https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0_WNA7h3pg beginning at 18:22
Dear Senator Franken:
You, of all people, know how skilled and crafty Republican officials are at delaying the seating of a Democratic Senator-elect. But even the partisan delays in your being seated after the Minnesota senatorial election were not as blatantly and shamelessly foreshadowed as what you will witness in the above YouTube video.
Tonight, a spokesperson for Alabama’s Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, Roy Moore, whose defeat even Senate Majority Leader McConnell announced without equivocation, told a crowd of Moore supporters “[It’s] not over yet. … God is still in control. … The vote has to be certified. … If it’s within ½ %, the law requires a recount. The military ballots aren’t even in yet; they’ve not been counted ...” [Insert emoticon for “wink, wink; nudge, nudge; nod, nod”]
Senator Franken, you told the American people, “… nothing I have done as a senator — nothing — has brought dishonor on this institution, and I am confident the Ethics Committee would agree. Nevertheless, today I am announcing that, in the coming weeks, I will be resigning as a member of the United States Senate.”
I am immensely grateful that you used the future tense and left your resignation date sufficiently imprecise to accommodate unforeseen events that may require your presence even well into 2018.
I have read the following (unpersuasive) argument on this site (‘you AGAIN, Candide?) Because Minnesota’s governor almost certainly would appoint a highly ethical Democrat to succeed you, there would be continuity in the number of Senate seats held by ethical Democrats after your departure. I am not a lawyer, but there are lawyers here (‘Bar cards up, bitte!) who can research whether such continuity is a sure thing. For example, is it possible that the Senate will delay seating your successor or refuse to seat him or her, lawfully or not? Perhaps Judge Merrick Garland could render a comforting opinion that such delays or intransigence will be impossible even to attempt in the modern U.S. Senate.
Why might delays in seating Doug Jones and/or your successor matter? Wouldn’t Democrats still be in the minority in the Senate even if both were seated this year?
Two things:
Thing one:
It’s far from inconceivable that a Republican senator or two might switch parties (see Sen. Jeffords, VT, (R) to (I-D) in 2001 and Sen. Specter, PA, (R) TO (D) in 2009) now that the writing (“Mene, mene, tekel upharsin ...”) is glowing legibly in the miasma over the swamp . For Senate Democrats to be in a position to negotiate more control of the Senate, we will need 50 Democratic (or Democratic Party-aligned independent) senators (48 or 49 will not suffice). For the Democratic Party to take full control of the Senate, we will need at least 51 (not 48, 49, or 50).
Thing two:
The regular order rules in the U.S. Senate now effectively require 60 or more full-throated votes to end a filibuster, no matter whether silent or boisterously dull. Obviously it will be easier to assemble 60 votes in favor of an action Democrats back if there are 48 or 49 seated Democrats. How could Democrats be powerful enough to have a stake in ending a filibuster? The following seems implausible, but it actually has happened in recent history. Republican senators HAVE filibustered their own bill to prevent its coming to a (timely) vote that leadership might lose (trivia contest).
So, Senator Franken, I reiterate that I beg you to delay making your resignation effective at least until Senator Jones has been seated and preferably until both that event and the timely seating of your potential successor become (1 - 10^(-6)) jointly probable. In the face of recent and historically unprecedented Republican skullduggery, your delaying the resignation I implore you to delay is our best hope of protecting the unborn and the yet-to-be-conceived from further Republican atrocities.
I yield the balance of my time to Chris Hayes.