and other special interests as the Democrats are. The Republicans won't even seek audits of the most expensive state government policies -- education, welfare, urban, government employee labor -- no matter how obvious the failure of those policies becomes.

The Republicans have lost the last three elections for governor -- not by much, but three elections they should have won -- and haven't won a majority in the state Senate in 23 years and in the state House in 33 years. They got close in the 2016 legislative election but last year were smashed back to their normal irrelevant numbers.

Republicans have not elected anyone to Congress from Connecticut in 13 years, though not long ago half the delegation was Republican.

So Republicans have nothing to lose by telling the horrible truth about state government's desperate circumstances and its subservience to special interests. For by itself it will mean nothing even if the Republicans win an election on account of disgust with the Democrats. Connecticut can be saved only by reversing its direction.

-----

Chris Powell is a columnist for the Journal Inquirer.

Continued here:
Connecticut Republicans have nothing to lose but the state itself - Journal Inquirer

Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz is being prevented from offering powerful testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on behalf of President Trump because establishment Republicans are too fearful about his past work for Jeffrey Epstein to let him speak, Rep. Matt Gaetz said.

"I suggested we call Dershowitz. I think Dershowitz should have been on our list," the Florida Republican said during an appearance Monday on the pro-Trump podcast War Room: Impeachment, which is hosted by Steve Bannon

"There were some establishment Republicans who were, like, Oh no, we can't have Dershowitz because of these Epstein allegations." Gaetz said. Dershowitz helped arrange a 2008 plea deal for the convicted sex offender, who died in jail earlier this year after being arrested on separate charges.

Gaetz protested what he described as Democrat-leaning academics using scholarly voices, which Dershowitz could have contested, to give legitimacy to the hearings, which begin Wednesday.

"They are going to bring what I can only perceive as pious, condescending, law professor, 'act of omission'-types to talk down to the Congress and really talk down to the MAGA movement. You bring Dershowitz right in there and make Democrats look at a civil libertarian-style Democrat, and I think Dershowitz would have carved them up," Gaetz said. "But, because they are worried about the [Epstein] allegations, there was consternation about calling him.

I think that was a mistake, he said. I don't think there is anyone we could put in that chair better than Alan Dershowitz. There's a decent chance Dershowitz would have been the professor of some of the Democrat witnesses."

In a letter over the weekend to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York, ranking member Doug Collins of Georgia called for the panel to expand its list of witnesses and add more Republicans.

"To ensure fairness and restore integrity to the ongoing impeachment process, I request an expanded panel and a balanced composition of academic witnesses to opine on the subject matter at issue during the hearing," wrote Collins.

"The Committee will hear from only four academic witnesses during its consideration of the question of impeachment. This is less than a quarter of those called to testify during the Clinton impeachment," he said.

The four witnesses, all constitutional law scholars identified for the first time Monday, will appear Wednesday. Critics note an imbalance that privileges the Democrats.

Last week, a Republican aide reportedly said Nadler had not responded to four recent letters from Republicans with questions about the impeachment proceedings.

See the article here:
'Dershowitz would have carved them up': Matt Gaetz says fearful Republicans blew it by not letting Harvard professor testify - Washington Examiner

In the next phase of the impeachment inquiry, the House Judiciary Committee will hear from legal experts Wednesday on the nature of impeachment. Patrick Semansky/AP hide caption

In the next phase of the impeachment inquiry, the House Judiciary Committee will hear from legal experts Wednesday on the nature of impeachment.

Wednesday could bring the beginning of the end to House Democrats' efforts to impeach President Trump.

The House Intelligence Committee completed what it called the fact-finding portion of the impeachment inquiry on Tuesday with the release of a report about the Ukraine affair and the subsequent vote to adopt it.

Now the curtain opens on a new act, one in which House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and his members must decide on how to proceed based on what their colleagues have uncovered.

The hearing is scheduled to convene at 10 a.m. ET Watch it live here.

Nadler, his compatriots and their leader, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have said that impeachment isn't a foregone conclusion and that it depends on the outcome of their process.

Nadler has convened a hearing on Wednesday with a panel of four law professors because, he says, the members of the Judiciary Committee need to get a sense about the historic and legal context of impeachment and whether it may be merited in this case.

"This new phase of the inquiry will look different," said one staffer working on the impeachment inquiry. "With the transmittal of the report to the Judiciary Committee, this hearing will examine the constitutional framework put in place to address presidential misconduct."

To be sure, however, Democrats also are likely to restate, for TV audiences, the findings of the report unveiled on Tuesday by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. This case is as serious as it gets, Democratic staffers said ahead of Nadler's hearing.

"The president abused his power to advance his personal, political interests over our own national security interests," as another staffer said.

Republicans step up their defenses

The Judiciary Committee's ranking member, Doug Collins, R-Ga., and Trump's other Republican defenders have mocked and faulted Democrats' process thus far, calling it unfair and also groundless.

The Intelligence Committee's Republicans, led by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., released a minority report on Monday defending Trump in the Ukraine matter and accusing Democrats of simple political animus.

The White House, meanwhile, said on Tuesday that Schiff was no better than a "basement blogger" trying to find facts to fit his theories.

The administration isn't sending an attorney to take part and Trump's campaign said on Tuesday that Nadler's witnesses are "just left-wing liberals who have been talking about impeachment since President Trump took office."

"With witnesses like these, the Democrats' impeachment hearing will be nothing more than political theater," Trump's campaign said. "It's all part of their transparent attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and stop President Trump in 2020."

Collins also already has complained about how headlong and reckless he says Nadler has been moving ahead of Wednesday's session. Collins and Republicans are likely to use it to continue to try to undercut the process and mock what they've called Democrats' patchwork case.

In a fiery press conference Tuesday evening, House Republican leaders slammed Schiff and mocked him for not testifying.

The indictment

House rules give Nadler and the Judiciary Committee the responsibility for assessing what, if any, articles of impeachment to draft against Trump.

Democrats could then use their majority on the panel to advance them to the floor of the full House, where, if a sufficient number of Democrats lent their support, Trump could become just the third sitting president in history to be impeached.

That is the equivalent of an indictment by a grand jury a statement by the House that it considers there to be enough evidence for Trump to stand trial in the Senate.

Republicans, led by Trump ally Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., control the upper chamber and are expected to acquit the president, permitting him to retain his office.

Nadler and Democrats can see what's ahead for this process the same as anyone. But impeachment is worth doing, they've argued, because it sends a message about what Congress will not tolerate and it forces senators to go on the record defending Trump's actions in the Ukraine affair.

Democrats' dilemma

Impeachment is a quasi-legal but mostly political process. Pelosi, Nadler and their compatriots are balancing this as they decide what kind of case to make against Trump

Should it be narrowly constructed around the facts of the House Ukraine investigation? Or should it be a broader case that reflects more about what Democrats argue has been improper behavior by Trump?

Given that House Democrats likely cannot remove Trump, the question they must ask themselves is what will do him the most political damage and themselves the least damage, mindful about the election next year.

Pelosi and Nadler may have answered these questions already for themselves, but the public aspect of that process, at least, is what is scheduled to get underway on Wednesday.

The hearing also will mark Nadler's return to the spotlight after months in center stage for Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee. But Nadler was an early convert on impeachment and insisted earlier this year that his committee was pursuing an impeachment case even before the imprimatur given by the vote of most other Democrats in November.

In that earlier phase, Nadler sought to exploit some of the findings of former Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller, including those that Democrats have said amount to obstruction of justice by Trump.

The chairman's interest in that thread, which also has involved litigation by the House against Trump and the Justice Department involving evidence from Mueller and other matters, may mean the question isn't settled as to whether Nadler might favor a broad indictment of Trump that takes elements from the Russia investigation or focuses closely on Schiff's report.

NPR congressional reporter Claudia Grisales contributed to this report.

Read the original here:
Judiciary Hearing To Open Final Act Of Democrats' Trump Impeachment Saga - NPR

The 2020 Democratic field is going back to school sort of.

Teachers unions, students, parents and civil rights groups are expected to grill Democratic hopefuls on public education issues at MSNBC's "Public Education Forum 2020: Equity and Justice for All" on Dec. 14 in Pittsburgh, it was announced Tuesday.

The candidates who are expected to attend include: Former Vice President Joe Biden; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana; billionaire businessman Tom Steyer; and Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The network said that presidential candidates who either previously qualified for the October debate or currently hold statewide office were invited to attend.

Many of the 2020 candidates have released ambitious proposals to reshape the American education system from free public college to erasing student debt to addressing segregation in schools but have squabbled over the best way to implement their proposals.

MSNBC will moderate and exclusively livestream the forum. Ali Velshi, host of "MSNBC Live," and Rehema Ellis, an NBC News education correspondent, will serve as the forum's moderators. Topics will include early childhood education, school investment, student debt and disparities in public education, among other issues.

The event will be streamed live on NBC News Now, MSNBC.com and NBC News Learn, and will be featured across MSNBC programming.

Dartunorro Clark is a political reporter for NBC News.

Read the rest here:
MSNBC to host December forum on education issues with 2020 Democrats - NBC News