Alexander decides against impeachment witnesses

U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Maryville) attends an event at the state Capitol in Nashville on Dec. 17, 2018. (Erik Schelzig, Tennessee Journal)

U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Maryville) says he doesn’t need to hear from witnesses in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial:

I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense. …The Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday. …Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.” – Senator Lamar Alexander

Here is the full release from Alexander’s office:

Washington, D.C., January 30, 2020 — United States Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today released the following statement on his vote regarding additional evidence in the impeachment proceedings:

“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.

“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

“The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘mountain’ of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.

“The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.

“Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”   

37 Responses to Alexander decides against impeachment witnesses

  • Eddie White says:

    Time to get this partisan circus over. Hopefully the senate will end this waste of taxpayer dollars on Friday.

  • Bob Fischer says:

    Thinking the Democrats are anywhere near as incompetent as the Republicans is a mighty slippery iceberg to start an argument from, I think.

  • WhitesCreek says:

    I guess the $400 million Trump used in his extortion scheme trying to force Ukraine to commit his dirty tricks doesn’t rise to a high crime or misdemeanor? If any of us tried that we would be in jail. Letting a sitting President get away with these horrible actions makes me fear for democracy in my country.

  • Phil Lassiter says:

    ALEXANDER watching out for the benefits and future of his spawn in TN

  • James Calloway says:

    Good. It’s time for this farce to end.

  • LeeAnn C. says:

    What a concept! Let the people decide. So incredible that some are blinded from recognizing the theatrical sham performed by Schiff, etc. Trump hatred seems to have clouded any objectivity of those supporting the Democrats. Hopefully, Senator Rand Paul lit a fire to oust the bureaucratic coup!

  • MARLE says:

    Having voters “decide”? Unlike citizens on a jury who decide based on the evidence they hear, Voters decide based on factors having nothing to do with the question at the heart of the impeachment trial.

    If you want conservative judges appointed, if you want the stock market to rise (through debt and Fed manipulation), if you want a Wall on the border, or you want to Reject Socialism, then you vote for Trump and having nothing to do with the impeachment allegations.

    A vote for Trump in 2020 is Not a vote that this President did “nothing wrong” or made a Perfect phone call. It won’t even be a vote for acquittal.

    • LeeAnn C. says:

      A vote for Trump in 2020 is a vote for Trump to be President for 4 more years. Like it or not, the Senate handles business of acquittal from the so-called impeachment articles concocted by Nancy Pelosi’s purely partisan hacks. The voters may also elect a Republican majority in the house to stop this nonsense and take care of the people’s business.

      • MARLE says:

        Yes……when citizens vote it is a vote for Trump to be president again. Isn’t that the exact point I made.

        During this whole circus of an impeachment I kept hearing that we really didn’t Need an impeachment process at all b/c in a matter of months the “people will decide”.

        But a vote for Trump does noting to determine if he lied, if he did anything wrong, or IF that wrong rises to an level deserving of impeachment. It will simply be a vote for President.

  • Eddie White says:

    I am not voting for Trump to be my pastor, I am voting for him to be my president. There are parts of personality that I don’t particularly admire, but I admire his backbone. He has done exactly what he said he would do, and with no apologies. He is no politician, and I think I like it…he gets things done.

    • MARLE says:

      Actually he Said
      1) he would stop the Obama desire to hold interest rates LOW
      2) Hillary should be investigated
      3) he would give a Massive Middle Class tax cut
      4) he would pay for Corporate Tax cuts with LOOPHOLE closure
      5) a Wall would be built and MEXICO, not military budget would pay for it
      6) GDP of 3% would be EASY, but it would actually be more in the 4-5% level.

      NONE of that has happened. And all of it matters IF you care about immigration, debt, tax fairness, and last, but not least, HONESTY

      • Silence Dogood says:

        Seriously, MARLE? The President has been fighting a 3 year running battle with Deep State holdovers from the Obama/Bush days, an absolutely insane TDS Congress, 1,000 out of 1,002 media outlets with non-stop 24/7 negative reporting, and the German-Chinese-French-Russian-Iranian nations. And you have that list of things he has not accomplished. No kidding…. Tennessee did not help him much by sending Corker and Alexander to the Senate, did we? Two cowardly RINO’s. Well, let’s give him 4 more years and lets hold his feet to the fire to finish off your list.

  • James White says:

    There is NO Constitutional Authority to give any foreign government our money. Root of this issue.
    We should End ALL Foreign Aid to EVERY Country.

    • Beatrice Shaw says:

      Amen!! Free healthcare and education Free up our money to support businesses for good paying jobs. Minimum living wage $40,000 a year!! Do all this

      • James White says:

        No Beatrice, Health Care and Education are not in the Constitution either. (Free up LOTS of money).
        Actually, if we would follow the Constitution we could reduce the size and cost of government by 90%. THAT is money in YOUR pocket.

      • MARLE says:

        Beatrice…..Free healthcare?

        Are the doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, clinics, etc working for free? If not then someone is paying for the “free healthcare”.

        Both the shiftless and the responsible would be pay ZERO for services

        BUT the responsible will pick up ALL of the bill through their Income, Cap Gain , Net Investment Tax, Alternative Minimum Taxes not to mention paying means-tested Healthcare premiums.

    • MARLE says:

      Is there anything to prohibit foreign aid? You know we give this aid as a way to influence/coerce other countries. It’s not a generosity, money-for-nothing sort of thing.

      That is why we fear China so much. Someday, unless we crush them economically, they will use their wealth to work their will around the globe with money offerings.

      • Donna Locke says:

        Our foreign aid, which has gone to a few corrupt pockets in many of these countries, has done a lot to perpetuate the situations we claim to be trying to improve.

        • MARLE says:

          We are not trying to improve anything with foreign aid. It is an inducement for something we want in exchange ie military bases (you know we have more on foreign soil than all other countries combined x some multiple) or CIA operations, or dictating to them who they can buy products or services from (and it’s usually from our own conglomerates in aerospace and defense or technology). Ever heard of the military-industrial complex. Ditto that for foreign aid.

          • Donna Locke says:

            I think we’re trying to improve some things, but mainly, foreign aid is an exchange for some kind of behavior we want or don’t want.

        • MARLE says:

          But you are right in saying “we claim”. We intentionally put foreign aid into the pockets of whomever can assure us that we will achieve our goals. And improving conditions of the little people is down the list of goals.

          • James White says:

            Study on this: Bring ALL of Our Troops home from Every Country and End ALL Foreign Aid to Every Country.

          • MARLE says:

            And then how will we call the shots everywhere on earth. You really don’t get what motivates ambitious and egotistical people, do you?

          • James White says:

            Marle, I know that there were/are people that sat in a cold garret and wrote down what they wanted to do (rule the world).
            I can read the constitution and see that it does not give us the authority to tell which country can do This or That. We can not tell which country that You can have nuclear weapon and which country You can Not have nuclear weapons.
            We can stay out of their affairs and strengthen our country.
            But as long as you and Stuart and the like vote for More War, More Debt, Less Freedom, nothing will change.
            That is why we should not give money to anyone.

          • James White says:

            “And then how will we call the shots everywhere on earth.” Not in the Constitution.

          • MARLE says:

            Give it up, James. Most of all of what’s going on isn’t spelled out in the Constitution. It is extrapolated. When Trump tells us we are the most powerful nation on earth and the adoring crowd goes wild~ that is why we have foreign aid and military spread around the world. You can only be the most powerful by subduing or buying. The subduing is done with the threat implied by military might and the buying is done with foreign aid.

          • MARLE says:

            I didn’t vote for Candidates who said they would give me more debt or wars. Did you listen to Candidate Trump? He said nothing of the kind; trouble is that he was a liar. But as for Stuart he likes Trump’s approach to everything and actively supports the TN Congressional folks who do likewise.

      • James White says:

        Yes, the Constitution prohibits anything that is not specified in the Articles (or amendments). IT leaves to the State or the People, NOT the federal government. Think about it, either the Founding Father’s gave us Limited Government or UNLIMITED government. Which do you think?

  • Pingback: Friday, January 31

  • Bill says:

    How disappointing from a former President of a University!  But of course that was a political appointment.  Lamar never went through the normal application and screening process to become President of the University of Tennessee.

    I seriously doubt that Lamar will be remembered in history as the person to save our nation from “cultural wars.” I can’t believe he used such a flimsy excuse for playing party politics.
    Lamar will be remembered as a the senator who, during his last term of service lacked the moral courage to do what was right and vote to hear relevant witnesses during Trump’s impeachment.
    Concerning “culture wars” Lamar should realize they have been going on for years and that one of the main “generals” in the war is Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s lawyers.
    You saved the US from nothing Mr. Alexander. Just how far behind are you in your thinking — from now on try to keep up!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *