The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Former Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill warned on Wednesday that Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado is risking his seat by complying with the GOP plan to limit President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.

With the initial stages of the trial coming to a close, senators will soon face a choice of whether to bring witnesses into the trial or to move toward a final vote on Trump’s removal. Democrats have been urging for lawmakers to bring in witnesses, including, most prominently, former National Security Adviser John Bolton to fill out the factual record, a plan most Americans approve of. Most Republicans, however, are eager to get the trial over with and fear that bringing forward more witnesses might only make their goal of acquitting Trump harder.

So attention has turned to the key Republican senators believed to be most likely to split with the president’s interest, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitt Romney of Utah. And on Wednesday, a key Republican from a swing state — Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado — announced that he is opposed to bringing forward more witnesses, including Bolton.

“I do not believe we need to hear from an 18th witness,” Gardner said in a statement to Colorado Politics. “I have approached every aspect of this grave constitutional duty with the respect and attention required by law, and have reached this decision after carefully weighing the House managers and defense arguments and closely reviewing the evidence from the House, which included well over 100 hours of testimony from 17 witnesses.”

The Wall Street Journal had previously reported that at a meeting of Republican senators Tuesday night, Gardner expressed concern that a “longer trial would lead to more Democratic attacks.”

McCaskill, in response to Gardner’s comments, indicated that she thought his choice would backfire.

“Wow wow oh wow,” she said in a tweet. “He’s in big trouble.”

She added: “For everyone who does ‘Most Vulnerable [Incumbent] Senators’ lists…. this should rocket him to the top.”

Gardner has long been on the shortlist of Republican senators that Democrats hope to replace in 2020. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the state by almost five points.

And Gardner’s standing in his state looks particularly weak. Morning Consult polls show he’s three points underwater, with 37 percent approval and 40 percent disapproval. This isn’t terrible — it means a substantial portion of the state has no opinion of him either way. But Trump himself is toxic in the state — 39 percent approve of the president, while 57 percent disapprove. That suggests anything Gardner does that pull him closer to Trump will likely hurt him in the general election.

But he also knows he can’t vote to remove the president without completely undercutting his own support from Republican voters, as well as perhaps the national party. So he appears to be trying to make his eventual vote to acquit Trump as painless as possible, and that means getting the trial over quickly.

If McCaskill is right, though, his purpose could backfire. Trying to stop witnesses from testifying will likely be seen as aiding in Trump’s cover-up, and that could push Colorado voters even further away.

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Supreme Court of the United States

YouTube Screenshot

A new analysis is explaining the disturbing circumstances surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how the U.S. Supreme Court has morphed into an entity actively working toward authoritarianism.

In a new op-ed published by The Guardian, Jill Filipovic —author of the book, The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness—offered an assessment of the message being sent with the Supreme Court's rollback of the 1973 landmark ruling.

Keep reading... Show less

Billionaires

YouTube Screenshot

After a year of reporting on the tax machinations of the ultrawealthy, ProPublica spotlights the top tax-avoidance techniques that provide massive benefits to billionaires.

Last June, drawing on the largest trove of confidential American tax data that’s ever been obtained, ProPublica launched a series of stories documenting the key ways the ultrawealthy avoid taxes, strategies that are largely unavailable to most taxpayers. To mark the first anniversary of the launch, we decided to assemble a quick summary of the techniques — all of which can generate tax savings on a massive scale — revealed in the series.

1. The Ultra Wealth Effect

Our first story unraveled how billionaires like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos were able to amass some of the largest fortunes in history while paying remarkably little tax relative to their immense wealth. They did it in part by avoiding selling off their vast holdings of stock. The U.S. system taxes income. Selling stock generates income, so they avoid income as the system defines it. Meanwhile, billionaires can tap into their wealth by borrowing against it. And borrowing isn’t taxable. (Buffett said he followed the law and preferred that his wealth go to charity; the others didn’t comment beyond a “?” from Musk.)

Keep reading... Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}