That really “divisive” question that Elizabeth Warren asked of Chief Justice John Roberts during this sham trial of Trump was responsible for Lisa Murkowski’s vote to not hear witnesses. Really. This is the BS that CNN is pushing.
To recap what Warren asked of his Supremeness:
“At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?” Roberts read from the card handed to him by the clerk.
Roberts didn’t care for the question, but I think to myself, “Tough shit.” The SCOTUS has become very partisan since Republicans gained a majority on it. See those decisions of Bush v Gore and Citizens United as proof of the partisan tilt of the SCOTUS.
But coward Lisa Murkowski went to a CNN reporter and was in high dudgeon about Warren’s question.
Washington (CNN)In announcing that she would vote against the Senate calling witnesses, Sen. Lisa Murkowski suggested that her decision was made in part to spare Chief Justice John Roberts from having to face a 50-50 tie, allowing him to avoid a legal and political storm.
“It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the chief justice,” the Alaska Republican said Friday afternoon.Her statement appeared to be a direct response to Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democratic presidential candidate who had essentially forced Roberts to speculate about his credibility on national television.
How dare you Elizabeth Warren!
But it gets worse. Murkowski is now saying, “Warren made me vote for no witnesses!”
Now it seems Warren's question was part of the reason Murkowski came to a “no” vote.Murkowski said, “We have already degraded this institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another.”“I will not stand for nor support that effort,” she said.
This is an extension of Murkowski’s earlier lame explanation of her cowardly vote for no witnesses.
“I worked for a fair, honest, and transparent process, modeled after the Clinton trial, to provide ample time for both sides to present their cases, ask thoughtful questions, and determine whether we need more.“The House chose to send articles of impeachment that are rushed and flawed. I carefully considered the need for additional witnesses and documents, to cure the shortcomings of its process, but ultimately decided that I will vote against considering motions to subpoena.“Given the partisan nature of this impeachment from the very beginning and throughout, I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don't believe the continuation of this process will change anything. It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed.
“It has also become clear some of my colleagues intend to further politicize this process, and drag the Supreme Court into the fray, while attacking the Chief Justice. I will not stand for nor support that effort. We have already degraded this institution for partisan political benefit, and I will not enable those who wish to pull down another.“We are sadly at a low point of division in this country.”
And it is all Elizabeth Warren’s fault!
Just when you think that the usual Republican assholes pop up and say the worst thing possible — Moscow Mitch, Rand Paul, Susan Collins, …etc. — there is ALWAYS another Republican willing to go out and one up the other assholes.
The Politicus is a collaborative political community that facilitates content creation directly on the site. Our goal is to make the political conversation accessible to everyone.Any donations we receive will go into writer outreach. That could be advertising on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit or person-to-person outreach on College campuses. Please help if you can: