Warm Southern Breeze

"… there is no such thing as nothing."

Trump Impeachment Trial v2.0 – Day 2… or, Senator Mike Lee Gets Pissed

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, February 11, 2021

Suddenly, a Juror becomes a Witness!

Senator from Utah, Mike Lee suddenly stood up and said…

“Statements were attributed to me moments ago by the House Impeachment Managers. Statements relating to the content of conversations between a phone call involving President Trump and Senator Tuberville were not made by me. They’re not accurate, and they’re contrary to fact. I move pursuant to Rule 16 that they be stricken from the record.”

There is NO court of jurisdiction EVER which has allowed a juror to become a witness also.

Lead Impeachment Manager Representative Jamie Raskin, Maryland-8, Democrat

In the trial’s final hour of arguments on Day 2, Wednesday, February 11, 2021, Representative David Cicilline, an Impeachment Manager, and Democrat of Rhode Island-1, spoke of then-President Trump who, during the very midst of the insurrection and breach of the Capitol building, had mistakenly called Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah, in an effort to reach newly-elected first-time politician Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, a former football coach for Auburn University. In describing the call, which was detailed in numerous news reports, Representative Cicilline asserted that Senator Lee had stood by as Trump asked Senator Tuberville to make additional objections to the certification of President Biden’s electoral votes.

In an interview with Deseret News on January 7, 2021, Senator Mike Lee described a phone call made to him by then-President Trump, which reported that,

“With a mob of election protesters laying siege to the U.S. Capitol, Sen. Mike Lee had just ended a prayer with some of his colleagues in the Senate chamber when his cellphone rang.

Caller ID showed the call originated from the White House. Lee thought it might be national security adviser Robert O’Brien, with whom he’d been playing phone tag on an unrelated issue. It wasn’t O’Brien. It was President Donald Trump.

“How’s it going, Tommy?” the president asked.

Taken a little aback, Lee said this isn’t Tommy.

“Well, who is this? Trump asked. “It’s Mike Lee,” the senator replied. “Oh, hi Mike. I called Tommy.”

Lee told the Deseret News he realized Trump was trying to call Sen. Tommy Tuberville, the newly elected Republican from Alabama and former Auburn University football coach. Lee walked his phone over to Tuberville who was talking to some colleagues.

“Hey, Tommy, I hate to interrupt but the president wants to speak with you,” Lee said.

Tuberville and Trump talked for about five to 10 minutes, Lee said, adding that he stood nearby because he didn’t want to lose his cellphone in the commotion. The two were still talking when panicked police ordered the Capitol to be evacuated because people had breached security.

As police were getting anxious for senators to leave, Lee walked over to retrieve his phone.

“I don’t want to interrupt your call with the president, but we’re being evacuated and I need my phone,” he said.

Tuberville said, “OK, Mr. President. I gotta go.”

Lee said when he later asked Tuberville about the conversation, he got the impression that Trump didn’t know about the chaos going on in the Senate chamber.

Impeachment Manager David Ciciline, a Democrat representing Rhode Island-1 said,

“Senator Lee described it. He had just ended a prayer with his colleagues here in the Senate chamber, and the phone rang. It was Donald Trump. Senator Lee explains that the phone call goes something like this. ‘Hey, Tommy,’ Trump asks. Sen. Lee says, ‘This isn’t Tommy.’ He hands the phone to Senator Tuberville.

“Senator Lee then confirmed that he stood by as Senator Tuberville and President Trump spoke on the phone. And on that call, Donald Trump reportedly asked Senator Tuberville to make additional objections to the certification process.”

Senator Lee NEVER objected to the news report which he himself had told to Deseret News on January 7, 2021.  Nor did he note that any corrections should be made to it, and there is no errata or corrections cited on the story.

As Impeachment Manager Representative Ciciline was speaking, Senator Lee became apparently agitated and wrote in large letters upon a sheet of paper from a legal pad at his desk “This is not what happened.” and then handed the paper to David Schoen, one of Trump’s lawyers.

As Lead Impeachment Manager Representative Jamie Raskin, a Democrat representing Maryland’s 8th Congressional District, was at the speaker’s podium and was attempting to close the day’s session, Senator Lee then stood up, and addressed Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the Senate Pro Tem leader who was presiding over the proceedings, and took exception, saying “Statements were attributed to me moments ago by the House Impeachment Managers. Statements relating to the content of conversations between a phone call involving President Trump and Senator Tuberville were not made by me, they’re not accurate, and they’re contrary to fact.”

Senator Leahy then consulted with the Senate Parliamentarian, who referenced a rule specific to this impeachment trial that allows House Managers to include elements in their oral arguments that were not in their original pretrial submissions.

Senator Lee then became visibly angry, demanded an appeal, and said “My point was to strike them because they were false.”

Thereupon, several clusters of intense discussions on the floor emerged, and Senator Lee could be overheard insisting that he did not make the statements attribute to him. Representative Jamie Raskin, a Democrat of Maryland who is the Lead Impeachment Manager, agreed to allow the words to be stricken from the record, even though they were accurately quoted.

But he reserved the ability to bring the issue up again and litigate it later in the trial.

Republican Utah Senator Mike Lee, Trump Impeachment Trial 2, Day 2

“We’re going to withdraw it this evening and without any prejudice to the ability to resubmit it, if possible,” Mr. Raskin said. “We can debate it if we need it. But it’s not — this is much ado about nothing, because it’s not critical in any way to our case.”

As Mr. Raskin spoke, Mr. Lee could be heard across the Senate chamber making a retort: “You’re not the one being cited as a witness, sir.”

The full exchange may be found in the Congressional Record – February 10, 2021 – Issue: Vol. 167, No. 25 — Daily Edition 117th Congress (2021 – 2022) – 1st Session; TRIAL OF DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 25 (Senate – February 10, 2021) – on pages S643 and S644, and is reproduced here:

Mr. Manager RASKIN. Mr. President, the managers are prepared to recess for the evening and to finish our opening statement tomorrow.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is——

Mr. LEE. Pursuant to impeachment rule XVI, I make a motion. Statements were attributed to me moments ago by he House impeachment managers, statements relating to the content of conversations between—a phone call involving President Trump and Senator TUBERVILLE—were not made by me, they are not accurate, and they are contrary to fact. I move, pursuant to rule XVI, that they be stricken from the record.

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR. Second.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pursuant to S. Res. 47, section 4, parties’ presentations are not limited to the record provided for in section 1 of that resolution.

Mr. LEE. I appeal the ruling of the Chair. Mr. PAUL. I second. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, we might as well hear clearly what the ruling of the Chair was, so if you would repeat that, sir.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Of course, I will. And pursuant to S. Res. 47, section 4, the party’s presentations are not limited to the record provided for in section 1 of that resolution. The Senator from Utah has appealed that ruling; is that correct?

Mr. LEE. Yes, I have.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is there a sufficient second?

Mr. WICKER. What is the question? Is it, Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? Is that the question?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.

Mr. LEE. What may I ask is the ruling of the Chair? My point is not whether it is appropriate to make characterizations; my point was to strike them because they were false.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, whether the interpretation that S. Res. 47, section 4 applies is correct; that the party’s presentations are not limited to the record provided in section 1 of that resolution.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, that is not my motion. You have ruled on a motion—you ruled on something that was not what I moved. What I asked was, statements were attributed to me, repeatedly, as to which I have personal knowledge because I am the source. They are not true. I never made those statements. I ask that they be stricken. This has nothing to do with whether or not they are based on depositions, which they are not. It is simply based on the fact that I am the witness. I am the only witness. Those statements are not true, and I ask that you strike them.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas and nays were asked for. The yeas and nays are requested.

Mr. MANCHIN. Please let him explain, Mr. President. Why was it false? What was false about it?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is not in order—under S. Res. 47, section 4, the party’s presentation is not limited to the record provided for in section 1 of the resolution, and that has been appealed. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. SCHUMER. Point of clarification. What is the question? Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum while we work this out.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-out objection. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. LEE. I ask that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we need order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order.

Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the appeal—the request that I made. I withdraw the request for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-out objection.

Mr. SCHUMER. I withdraw the quorum call and call on the manager, Mr. RASKIN, for a brief statement.

Mr. Manager RASKIN. Thank you, Mr. SCHUMER. The impeachment manager, Mr. CICILLINE, correctly and accurately quoted a newspaper account, which the distinguished Senator has taken objection to, so we are happy to withdraw it.

Mr. LEE. Because it is not true.

Mr. Manager RASKIN. On the grounds it is not true, and we are——

Mr. LEE. CASTRO repeated it too.

Mr. Manager RASKIN. We are going to withdraw it this evening without any prejudice for the ability to resubmit it, if possible. This is much ado about nothing because it is not critical in our case.

Mr. LEE. You are not the one being cited as a witness, sir.

Mr. SCHUMER. So the managers’ issue stands. Mr. LEE has withdrawn his request, and we may relitigate it tomorrow if we have to.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

 
%d bloggers like this: