Collins during 1999 impeachment: “I need witnesses… to get to the truth” -- what changed?

 

In video uncovered this week by the Washington Post, Senator Collins insisted that she needed “witnesses and further evidence” “to get to the truth” in the 1999 impeachment trial. Two decades later, Collins is a juror in another impeachment trial, but she seems to have abandoned her previous commitment to finding the truth. 

 

Watch the video here:

 

 

For months, Collins has refused to answer questions from Mainers or the press about impeachment because she claims it would tarnish her position as an impartial juror. But now, as Mitch McConnell brags about coordinating with the president’s lawyers on strategy and admits point blank that he has no intention of remaining impartial as he conducts this trial, Collins has been meeting with the White House and refusing to speak out for a fair and transparent hearing of evidence.

 

“Senator Collins said it herself that we need witnesses to get to the truth, but her position on yet another issue appears to have changed after spending more than 20 years in Washington,” said Maine Democratic Party Executive Director Lisa Roberts. “By refusing to stand up to Mitch McConnell and his partisan cover-up for President Trump, Senator Collins is abdicating her duty to the people she represents and her commitment to the rule of law.”

 

Washington Post (The Plum Line): Sen. Susan Collins during 1999 impeachment: ‘I need witnesses … to get to the truth’

 

By Greg Sargent

Dec. 17, 2019

 

Key points: 

 

  • We’ve got video of Collins during the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, calling for “more evidence” and “witnesses,” in order to “get to the truth,” and to fulfill the Senate’s “duty to do impartial justice.”

 

  • “I am willing to travel the road wherever it leads, whether it’s to the conviction or the acquittal of the president,” Collins said. “But in order to do that, I need more evidence. I need witnesses and further evidence to guide me to the right destination, to get to the truth.” She added that this would help answer outstanding questions, “in order to fulfill our duty to do impartial justice.”

 

  • Collins, in calling for more witnesses and evidence, appeared to be genuinely struggling with the situation, particularly when it came to the article on obstruction of justice.

 

  • In the end, Collins voted against conviction on both articles, and she appears to have genuinely evaluated the evidence without regard for party loyalty. She perhaps wanted more evidence for a reasonable purpose.

 

  • It’s plainly obvious that this set of values deserves to be applied to the present. The witnesses Democrats want to question — such as acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton — absolutely can fill in “gaps” and answer “questions.”

 

  • Both Mulvaney (who froze the military aid to Ukraine at Trump’s direction, just before Trump corruptly demanded that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky carry out his political dirty deeds) and Bolton (who privately argued with Trump over the frozen aid) have direct knowledge of Trump’s motives at an absolutely critical moment.

 

  • Both were blocked by the White House from testifying to the House impeachment inquiry.

 

  • So Collins will have to decide whether to side with Trump and McConnell and against truth and transparency, or with them and against the wishes of the base.

 

###