“Collins and Every One of Her Republican Colleagues Voted Against Seeing Official Documents… And They Voted Against Hearing from Relevant Witnesses”
In a Sunday column, Portland Press Herald Editorial Editor Greg Kesich held Senator Susan Collins accountable for blocking every subpoena for additional evidence and witness testimony, writing she “voted for a cover-up.”
A week ago, the Press Herald editorialized that Senator Collins should “demand to see all the evidence” before the vulnerable incumbent went on to oppose every single subpoena for key documents and to hear from witnesses with direct knowledge of the president’s actions. Despite the fact that she opposed action to gather this information, Senator Collins incredulously said she had “not really” seen anything that has “stuck out to her” in the House Managers’ presentation.
Her record now is a stark departure from her position 20 years ago when she said: “I need more evidence. I need witnesses and further evidence to guide me to the right destination, to get to the truth.”
Portland Press Herald: The View From Here: Sen. Collins Puts Pettifogging Back in Style
January 26, 2020
- Instead of demanding to see every last shred of evidence of the president’s conduct before she voted on whether he is guilty of manipulating America’s foreign policy and national security interests to cheat in an election, she chose to get lost in the weeds.
- Collins and every one of her Republican colleagues voted against seeing official documents from the State Department and Office of Management and Budget that the White House refused to turn over to House investigators. And they voted against hearing from relevant witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton, who has said he would respond to a Senate subpoena.
- As judges tell jurors, what the lawyers say is not evidence. Only witness testimony and introduced exhibits can be considered in their verdict.
- Collins says the upside down process she voted for – trial now, evidence later, maybe – is consistent with the process used in the Clinton impeachment… If Trump’s case had been subject to a grand jury process where all the relevant witnesses including the president himself had testified, she might have a point.
- But, since the circumstances in this case are entirely different, she does not.
- Nadler was right. They voted for a cover-up.
- Collins was given the chance to demand to see all the evidence and instead voted to stick with the outward appearance of the last impeachment trial.
Read the full column here.
The DSCC launched WhatChangedSusan.com to highlight Senator Collins’ alignment with Mitch McConnell and refusal to set the same standards for a fair impeachment process that she did in 1999. WhatChangedSusan.com will be updated regularly as the impeachment process unfolds.