Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)’s announcement that he will not support additional witnesses or document subpoenas in the impeachment trial, almost guarantees that no witnesses will be called.
There was really no doubt about this. And their excuse to acquit, all of them, even Collins, will be a variation on, “if a Republican does it, it is not a crime.” This party needs to be crushed, incinerated, and the earth salted in order for the nation to have a future.
Peak stupid, peak corruption and peak dis-assembling of the Constitution. THis was not even remotely a trial - it was a full pardon.
“Witnessless trial”? There is no trial. Republicans are voting to destroy the impeachment power. Democrats need to be saying something–anything–in unison about the constitutional crisis we’re in. The Republican president now has carte blanche to continue with his scheme to undermine the 2020 election to benefit the Republican party. We no longer have a democracy, we no longer have fair and open elections. Democrats need to say it–and to act accordingly. No more legislation. No more judicial appointments. Call for a national strike–whatever it takes.
#Alexander’s ‘No’ Almost Guarantees Wit-less Senate Trial
FIFY
So nothing can be done in an election year, except cheat. Supreme Court justices can’t be approved. Presidents can’t be impeached. Let the people decide, except for the people we have kicked off the rolls and made ineligible. Please hurry, Canada and approve my permanent residency. I can’t take it any more. Good bye and good luck, America I was so proud of.
“Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)’s announcement that he will not support additional witnesses or document subpoenas in the impeachment trial…”
I have witnessed more courage at a screening of “The Ghost and Mr. Chicken”.
Oh if there were a SCOTUS vacancy THIS year, one would be approved. Guaranteed. Because reasons.
Defeating them in the voting booth is the only solution. And it is going to be a long grind. Best case scenario come November is a House Majority and slim Senate Majority with GOPs in full obstructionist mode. Mitch McConnell has turned the US Senate into a quadriplegic.
Just another Republican Whore for Trump.
One more Republican Pussy grabbed. So many, so gutless. All deserving to be on the ash heap of history.
Witnessless = Witlessness
A post of mine from another thread:
[I am of two minds.
This acquittal will enrage and frighten the American People like they have never been since 1941.
It will, unfortunately, permit an unhinged, vengeful bully with severe mental problems with a blank check for mayhem.
The one person who will have to be controlled in the run-up to November is William Barr.
Up to now, I have seen very little written anywhere with regard to how to control HIM]
We are in great enough danger that disinterested kids (who are not embittered or resentful and/or fueled by tribalism) just may get to be as concerned as most of us are here.
I will emphasize here that William Barr must be brought under control.
I should probably do the right thing for me and my loved ones and dial back my intake of anything political. No news which means I’ll not return to TPM until mid November
Nothing, nada…Nyet!
Just work as hard as I’m able and give as much as I can afford to get this group out of office.
Top to bottom
So it goes
The South has risen again.
The House should sue. While the Senate has the sole power to conduct an impeachment trial, does it have the power to functionally deny one? Longshot…just a thought and probably an unsuccessful one legally BUT it keeps that message front and center.
Moscow Mitch has a woodie does he 
There’s precedent in impeachments for the presiding chief justice for casting tie-breaking votes and for declining to break ties.
Without such a tiebreaker, the motion to open the door to witnesses will fail.
The truth is that it would be very right and proper for the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court to cast the vote that compels the other two branches to at least go through the motions of a fair trial. He is the chief officer of the highest court. Who better to insist that, yes, justice requires due process, and due process requires witnesses and evidence? Who better to compel the chiefs of the other two branches to respect the traditions that links their enterprises to the common welfare?
Watch out Elaine…