Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, speaks to members of the media after a vote to advance Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, on Capitol Hill, Friday, Oct. 4, 2018. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
As we reported earlier, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) made remarks criticizing House Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). She said that she was disturbed about McConnell saying he would coordinate with the White House over the Senate trial.
“And in fairness, when I heard that I was disturbed,” Murkowski said before describing that there should be distance between the White House and the Senate in how the trial is conducted. “To me it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense, and so I heard what leader McConnell had said, I happened to think that that has further confused the process.” [….]
She says the Senate is now being asked to cure deficiencies in the evidence that will be presented at the trial, particularly when it comes to whether key witnesses should be brought forward to testify including White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton.
“How we will deal with witnesses remains to be seen,” Murkowski said before describing that the House should have gone to the courts if witnesses refused to appear before Congress.
Now, we know that media never, ever roots for a side.
Especially not CNN, as CNN’s Chris Cillizza has told us.
Let me say for the billionth time: Reporters don't root for a side. Period. https://t.co/dhH8eherOR
— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) October 16, 2016
Except, as we see daily, they do.
But here’s one step further, a CNN legal analyst actually saying “great” to her criticism of McConnell and appearing to lobby Murkowski with the Democratic talking point on the issue, about having “key witnesses” testify.
Great @lisamurkowski. Now: will you support having key witnesses testify, or do you favor an evidence-free trial?
— Elie Honig (@eliehonig) December 25, 2019
Sure looks like he’s rooting for a side to me. Who decides who are key witnesses? Because Democrats demand they testify? Where was Honig calling for Democrats to support Republicans’ call to have their witnesses heard in the House? Or for the release of depositions like the ICIG’s deposition? Or the inclusion of exculpatory evidence? I think I must have missed when he did that.
But here’s the thing. He may not have realized exactly what he was saying when he said it, but he does seem to have gotten one thing right about what we have right now – an “evidence-free” case.
But now that the House report/charges are defective, with Democrats having rushed to get it done without compelling the witnesses or waiting for the decisions in court cases, without sufficient evidence to support their case, they want the Senate to ameliorate their errors?
All the Senate has to do is work off the House report and they can dismiss on that, since it is deficient on its face.