Source: Hank Berrien

On Sunday, appearing on ABC News “This Week” with host Martha Raddatz, Senator Doug Jones (D-AL) conceded he might vote for acquittal if President Trump is tried in the Senate. Jones stated, “I’m trying to see if the dots get connected. If that is the case, then I think it’s a serious matter. I think it’s an impeachable matter. But if those dots aren’t connected and there are other explanations that I think are consistent with innocence, I will go that way too.”

The conversation began with Jones defending House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement that she would not forward the the articles of impeachment from the House to the Senate until she could get concessions from Senate GOP leaders on securing witnesses in a trial. Jones said, “Well, I certainly don’t think it’s unfair for her to do that … I think what the speaker is doing is to say, what are the rules going to be when I send House managers over there? What kind of playing field are we going to have? What is the timing of this?”

Raddatz’s partisanship was on display when she covered up the alleged improper collusion and coordination between Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Acorn in 2008. Jim A. Kuypers noted in his book, “Partisan Journalism: A History of Media Bias in the United States,” “the activist approach taken by ABC’s Martha Raddatz in the October 11 vice-presidential debate and by CNN’s Candy Crowley in the October 16 town-hall debate, as both of those journalists repeatedly interrupted the Republican candidate and larded the discussion with a predominantly liberal agenda.”

Raddatz theorized the alleged crimes of Trump far superseded the crimes committed by former President Bill Clinton that triggered his impeachment, saying, “ … this is very different than President Clinton’s impeachment. House Democrats have called the president a clear and present danger to this country and our upcoming elections. If he’s so dangerous, why are House Democrats suddenly slowing down?”

Jones protested, “Well, I don’t think that they’re slowing anything down. We’re not going to be back for awhile. I don’t think they’re slowing anything down.

Raddatz asked, “Let’s talk about the vote. The majority leader has said that he believes that at least one or two Democrats in the Senate could defect and vote to acquit the president. Is he talking about you?”

Jones replied, “I have no idea what Mitch McConnell’s talking about these days.”

Raddatz pressed, “I know, sir, you say you’re going to be an impartial juror. Given everything we have already seen in the House and that phone call, what is it that you need to know more about? What reason could there be to make you not vote to convict the president?”

Jones responded, ““I didn’t sit in front of the TV set the entire time the last two or three months. I’ve been trying to read this. I’m trying to see if the dots get connected. If that is the case, then I think it’s a serious matter. I think it’s an impeachable matter.”

But then, conscious that he comes from a highly conservative state and was only elected because he ran against a problematic GOP candidate, he shifted to this: “But if those dots aren’t connected and there are other explanations that I think are consistent with innocence, I will go that way too. I have got to make sure that I — what I really want to see, though, is to — to fill in the gaps. There are gaps.”

Raddatz, knowing what was causing Jones to vacillate, asked, “I know you voted against the Kavanaugh nomination and still managed to win your Senate seat, but there are Republican strategists who say if you vote to impeach President Trump, in your deeply red state, he basically signs his death warrant. Is that what you’re doing there? Do you — are you worried about that? Quickly, if you can.”

Jones stammered, “Absolutely — no — you know, Martha, let me tell you. My — my — my — I have a — I have a — I took an oath as a U.S. senator. I’m going to take another oath. And that’s where I — my — my duty is.”