Senator Sullivan: Shouldn’t the House be the one accused of engaging in cover-up?


Sen. Dan Sullivan threw a pointed rhetorical dart at Impeachment Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler during the impeachment trial today, asking why the Senate should not base its decision based on the same evidence the House based its impeachment decision on.

The inference is that if the Senate is covering up by not including witnesses, then the House did as well:

“Earlier today, I posed this question during the impeachment proceedings in the Senate: Given that the Senate is now considering the very evidentiary record assembled and voted on by the House, which Chairman Nadler has repeatedly claimed constitutes overwhelming evidence for impeachment, how can the Senate be accused of engaging in, what Mr. Nadler described as, “a cover-up,” if the Senate makes its decision based on the exact same evidentiary record the House did?”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a candidate for president, also had a question today, implying that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the Constitution itself is at stake:

“At time when many have lost faith in government, does the fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which GOP senators refuse witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, SCOTUS, & Constitution?” Warren asked.

An audible gasp came from the Senate floor, as Republican senators expressed their disapproval.


  1. The House of Representatives has had a hard on for this president for 3 years. All of the House leaders should be jailed. It won’t happen but it should. Schiff knows better than testifying himself. He was a former prosecutor. All they did was hurt the country. Thank God for Trump keeping us safe.

  2. Thank you Sen. Sullivan! I did hear a very good question from Lisa Murkowski yesterday on C-span to her record. Yesterday, it appeared she was headed in the right direction.

    I hope Sen. Lisa Murkowski will make the right decision tomorrow. As much as I would love to have both Vice President Biden and his son testify and be held accountable for their actions; that does not excuse the House’s responsibility to get (ALL) the witnesses needed, including (subpoenaed) as well, before even voting on (Impeachment). America has a common law system and judicial precedence is critically important. If Lisa votes with Democrats on this one; I think that will more than verify her defeat in 2022. Her pro-abortion stands over the years and other liberal policies have lost my vote before I was old enough to vote in the 2016 election and hope soon we will get real conservative to fill her position soon.

  3. 17 witnesses of 18 testified (the 18th still classified because Pencil Neck refuses to release). Of the 17, 2 fact witnesses, think comes down to 4 or more hearsay, 2nd and 3rd hand, rest opinion. 28,000 pages of documents.
    If Lisa votes for more witnesses, her days as a Senator will be over at the primary in 2022.
    What Lisa and so many of the socialist as well as Collins and Romney know but will not stand for is the Constitutional protections of the defendant. The prosecution if they do not bring their A game to trail, don’t get a second, third, fourth bite of the apple.
    I do wish, but not making any bets on Nadler, Pencil Neck and the others could be debarred. I would love but will not happen an investigation and prosecution for violation of the Presidents civil right and for an illegal coup against the Office of the Presidency!
    All I can do at this point is pray to God that he protect the President and our nation!

  4. The House assembled its arcticles of Impeachment with lightning speed, quickly voted to approve the Impeachment and then slow walked them to the Senate.

    The Senate is only charged with hearing said Articles and voting up or down. This isn’t a trial in the sense that you have discovery, witnesses, or a judge that rules whether evidence is admissible or not. This is a political action by the House Leadership against the Executive. Dragging out this process only does further damage to the country both now and sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

    Our founders crafted a separation of power within government. What Nancy Pelosi is attempting here is expedient for her at this moment only. It is weak and pathetic, in The “” Art of War” parlance she is appearing to look strong because she is so weak. Weak even within her own party’s power structure.

    We will have another vote on this impeachment come November. Why are Democrats so afraid of that vote?
    BTY… Thank you Senator Sullivan! You pointed out the obvious!

  5. Sen. Sullivan, it goes even deeper than that. Impeachment Article #1 regards the President’s “abuse of power” for “soliciting interference in the 2020 election”.

    The democrats in the Congress are doing exactly the same thing. Not only that, they have a distinct conflict of interest by sitting in judgment over their campaign opponent.

    • Yes and that’s all this really is in a nutshell. we don’t need to know who the whistleblower is because we have the transcript of the phone call which says nothing impeachable. The president was within his rights to look into corruption into the third most corrupt country in the world and how the bidens we’re capitalizing from it.

      • Trump would be guilty of malfeasance if he gave Ukraine the $391 million without checking into their corruption. Their prior president was neck deep in it, so Trump waited until the new president was seated before asking. It’s just common sense.

        I venture the guess he would have been impeached for malfeasance and dereliction of duty if he hadn’t made the call and just gave them the money.

  6. The Democrats have nothing to offer productive people. Trump has slightly more Electoral College votes because of productive people. Consequently, Democrats have to impeach him or they will lose. Just business.

  7. Alors, mon ami, it appears Sen. Sullivan lacks basic logical skills. This comes as no surprise, as he is a carpetbagger and military senior officer from Ohio who married an Alaska native to further his career…but I digress, and owe an apology to his native Alaska wife, should she wish to accept it, for assuming that this was the case. I sincerely mean her or her family no ill. Just her husband.
    Sullivan’s basic argument is that if “it” was not included in the articles of impeachment, it couldn’t be included in the trial by the Senate. One of the main problems with the articles of impeachment was that the House could not call witnesses. Why? Because President Trump refused to let them testify, citing executive privilege. Rather than go through the lengthy process of ruling through the appellate courts and then the Supreme Court, the House chose to move ahead, send forth the articles, and hope the Senate would see the need to hear witnesses. Such appears not the case, thereby confirming their witnessless. The basic argument fails logically by averring that if the House didn’t do “it”, we can’t either, and, therefore, no witnesses, who could shed considerable light on the workings of the White House and its Chief Offender, can be called, or should be called, or we can do this if we decide to, but that wouldn’t look good for us or, especially, for the President, so let’s just say that because the House didn’t do, for whatever reason, we won’t either. It’s their fault.
    What a bunch of pussies. And if the President can say “pussies,” so can I.
    The upshot, the President has the force of the Republican controlled Senate to fortify him in any of his endeavors, present or future, until he eventually pisses them off. Which doesn’t look likely, since they are such a bunch of pussies.
    Be afraid. The only firewall between us and Him is the House, which holds the power of the purse.
    On the other hand, if you like an egotistical, narcissistic, “stable genius,” running things, then Dan’s your man.

    • Nothing is stopping the House from calling these much needed witnesses in a new hearing, nothing except their political will. This has been little more than political theater for leftwing loonies, some actually think that what they saw and heard is an impeachment, they need to read the constitution and try and figure out what an impeachable offense is.

  8. #7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
    “Rather than go through the lengthy process of ruling through the appellate courts and then the Supreme Court, the House chose to move ahead, send forth the articles, and hope the Senate would see the need to hear witnesses.” Seems like a bad call. Bummer.
    #5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
    Basic logic- a husband is part of “her family”.

  9. If you want to see what years of hate can do to you looks, look at Jerry Nadler. Actually the 7 prosecutors, LOL

    I would be interested in what this whole impeachment cost Trump for the defense and the house prosecution?

      • Wishful thinking. Both Senator Sullivan and President Trump will be handily re-elected. And to suggest that Senator Sullivan married his lovely wife Julie because she is an Alaskan Native and he did so to further his political career is simply vile. The House case was overwhelming, they said so themselves. So, as the Senator postulated, why would you need anything more to make a judgement? Trump Derangement Syndrome making you crazy dude.

  10. When Mr. Sullivan used his wife to promote himself by putting her on display and insinuating that he would have some special relationship with natives through her, then she became part of the political discussion, for better or for worse. And I agree that’s vile.
    The House case was overwhelming, and for the senator to suggest that no more evidence was needed, especially when GOP senators were denying that there was no “first hand” information, or that there was not enough evidence for “conviction” of the President, evidence which might have been obtained through the testimony of witnesses, is simply double-speak. If the Man is innocent, why not hear the witnesses and remove reasonable doubt?
    Perhaps for the same reason the President refuses to release his tax information? Perhaps he has something to hide, and now Senator Sullivan is on record letting him do so.
    I readily admit that having a corrupt, lying, amoral grifter in the White House is driving me crazy, but I didn’t think the entire GOP would roll over for him instead of holding him accountable, and THAT may very well make me deranged.
    But not as deranged as the GOP.

    • I’m curious as to what the insinuation was that causes you to make it part of the political discussion (for better or for worse). Please enlighten us.

  11. He’s dangling for the Native vote.
    Murkowski does too, though she doesn’t have a direct Native relative.
    It’s politics. Nothing is sacred.

Comments are closed.