Category Archives: Republican

SaturdayJan25,2020at3:01AM

Ive become weary of Republicans complaining that impeaching the president is a device to overcome the will of the people who elected Donald Trump.

Of course it is! That is the definition of impeachment! You cant impeach someone who hasnt first been elected!

No Republicans complained that they were overturning the will of the people who had elected Bill Clinton. The delegates at the Republican convention were reduced to chanting Lock her up! in reference to Hillary Clinton. Impeachment would have to wait, I presume. (And no, I wont make an issue of the fact that the president was elected with a minority of the popular vote.)

And heres another thought: President Trump and his acolytes have complained that the House of Representatives impeachment hearings were one-sided because their people werent heard. They never mention that the president and members of his administration repeatedly were offered the opportunity to testify and declined.

It reminds me of the classic definition of the familiar Jewish word chutzpah: A man murders his mother and father and then pleads for mercy because hes an orphan.

Still, I agree with my late father, who liked to repeat during hard times: The republic will survive.

Larry Fox, Brewster

Excerpt from:

Republicans are schooling us in the definition of 'chutzpah' - Cape Cod Times

Ive been a Republican since I was 18-years-old. I hardly recognize the party todayat least, the party in Washington, D.C. But even in the distressed state its in, I would rather fix the Republican party than leave it.

The Republican party I joined on the eve of the Reagan era brought different people and ideas together. That was the secret of its widespread support. But although it was diverse, it was not unprincipled. When Republicans remember the good old days, we remember the values we share.

What do we share? First, Republicans are conservatives. We value order, stability, prudence, honesty, and the preservation of our republic. We have always put a premium on respect for established institutions: they can be improved, but they should not be denigrated or assaulted.

What else are we? We are patriots. We love the Constitution, revere the Madisonian system for the political work of art that it is, respect those who defend our way of life, and are watchful against those who would threaten it.

We love freedom, and our heritage of freedom. Ive always said I want the government out of your pocketbook and out of your bedroom. That basic American tradition of individual libertyand personal responsibility, because to be free you must run your own lifegoes back to Madison, Jefferson, and the Founders, who gave us not only our laws, but our greatest words.

We are capitalists. We might differ on any number of policies, but we firmly believe there is no such thing as government money, only taxpayer money. In my time as governor of Massachusetts, I was named one of the two most fiscally conservative governors in the United States by the Cato Institute. But I dont consider it just a matter of pinching pennies. Its about a genuine belief that people are wealthiest and happiest when the government stays away from micromanaging their work, and that if you produce something, its yours to keep.

And we are republicans, in the original sense: We believe, as Lincoln put it, in government of the people, by the people, and for the people, not that government is a separate entity that dominates its citizens. Theres a place for government, but fundamentally it is there to protect your rights, not to dictate what they are.

From time to time, Ive differed with the majority of my party on some issues, but not on ultimate ends. When I say we have to do something to avert catastrophic climate change, its because we should be protecting our citizens welfare, not limiting growth or socializing the economy. When I am skeptical of wars in the Middle East, its because I think theres a better way to conserve American power, not because I want to weaken our position. Bottom line: I believe in the Republican partys core principles, even if I sometimes differ in how I would apply them.

Podcast January 24 2020

On today's Friday Bulwark Megacast, host Charlie Sykes is joined by Jonathan V. Last and Jim Swift to discuss impeachmen...

The Republican party should return its focus on the 18 issues we agree on, not the 8 we disagree on.

We need to get our fiscal house in order and stop running trillion-dollar deficits that are going to destroy us.

We need to figure out how to preserve American power and influence in the world while on a budget. (I have some thoughts.)

We need pro-liberty judges who will not up-end the Bill of Rights. (I oppose many of President Trumps policies, decisions, and actions, but I think Neil Gorsuch was a good Supreme Court pick.)

We need a real, and humane, border strategy instead of a wall that is a combination of a government land grab and a slogan.

We need to go back to supporting free enterprise and entrepreneurship.

We need free trade, and trade organizations with international allies, and an end to uncertainty about trade wars.

We need a solution to healthcare that brings prices down while turning patients into customers, not supplicants to a state-operated system.

We need to protect religious freedom.

And we could go on, because theres a lot of work for us to do.

Only by rallying around our core principles again and remembering who we really are can the Republican party become a real governing party again.

Read more here:

The Values We Share (or Why I Am A Republican) - The Bulwark

Shell be joined by Cruz and Rubio, who are special targets of my disappointment because they were once special targets of Trumps ugliness. They know it firsthand and well.

They campaigned against him for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, when he didnt just criticize them but viciously belittled and even savaged them. He conspiracy-theorized a role for Cruzs father in John F. Kennedys assassination.

A pathological liar, Cruz called Trump.

But now that Trump is president and his base has become the most impassioned constituency in the party, Cruz is his biggest cheerleader and a ready mouthpiece for all of those lies. He has swapped thoughts of 2016 for thoughts of 2024, when theres another opportunity to reach for the White House and Trumps loyalists will come in handy. Hell have to muscle aside Javanka and Don Jr., but thats a pickle for another day. First step: acquittal!

Rubio has long fashioned himself a foreign-policy maven and took a hard line when it came to Russia. So you might think that the Trump presidency would be especially galling to him. You might also think that Trumps bullying of Ukraine which left the country more vulnerable to Russian aggression would be some sort of breaking point.

But hes a Republican member of Congress in 2020, which means hes a sycophantic shell of his former self. And having bitten his tongue about Trumps global misadventures, hell now abet more of the same by helping Trump stay in office.

There are so many other Republican senators to marvel at. Mitt Romney, what was the point of diving back into public life if youre going to prop up a president whose fraudulence you once gave a whole long speech about? Lamar Alexander, you venerated Howard Baker, a fellow Tennessean who once held your Senate seat and put principle above partisanship by standing up to President Nixon. Why not do the same and stand up to President Trump?

Susan Collins, I cant imagine the exhaustion of your role as political wild card, scrutinized to a fare-thee-well. But come on. If youre going to pride yourself on autonomy, you need to exercise it when it matters most.

Its not fun to be any of you right now, with McConnell above you and #MAGA hellions below you poised to make your life a misery if you stray. But no one forced you into public service. When you entered the Senate, you took an oath, and you took another one on Thursday. I have a third question, maybe just a rewording of the first and second: Doesnt that nag at you even a little?

I invite you to sign up for my free weekly email newsletter. You can follow me on Twitter (@FrankBruni).

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow this link:

Senate Republicans Are Bathed in Shame - The New York Times

WASHINGTONThe biggest news about this corrupt administration* was not made in the Senate chamber on Tuesday. It was made out on the campaign trail by Senator Professor Warren. From CNBC:

Make no mistake. If we ever are going to repair the damage done by this administration*, it is going to have to include a thorough fumigation of every corner of the national executive. The first big mistake made by President Barack Obama was his determination to look forward, and not back. Too many of the criminals working for the last worst president in history skated. Too many Wall Street vandals got away clean. That cannot be allowed to happen again. The corruption of this administration* is unprecedented. It demands this kind of unprecedented response.

And we might as well look to the future, because the present is too dismal to contemplate. In the Senate on Tuesday, the Republican Party, represented by its majority caucus, formalized its fealty to this renegade administration*. It had several chances to demonstrate a modicum of independence, a smidgen of human courage, and it failed every time. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer proposed amendments to add further documents and witnesses to the deliberations. All of them failed by a straight, party-line 53-47 margin.

Alex WongGetty Images

In this, no Republican was different from any other Republican. Lisa Murkowski and Tom Cotton were the same. Thom Tillis and Ted Cruz were the same. Cory Gardner and Jim Inhofe were the same. Mitt Romney and Ben Sasse were the same as Mike Rounds and Mike Enzi. And they were all the same as Mitch McConnell. There were no moderate Republicans in the Senate on Tuesday. There were no Never Trumpers. There were only collaborators. There was no independence in the Senate on Tuesday, only complicity. And it was a deadening, sad thing to watch. The only real reaction was another cup of soggy oatmeal from the increasingly useless Susan Collins.

First of all, I dont believe a word of that. I think that three weeks from now, or whenever, shell find a way to weasel out and, even if she doesnt, I dont think there are three other Republicans who would follow her to a free buffet, let alone to a vote that would inconvenience the White House. Every single Republican in the chamber on Tuesday looked like theyd rather be anywhere else, up to and including hanging by their thumbs from the Key Bridge.

I like to look around and see how many of my colleagues are looking guilty, said Senator Amy Klobuchar. I saw a lot of them just sitting there, looking down. The Democratic senators seem content to plug along, letting the majority keep voting down what would seem to anyone whos ever watched a police procedural on TV to be reasonable requests. All this talk about how theyre asking the Senate to do the Houses work, thats just BS, said Senator Mazie Horono. Im listening very carefully, I take notes, and then I make my comments parenthetically, like, 'What a bunch of...

House manager Hakeem Jeffries later made a fine presentation of how many witnesses testified in previous impeachments. (Andrew Johnsons trial had 40 of them.) Thats the kind of thing that will survive on the record after all the knee-jerk constitutional negligence has been toted up. Barack Obama was wrong in 2008 and Joe Biden is wrong today. The fever never will break. The patient is going to have to die.

Here is the original post:

There Were No 'Moderate Republicans' in the Senate on Tuesday. Only Collaborators. - Esquire

The sun sets over the US Capitol on the third day of the Senate impeachment trial Thursday. Samuel Corum/Getty Images hide caption

The sun sets over the US Capitol on the third day of the Senate impeachment trial Thursday.

On the second day of their opening arguments in the Senate impeachment trial, Democratic managers honed their case. They hope to persuade a narrow band of Republican senators to support the introduction of new evidence and witnesses.

And some Republicans have begun to voice concerns about the White House legal team's approach to the trial. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said he wants the team to respond directly to claims made by the Democratic side.

This episode: campaign correspondent Scott Detrow, White House correspondent Tamara Keith, and congressional editor Deirdre Walsh.

Connect:Subscribe to the NPR Politics Podcast here.Email the show at nprpolitics@npr.org.Join the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Find and support your local public radio station.

Go here to see the original:

A Few Republicans And The American Public: Democrats Target Their Impeachment Message - NPR

The College Republicans are worried partially about their Democratic peerson campus but also about other young people who call themselves Republican.

The more moderate among them saythey fear far-right students'antics will corrupt the party. Their counterparts argue the party is too stodgy to capture the attention of undecided voters. In California and Washington, the groups fractured over who should lead them.

Underlying the college conservatives fears: that the Republican Party as a whole is in trouble.

For young Republicans, embracing a conservative identity while enrolled in college is a decision to be an outsider. Many of them say theyfeel ostracized on their campus for their beliefs, whichfosters an us vs. them mentality.

Young voters in 2020: 'I think they will decide the race'

That might partially explain why they host events such as affirmative action bake sales, in which they sell treatsat different prices based on a persons race. These types of events are meant to rile collegecommunities, and they often succeed. Studentsboth broadcast their views againstaffirmative action and generate as much attention as they can.

At the University of Washingtonlast May, a group calling itself College Republicans hosted such a bake sale. The campus conservatives found themselves the subject of national headlines, and the statewide organization of College Republicans denounced what the group did. The state organization instead recognized a different group the Husky College Republicans.The original group declined to speak to USA TODAY unless memberswere offered anonymity. Memberssaid they feared for their safety.

Jack Pickett, the western vice chairman at the College Republican National Committee, was part of the College Republicans at the University of Washington and also led the statewide group.He was involved in the decision tostart over.

The chapter, he said, crossed the line a couple of times, and the bake sale was the final straw. Pickett recalled he was not happy when leaders brought Milo Yiannopoulos, a far-right speaker, to campus in 2017. Outside that event, a man protesting was shot by someone who had come to see Yiannopoulos.

Milo Yiannopoulos leads a "Straight Pride" parade in Boston on Aug. 31, 2019. Supporters of President Donald Trump and counterdemonstrators who called them homophobic extremists staged dueling rallies in Boston.(Photo: JOSEPH PREZIOSO, AFP/Getty Images)

Pickettconsiders himself a conservativebutsaidhedidnt initially support Donald Trump's campaign for president. (He now does.)He threwhis supportbehind businesswoman and politician Carly Fiorina in 2016.

He wasn't alone: Trump's 2016 candidacy produced unusual divide in College Republican clubs

His critics have seized upon what he described as a more traditional type of conservatism, calling him a Republican in Name Only. People have attacked him online for his weight and claim he doesnt deserve his position. The old group of college leaders he helped to ouststill meets.

Battling over the identity of a college group is vexing, Pickett said. It distracts from a larger, perhapsmore difficult goal: recruiting new conservatives.

It's very difficult to do that when you have a group who's misusing your nameand working almost intentionally, it often seems, to drive people away with their antics," Pickett said. "That's not something that anyone, even right-leaningstudents,want to be a part of.

The Republican National Committee doesn't appear worried about potential divisions in its youth movement. The party is running an effort to register voters called "Make Campus Great Again."

"When it comes to issues college students care about, like securing a job after graduation, the choice is clear: a booming economy under President Trump or a government takeover of every aspect of their lives under Democrat leadership," RNC spokeswomanMandi Merritt said in an email.

The split between conservative policy wonks and energized activists is one that Amy Binder, a sociologist at the University of California-San Diego, and Jeffrey Kidder, a sociologist at Northern Illinois University, have studied for years.They're writing a book on student activism.

They found individual students straddle those lines. They join the traditional College Republican groups because of the political connections they can build,but they might also join a group such asTurning Point USA. Founded by Charlie Kirk in 2012, when he was 18, the conservative group is known for its attention-grabbing tactics at colleges. It started the Professor Watchlist, a project meant to track, expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda. It hosts summits often attended by major figures in the Trump administration, including the president, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

President Donald Trump takes the stage at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit in December 2019.(Photo: Andrew Harnik, AP)

Kidder said such groups probably do a better job of appealing to students interested in more than traditional, campaigning-style politics.

Conservative and liberal students tend to organize differently, Binder said. Students on the left may feel more comfortable within the university. Many have student affairs offices directed toward minority students, such as black or LBGTQ cultural centers.Conservative students may be drawn off campus to groups such as Turning Point, which have a lot of money and resources to help them organize.

JoaquinRomero, 21, a junior studying economicsat the University of New Mexico,chairs the New Mexico Federation of College Republicans. He has long been involved in state and city politics. In New Mexico, the state with thelargest percentage of Hispanics in the country,Democrats hold all seats in Congress, the governor's office and both the state House and Senate.

Romero said his goal is to shift the college Republicangroupawayfrom the incendiary approach somehave taken. In 2017, the UNMgroup invited Yiannopoulos to campus, and police intervened to break up protests. Romero said he understands some people appreciate watching things burn, but he sees those efforts as counterproductive.

"Things like the Milo event, where you have someone on stage that says inflammatory things that are in my opinion not even conservative," he said,"it not only drives people away, but it also ignites the wrong kind of people."

The goal, Romero said, should be to recruit people who want to carry on the"conservatism of (Ronald) Reagan." That lasts longer, he argued, thanthe furor generated over provocative speakers.

Infighting among conservative students in California prompted a majority of the state'scollege Republicans to start a new organization altogether. They split off from the California College Republicans about a year ago to create the California Federation of College Republicans. That groups chairman, Matt Ronnau, also headsthe chapter at University of California-Berkeley.

Initially, Ronnau said, the divide among College Republicans was between those eager to embrace President Trump and those who wanted to embrace a more traditional model of conservatism. The split came down to differences in how to run the organization. The new group, the federation, has 30 chapters and is recognized by the College Republican National Committee. The old group, the California College Republicans, didnt return a request for comment.

Ronnau describes himself as a member of the Trumpian camp but said many of the federations members are not. Some have swung far to the right. The San Diego State College Republicans, who belong to the federation, describe themselves as unapologetically Nationalist + America first in the groups Twitter profile. They have retweeted Michelle Malkin, a controversial figure who supports far-right writer NicholasFuentesand VDARE, an anti-immigration website popular among white nationalists.

The Facebook page of the San Diego State College Republicans tries to appeal to the younger generation online.(Photo: screenshot)

OliverKrvaric, president of the San Diego State group, said a split existsbetween establishment Republicans and the next generation.

Krvaric,21, asenior studying international security and conflict resolution, said he'd rather the group focus less on helping conservative students land political jobs, a traditional role for College Republican groups, and instead work to wagethe "culture war." For instance, although he wouldn't say where he stood on issues such as same-sex marriage, he said generally men and women are better suited for different roles. Many group members oppose abortion rights and hold hard-line views on immigration.

Ronnausaid he is unconcerned that the San Diego chapter's views could be seen as reflective of the federation as a whole.

We want to let clubs operate kind of more or less the way they see fit, Ronnau said. San Diego State is much farther to the right than other clubs in our state federation, but we all coexist together.

Ronnau doesnt expect a return to the era of Republicanism that would be familiar to the Mitt Romney- or John McCain-types. He said many young people support the president, and more young people will step up to push the right-wing populist agenda.

Editorial board: Forget Donald Trump, Republicans. Save the GOP for the sake of your party's future

Kirk and his fellow Republicans used to be some of themost vocal conservative voices on college campuses. But some young Republicans view him as too moderate.

Jeremiah Childs, vice president for the College Republican group at the University of Maine, pushes an America first agenda that's unabashedly Trumpian in support of strict immigration policies. The group often posts criticism of Democratic presidential hopefulsand support for gun rights and the military.

College conservatives at the University of Maine came under fire for online posts about Columbus Day and Native Americans.(Photo: Screenshot)

He said groups such asTurning Pointspend too much time talking about economic issues rather than cultural ones, such as the anti-abortion movement.Childs said he worries about the rise of concepts such asnontraditionalgender roles and third-wave feminism.

In October, the group posted a message on Facebook in support of Columbus Day, describing some Native American tribes as corrupted by rampant ritual sacrifice and cannibalism. The post generated backlash. Childs said that the intent was not to rileand thathe didn't think Native Americans in the area cared about the controversy over Columbus Day.

An indigenous student group protested the post, according to Inside Higher Education. Atribal ambassador of the Penobscot Nation told an NBC affiliate she was in favor of stripping Columbus' name from the holiday, calling him a "war criminal."

Childssaid the outrage was the result of "left-wing activists."

The College Republicans at the University of Maine recently also came under fire for their plans to bring in Malkin.The hotel hosting the eventpulled out, but the students found a new venue, Childs said.

The group's adviser resigned afterthe students invited Malkin.DanDemeritt, spokesman for the University of Maine, said the club isn't official without one. Childs said they have candidates lined up.

Malkin supports Nicholas Fuentes, a far-right writer.Though he said he is not a white nationalist, he attended the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, a gathering of white nationalists. Counterprotester Heather Heyer was killed after James Alex Field drovea car into a crowd of anti-racist demonstrators.

Fuentes has joked the Holocaust didnt happen. His fans have coordinated attempts to hecklespeakers from Turning Point USA and another conservative group, the Young America Foundation, according to the Daily Beast.

Childs said his group does not endorse Fuentes and is not associated with him.

The Maine group posted a poll featuring Kirk of Turning Point USA, whom Childs described as a Country Club Republican, and Fuentes.

The major question, the Maine students wrote, seems to be should the Republican Party move towards 'Nationalism/America First,' or towards 'Libertarianism' with a softer approach towards social issues and immigration? In the students poll, Fuentes represented the first option, Kirk the second. Eighty-two percent of the 5,200 who voted went with Fuentes, the rest for Kirk. (These types of internet polls can be easily gamed, especially by young digital natives.)

Childs said he doesnt think conservative critics understand the circumstances of poor and rural Americans. He said they probably come from prosperous backgrounds.

Childs' sentiment reiterates what many of these youngconservativessay abouteach other: Theyjust dont get it.

Education coverage at USA TODAYis made possible in part by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Foundation. The Gates Foundation does not provide editorial input.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2020/01/17/college-republicans-crnc-trump-republican-party-gop-turning-point-usa/4476649002/

Read the original post:

Nationalist 'antics' or the future of the GOP? College Republicans are at war - USA TODAY

The politics of impeachment are rapidly shifting, and not in Donald Trumps or Republicans favor.

That is not to say that he will not be let off the hook in the Republican-controlled Senate, where most GOP senators have pledged their loyalty to Trump and to the party and not to their office or to the voters. But it is to say that the political price for such weak-kneed, noodle-spined blind loyalty is becoming steeper by the day.

House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiRepublicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment Trump chooses high-profile but controversial legal team Trump: Impeachment timing intended to hurt Sanders MOREs (D-Calif.) move to hold on to the articles of impeachment through the holidays started shifting the political tectonic plates. Counter to the commentary of the day, her effort to ensure more of a possibility that the Senate trial will include witnesses succeeded in providing time for more damning information to come into view. It also provided time for more potential witnesses to either express their willingness to testify or to publicly tell their story of a complicit Donald Trump.

Pelosi knew she was never going to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellDems plan marathon prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process Senate GOP mulls speeding up Trump impeachment trial Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment MORE (R-Ky.) to do the right thing. He always had a stronger hand, and he was always going to do as little as he needed to do. He wanted a short trial with no witnesses.

It was also clear from McConnells own words that he was not going to be an impartial juror, and that he would run the trial to the benefit of Trump, even though that violates the oath he and the other 99 senators took at the beginning of the trial.

But Pelosi knew things would start changing.

It still may be a short trial. But the possibility that there will be witnesses grows stronger by the day.

In the time that Pelosi held the articles of impeachment, we learned that there were damning emails showing the aid to Ukraine was held up only 90 minutes after Trumps conversation with President Zelensky, and that the order came from the administration.

In that time, former National Security Advisor John Bolton declared he would be willing to testify if he received a subpoena from the Senate to do so.

In that time, we learned that Trumps own Government Accounting Office declared that the administration violated U.S. federal law in withholding the money that was congressionally mandated to go to Ukraine for military and security aid. The GAO stated that the President is not vested with the power to ignore or amend any such duly enacted law, and that the faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.

In that time we learned of the vicious details of a smear and persecution campaign against U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie YovanovitchMarie YovanovitchHouse Democrats release second batch of Parnas materials Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment Pompeo to investigate charges of surveillance against Yovanovitch MORE, the specifics of which read like a Mario Puzo mafia novel, in which the intrigues, insults and surveillance all center on getting rid of a top U.S. diplomat committed to rooting out corruption in a foreign country

In that time we learned that the Ukraine government opened up an investigation of allies of Trump after reports that they were surveilling Ambassador Yovanovitch.

In that time we learned that indicted Rudy GiulianiRudy GiulianiDems plan marathon prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process House Democrats release second batch of Parnas materials Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment MORE associate Lev Parnas has firsthand knowledge of the conversations, actions and deliberations that took place in Ukraine, the quid pro quo, the squeeze Zelensky and Ukrainian officials felt from Trump on initiating an investigation against Biden in return for the aid and a White House meeting, and the smears and insidious tactics used to get rid of Yovanovitch

All of this new information has led to increased pressure on Republicans. They must ensure that the Senate trial is seen as somewhat objective and that Republican senators are not perceived as sticking their heads in the sand to avoid acknowledging additional damning evidence against Trump.

Indeed, most Americans believe the Senate trial should include witnesses. Sixty-six percent believe John BoltonJohn BoltonDems plan marathon prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment The Hill's 12:30 Report: Trump beefs up impeachment defense with Dershowitz, Starr MORE should testify, and 57 percent (including 40 percent of Republicans) believe the Senate should call more witnesses.

GOP Senators who believe in fairness and the rule of law and who do not blindly side with Trump (Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyRepublicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment Bring on the brokered convention GOP threatens to weaponize impeachment witnesses amid standoff MORE (R-Utah), Lisa MurkowskiLisa Ann MurkowskiRepublicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment GOP threatens to weaponize impeachment witnesses amid standoff Paul predicts no Republicans will vote to convict Trump MORE (R-Alaska)) and those who have tough re-election battles ahead in their swing states (Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsRepublicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment The Hill's 12:30 Report: Trump beefs up impeachment defense with Dershowitz, Starr The Hill's Morning Report President Trump on trial MORE (R-Maine), Cory GardnerCory Scott GardnerRepublicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment Koch network could target almost 200 races in 2020, official says Hickenlooper raised .8 million for Colorado Senate bid in fourth quarter of 2019 MORE (R-Colo.) and Thom TillisThomas (Thom) Roland TillisSenate GOP mulls speeding up Trump impeachment trial Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment Koch network could target almost 200 races in 2020, official says MORE (R-N.C.), have said they would be open to more witnesses and may vote to get them. Democrats need only four Republicans to side with them to force more witnesses to be called.

This does not seem like an insurmountable number, especially given the new and damning evidence that continues to accumulate against Trump that paints a rancid picture of rampant corruption, abuse of power and political expediency.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is also a wild card in this process. He has proven to be allergic to politicization of our justice system, and he wants to protect the sanctity of the courts. Since all fair trials need witnesses, it may fall to Roberts to put his finger on the scales in the interest of fairness.

It is very unlikely that Trump will be forced out of office, even if most Americans believe he should be removed.

But if McConnell and his GOP colleagues in the Senate get their way and no witnesses are called, leading to a sham trial and subsequent Trump acquittal, the GOP will pay at the polls both in the Senate and the White House.

Maria Cardona is a principal at the Dewey Square Group, a Democratic strategist and a CNN/CNN Espaol political commentator. Follow her on Twitter@MariaTCardona.

Continue reading here:

Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment | TheHill - The Hill

Somehow, even though Roe v. Wade has been in place for 46 years, and even though the majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal, and even though the data is clear that criminalizing abortion is not an effective and safe way to reduce abortions, we are still on the brink of witnessing abortion rights in America disappear.

Just last week, more than 200 mostly white male members of Congress submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court advocating for the reconsideration and repeal of Roe v. Wade.

This is because it never was, and never will be, about sound policy for them. Instead, it is about what keeps politicians in power. Abortion is simply the vehicle that gives Republican politicians what they crave control.

And right now, it is delivering.

As conservative states make increasingly brazen moves to ban abortion, the internet is flooded with heart-wrenching stories from women trying desperately to convey why abortion access is so important. Women who wanted a child but were told it would not live. Women who want to live but were told having a child would kill them.

Women who maintain what is becoming) a radical belief that they, not the government, are best suited to make decisions about their bodies. Advocates of reproductive rights work tirelessly to convey the nuance of the circumstances, the horrors of criminalization, the extremism of forced birth, all in hopes that the other side will come around.

They will not.

This is because, for the Republican party, abortion is not personal; its business. Republican politicians puff their chests and claim to be pro-life. Still, we know that not to be true because they have no interest in passing legislation to create programs that support life. The restrictive laws they do support does not improve the levels of care and safety for women.

They do not favor welfare for people out of a home, food stamps for people who are hungry, or health care for those without insurance. They scoff at subsidized prenatal care and universal free pre-school. Indeed, the states with the most restrictive abortion laws also have the highest infant mortality rates. Now and then, they even admit that anti-choice rhetoric is just business.

Republican politicians do not care about life; they care about power. To get the votes, they need to stay in control; they exploit an issue that costs them nothing abortion. Forcing women to have babies while ensuring that the state pays for no associated expenses is a win-win for them.

There are surely anti-choice voters who do care about supporting women and children, just as there are fiscal conservatives who believe in choice. Still, as long as both groups keep giving their votes to the party that wants to force women to give birth while at the same time railing on necessary social services, politicians have no incentive to change course.

Democrats need to understand that telling stories is not enough we must form and execute a political strategy to protect reproductive freedom. Unfortunately, were late to the game.

For the past decade, Republicans have been systematically taking over state legislatures, gerrymandering voting district lines to keep themselves in power, and then passing unconstitutional state laws prohibiting abortion to satisfy their base.

At the same time, they have stacked the judiciary with right-wing ideologues, including two on the Supreme Court, where the plan has always been to overturn Roe. We are witnessing the late stages of a strikingly effective Republican political strategy that has been in place for half a century.

So what can we do? We cant change the composition of the Court. We cant rely on our dysfunctional congress to pass even bipartisan legislation, let alone anything pertaining to the polarizing issue of womens rights. But we can elect progressive legislators in all 50 states to change the laws that are heading to the Supreme Court, all of which originate in the states.

The Supreme Court is poised to eliminate protections with breakneck speed, not just on abortion but on every policy issue from health care and voting rights to the environment and gun violence prevention. It is time for us to recognize what the GOP has known for a long time: state elections are the key turning the tide.

Next, we overwhelm with our voice. We must educate our communities with facts, put our stories front and center, and, most importantly, make clear that we are mobilizing to the ballot box.

If Democrats voted consistently, we would win every single election (not an exaggeration). Politicians rarely change their minds because of personal stories, but they do tend to have epiphanies when they think they are going to lose.

Finally, we fight like hell. There is no room for compromise: either we trust women, or we dont. We cannot let Republicans continue their assault on reproductive rights through policies, lawsuits, and organizations like Americans United for Life. Democrats can never resist when Republicans bait them to the middle, and then the conversation moves to the right.

Many have watched in anguish as Alabama scrambled to be the first (but not the last) state to pass a law essentially outlawing abortion, a position that was considered radically fringe just a few years ago.

Republicans dont just want to overturn Roe; they want a federal and constitutional ban prohibiting women from making decisions about their bodies. If we dont draw a bright red line, they will continue to move the goalposts.

Dont let this be our fate.

There is still time, and it starts in the states. Remember this: politicians don't care about the issues; they care about getting elected. So our job is to make sure that the way to get elected is to support reproductive freedom.

The irony, of course, is that there is nothing as personal as the decision about whether or not to have a child. But in politics, its just business, and Democrats need to get in the game.

Rita Bosworth is the founder and executive director of the Sister District Project, a women-led grassroots group that organizes volunteers to elect Democrats to state legislatures.

More here:

Abortion laws give Republican politicians what they crave control | TheHill - The Hill

These positions are so absolutist as to be a danger to the country, and Congress needs to respond forcefully.

On the spending power, there is substantial overlap among the branches: Congress has the power of the purse, and the president is responsible for running agencies and implementing programs. Rather than adhering to a strict separation of powers, in disagreements, the branches have traditionally engaged in a back-and-forth competition. As the G.A.O. points out in its decision, faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. Some amount of cooperation in addition to competition is needed to make the system work.

The real question going forward is whether Congress will act to protect its constitutional role. Reactions so far are not particularly encouraging. On Thursday, Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, dismissed the decision as a mere legalistic dispute between agencies.

The G.A.O. decision suggests a further deterioration of the separation of powers. The decision applies only to funds that were appropriated to the Defense Department and not the State Department, because the O.M.B. and the State Department have failed, as of yet, to provide the information we need to fulfill our duties under the Impoundment Control Act regarding State Department funds. In what was, for a nonpartisan agency like the G.A.O., a blistering conclusion, it states that its role is essential to ensuring respect for and allegiance to Congress constitutional power of the purse and pointedly reminds readers that all federal officials and employees take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution and its core tenets, including the congressional power of the purse. The consequence of Congress abdicating its right to information about the spending power could have the effect of eliminating Congresss very control over that power.

Finally, the Senate must take seriously its role in the impeachment trial of President Trump. On Tuesday, when impeachment presentations start, these troves of new information will almost certainly begin to be aired in the chamber as senators listen to the presentation of the House managers. The Senate must demand and obtain all documents and testimony of those with knowledge of the presidents actions who refused to obey lawful subpoenas issued by the House in the impeachment inquiry, like the administration members Mick Mulvaney, Robert Blair and Michael Duffey as well as documents and other information that is directly relevant to the decision before them.

Clearly some are feeling the heat. Asked by Manu Raju of CNN whether the Senate should consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial, Senator Martha McSally, Republican of Arizona, blithely responded: Manu, youre a liberal hack. Im not talking to you. Attacking reporters who ask fair questions wont solve their problem. Only a thorough and honest reckoning with the oaths they have taken as senators and as impeachment jurors will do that.

See the original post here:

The Real Risks of Republicans Burying Their Heads in the Sand - The New York Times

Senate Republicans are barreling toward a high-profile fight on impeachment witnesses one of the biggest wild cards of President TrumpDonald John TrumpNational Archives says it altered Trump signs, other messages in Women's March photo Dems plan marathon prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process Democratic lawmaker dismisses GOP lawsuit threat: 'Take your letter and shove it' MOREs trial.

With the House expected to send the articles across the Capitol as early as Wednesday, GOP senators are slated to pass a resolution on trial rules next Tuesday that would punt a decision on whether to call witnesses for roughly two weeks.

There are already signs of division in the Republican caucus over whether witnesses are needed and, if so, who would be on that list.

Asked if he had concerns the witness debate could get messy, Sen. John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneSenate to vote on Trump's Canada, Mexico trade deal Thursday Senate braces for Trump impeachment trial Republicans face internal brawl over impeachment witnesses MORE (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, said thats the state of play.

If that door is opened then both sides are obviously going to want to call witnesses, and then youre going to have probably individual votes on individual potential witnesses that people want to call, Thune said.

Democrats would need to peel off four GOP senators in order to call preferred witnesses such as former national security adviser John BoltonJohn BoltonDems plan marathon prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment The Hill's 12:30 Report: Trump beefs up impeachment defense with Dershowitz, Starr MORE and acting White House chief of staff Mick MulvaneyJohn (Mick) Michael MulvaneyTrump trial poses toughest test yet for Roberts Collins says she's 'likely' to support calling witnesses for impeachment trial Schumer doesn't rule out calling Parnas to testify in impeachment trial MORE.

Thune stopped short of saying there are four Republicans who would vote to subpoena witnesses, saying he didnt want to be handicapped. But he added Senate Republicans have members [that] want to hear from witnesses.

The debate, which comes as lawmakers are finalizing the rules resolution, sets the stage for the kind of divisive floor fight GOP leaders have tried to avoid.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellDems plan marathon prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process Senate GOP mulls speeding up Trump impeachment trial Republicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment MORE (R-Ky.) knocked Democrats request for witnesses beyond those who spoke with the House during its inquiry, arguing they are trying to turn the impeachment trial into a fishing expedition.

If the existing case is strong, theres no need for the judge and the jury to reopen the investigation. If the existing case is weak, House Democrats should not have impeached in the first place, McConnell said from the Senate floor.

He also sent a warning shot to Democrats, and his own caucus, when asked Tuesday during a weekly press conference about calling former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenSanders to headline Iowa event amid impeachment trial Hillicon Valley: Biden calls for revoking tech legal shield | DHS chief 'fully expects' Russia to try to interfere in 2020 | Smaller companies testify against Big Tech 'monopoly power' Hill.TV's Krystal Ball on Sanders-Warren feud: 'Don't play to the pundits, play to voters' MOREs son Hunter Biden to testify, saying: I cant imagine that only the witnesses that our Democratic colleagues would want to call would be called.

The comments come after McConnell sent a similar warning last month, during an interview with Fox News Radio, that if Democrats successfully called a witness then he expected Republicans would want to hear from Hunter Biden and the whistleblower.

You can see here that this would be a kind of mutual assured destruction episode that would go on for a long time, McConnell said, adding that his preference would be for no witnesses.

On one side, Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulGOP threatens to weaponize impeachment witnesses amid standoff Paul predicts no Republicans will vote to convict Trump Graham on impeachment trial: 'End this crap as quickly as possible' MORE (R-Ky.) and conservative Republicans are warning they will force votes on controversial witnesses like Hunter Biden and the whistleblower if some of their colleagues support Democrats request for individuals like Bolton.

I dont think we should selectively call just witnesses that dont like the president, Paul said Tuesday, while specifying that his first preference is for no witnesses.

Paul added that if his GOP colleagues backed a subpoena for Bolton or other Democratic-supported witnesses and vote against the president bringing in witnesses, its not going to really be very helpful for them with the Republican base.

Sen. Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzSenate GOP mulls speeding up Trump impeachment trial The Hill's Morning Report President Trump on trial GOP threatens to weaponize impeachment witnesses amid standoff MORE (R-Texas) added that if senators support calling a witness sought by House managers they also need to support calling Trumps preferred witnesses.

If the Senate decides to allow the prosecution to call yet more witnesses, after all the witnesses they had in the House, they now want to call more witnesses the defense needs to be able to call at a minimum an equal number of witnesses, and witnesses of their choice, Cruz told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday.

The internal Republican haggling comes after McConnell announced that he has the votes to sideline Democrats and pass the rules for the trial with only Republicans.

But Democrats believe a steady stream of new reports, and Boltons public offer to testify, are helping build pressure on Republicans to support some witnesses either live or in closed-door depositions. Boltons lawyer, in particular, has said he will have information relevant to the trial. Democrats are expected to force votes on witnesses at the beginning and middle of the trial.

The American people want a fair trial in the Senate. The American people know that a trial without witnesses and documents is not a real trial, its a sham trial, and the American people will be able to tell the difference, Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerSanders defends vote against USMCA: 'Not a single damn mention' of climate change Schumer votes against USMCA, citing climate implications Senators are politicians, not jurors they should act like it MORE (D-N.Y.) said.

A small group of Republicans, including Sen. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsRepublicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment The Hill's 12:30 Report: Trump beefs up impeachment defense with Dershowitz, Starr The Hill's Morning Report President Trump on trial MORE (Maine), is working to ensure that language that leaves the door open to either side trying to call witnesses makes its way into the Senate rules resolution.

Collins when asked about the argument that if one side successfully calls witnesses then the other should be able to as well reiterated that she wants both sides to be able to request witnesses. A majority of the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 advantage, has to vote to call a witness.

Both sides should certainly have the right to call witnesses, she said. If youre going to be fair, you cant just give that to one side.

Sen. Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyRepublicans will pay on Election Day for politicizing Trump's impeachment Bring on the brokered convention GOP threatens to weaponize impeachment witnesses amid standoff MORE (R-Utah) indicated this week that he would vote to hear from Bolton during the trial.

I support the Clinton model, which means that we will have opening arguments first. Then well have a vote on witnesses and at that stage I presume Ill be voting in favor of hearing from John Bolton, perhaps among others. That could change, Romney said.

Asked if he thought that obligated him to also support calling Hunter Biden or the whistleblower, he said he would make a decision if it comes to that.

Id presume if were going to have any witnesses, well have witnesses from both sides, he said.

Read more here:

Republicans face internal brawl over impeachment witnesses | TheHill - The Hill