Levin Blasts Collins for Yes Vote on Witnesses, Tells Murkowski Why She Shouldn’t Do the Same

By
Kambree Nelson
-

Conservative icon Mark Levin blasted Susan Collins Thursday evening for her “yes” vote on witnesses.

Senator Susan Collins issued the following statement on why she will vote for witnesses:

We have heard the cases argued and the questions answered.  In keeping with the model used for the impeachment trial of President Clinton, at this point, Senators are able to make an informed judgment about what is in dispute and what is important to the underlying issues.

I worked with colleagues to ensure the schedule for the trial included a guaranteed up-or-down vote on whether or not to call witnesses. 

I believe hearing from certain witnesses would give each side the opportunity to more fully and fairly make their case, resolve any ambiguities, and provide additional clarity. Therefore, I will vote in support of the motion to allow witnesses and documents to be subpoenaed.

If this motion passes, I believe that the most sensible way to proceed would be for the House Managers and the President’s attorneys to attempt to agree on a limited and equal number of witnesses for each side.  If they can’t agree, then the Senate could choose the number of witnesses.

Mark Levin wrote:

Susan Collins will vote with Schiff and Schumer, and against the Constitution.  She’s a joke.  Back in the good graces of the Democrat Party-media and Trump-haters.

Mark Levin Friday morning to a report that Murkowski had asked why Bolton should not testify to Senate.

Levin wrote:

Uh, because the impeachment is unconstitutional and your job is to uphold the Constitution?  That’s a good reason.

Levin had also asked Romney, Collins a Murkowski a series of pointed questions Wednesday.

1. Question to Romney, Collins, & Murkowski: if John Bolton had evidence of an actual quid pro quo or impeachable offense, why didn’t he immediately report it to Congress or criminal authorities or ethics officials; or why didn’t go public immediately with a press conference?

2. Answer: he had no evidence and had no evidence.

Question for Romney, Collins & Murkowski:  if House Democrats didn’t have time to seek the testimony of Bolton and others because of potential litigation, why does the same litigation prospect not effect the decision to call Bolton, et al, as Senate witnesses?

Question for Romney, Collins & Murkowski?  While you indicate an interest in Bolton as a witness, why don’t you indicate any interest in Adam Schiff, the so-called whistleblower, and Hunter Biden?

This article first appeared on TheConservativeOpinion.com 

For more breaking news click here.