Image 01 Image 03

Murkowski Wants to Know Why the House Didn’t Use Courts to Get Testimony, But Demands Senate Do It

Murkowski Wants to Know Why the House Didn’t Use Courts to Get Testimony, But Demands Senate Do It

Murkowski wants to know why House Democrats allowed themselves to rush through impeachment but demand the Senate take their sweet time.

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, one of the moderate GOP senators, lashed out at the House Democrats before heading in for day three of the impeachment trial.

A reporter asked Murkowski if she worries President Donald Trump’s executive privilege on testimonies or evidence would linger in the courts.

Murkowski immediately blasted the House Democrats for not doing their job.

The House Democrats rushed the articles of impeachment through the chamber in December. They admitted they did not want to wait for the courts to decide on additional witnesses because it could have taken too long.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I hope this is a rhetorical question on her part. Surely she’s not so dense as to believe this is a legitimate process.

    healthguyfsu in reply to PaddyORyan. | January 24, 2020 at 4:08 pm

    She’s doing two things:

    1. Giving herself an out to vote against the articles despite being in a battleground state.

    2. Getting herself headlines that show her as a strong member of the legislative branch rather than a middle ground puppet.

    Both are politically savvy moves for a career politician. However, I’ve agreed with most of her moves so far and I’d rather have a squish seat like hers vote the right way most of the time than a democrat voting the wrong way most of the time.

one of the moderate GOP senators
“Moderate” should really be in scare quotes there. She’s the epitome of a RINO.
According to GovTrack, Murkowski is the second most liberal Republican Senator and as of 2017 is placed by GovTrack’s analysis to the left of all Republicans, except Susan Collins, and to the left of Democratic Senator Joe Manchin.

Nice to see her showing some solidarity with Mitch, though. We’ll see if it goes so far as to ensure her vote on the impeachment.

“Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, one of the moderate GOP senators…” It’s not good to make older people with bladder control issues laugh that much… She’s a RINO and there is nothing in her behavior or her voting record that could even remotely be considered “moderate.”

Murkowski is up to her Kavanaugh tricks again. Trump one West Virginia by 70%. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin will have a hard time not cancelling out Murkowski’s perfidy.

There is nothing moderate about this bint.

She IS a Democrat in all but name.

She’s rino garbage, where she is because of nepotism, and no other reason.

Alaska: wake up!

    Dusty Pitts in reply to | January 24, 2020 at 10:54 am

    Alaska’s Republicans denied her the nomination once, but then they let her get around it. They even suspended the “exact spelling” rule they always used to apply to write-in candidacies.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Dusty Pitts. | January 24, 2020 at 1:00 pm

      That and the establishment GOP refused to support the actual primary winner on any level and instead supported this RINO Hag. To the point that the NRSC publically changed their focus from getting duly selected (primary winners) republican candidates elected to getting sitting republican candidates re-elected regardless of the will of the GOP voters.

A smoke screen to cover her while she waits to watch how the tea leaves settle out; before that she won’t know which way to jump. Feeble idiot.

When I read the headline I thought it said she dinged the House Socialist-Democrats for not taking the issue of Executive Privilege through the courts, but that she wanted the Senate Republicans to do so.

Thankfully, that isn’t what was intended by the wording of the headline. Hang in there with Mitch, Ms. Murkowski.

It is a good question. Why is she the first to raise it? Why not any of the other 50 some senators?

When Murkowski is the voice of reason, you have a problem.

Game over!

Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then. This is a shrewd move on Murkowski’s part. When the House and Senate Dems demand that McConnell and Senate Repubs do the work the House Dems refused to do they are admitting the second article of impeachment is a complete fraud. According to Schiff and Nadler, Trump is such a threat to the 2020 election that forcing the House to litigate or even think about litigating to compel the Trump admin to produce the witnesses and documents they demanded constituted “obstruction of Congress.”

But now that this blatant political assassination has reached the Senate the House and Senate Dems are saying the GOP has to take the time to do what the House Dems could have done but didn’t. So they could use the “time is of the essence” lie to manufacture an impeachment clause out of thin air.

Murkowski isn’t dense. She is pointing out the second article of impeachment is a fraud based on a lie (as is the first but that fraud is based on different lies).

In fact Murkowsli’s argument is so clever it should be enough to summarily dismiss the second article.

If the Senate has to do what the Dems are now demanding then the House could and should have done it since it was the proper chamber and in fact was expressly their job.

I wouldn’t trust her. This is probably just chin-music to placate Alaskan constituents, but when the rubber meets the road, as a keeper of the “John McCain memorial back-stabbing shiv”, she will thrust it into Trump’s back with mirth.

    CountMontyC in reply to CDR D. | January 23, 2020 at 6:00 pm

    I agree it’s about her reelection but it’s the excuse she will use to explain why she couldn’t vote for conviction. She knows if she votes for conviction her political career is over.

Murkowski is slow and careful. To me, this reaction indicates that her justice bone has been offended by the Democrats.

It’s a valid question. However, even a broken watch it right at least twice a day.

Murkowski has won election to the US Senate three time – and each time by a plurality. IOW she has never received a majority in the general election.

I wonder if she is starting to hear footsteps and is trying to head off yet another cliffhanger election that she might lose.

As soon as we pick up a couple more Republicans in the Senate, she will lose the only power she has. And the one she pushes every day:
” The Deciding Vote “

As a onetime Alaskan, I will never forgive this piece of… work’s father for appointing this piece of… work to that seat.

Every time I see her picture I wonder why the undertaker didn’t put enough dirt on her casket.

It’s false to think the democrats only reason not to subpoena witness’s and take it to court is what they say – that they needed speed.

The “house” never voted to conduct an investigation and the constitution does not say the speaker can do this on their own. They would have lost in court and they know it.

Matthew Carberry | January 24, 2020 at 1:04 pm

Barry, you are correct, however, actual, semi-arcane legal arguments will typically confuse fence sitters, and make them think you are trying to “get one over on them.” Fortunately in this case, are not even necessary, and when trying to convince the undecided (who if they really cared would be better informed already), the simplest sufficient argument is the one to use.

Murkowski’s (and every other person with any intellectual integrity) point is that even assuming arguendo the House had the power to issue and litigate valid subpoenas under the process they chose, they _still_ chose not to do so. Even under their own rules they still managed to destroy their argument of “emergency” and “threat to the Republic.” No need to get into the legal weeds with the mostly uncaring middle, just point out the most obvious and easily understood hypocrisy and contradiction in the Democrats claims.