If there is no avoiding a trial in the Senate, by stepping aside (Clinton could) spare our nation weeks, perhaps months, of divisive debate and repulsive testimony.

The governor has the good fortune to have the House and the Senate
controlled by his party. If he says he has failed to get
funding for those initiatives being proposed by the advisory board, I think
this is an indication of his leadership or his commitment regarding Haiti.
Many Haitian Americans want temporary protected status for refugees trying to escape political turmoil in the homeland.

The fact that the advisory board didn't make TPS a priority sent a
bad vibe to the Haitian community here. It seems the advisory board had a political aim to it, instead of a humanitarian aim that people think it should have. It was just a way for the governor to appease the Haitian community by showing that he's doing something good.

The difference between the two for me, fundamentally, is that the Senate and the governor want to do it the way it's always been done, and the House wants to see if there's a better way to do things, if there's a way to change the structure of how we provide services.

This is one of the worst things the Senate has ever done. On the back of a cocktail napkin they have tossed aside protections of individual liberty that have been in existence for centuries.

My preference is that we eliminate the Senate.

It's good to have a new face [in the Senate] as opposed to someone who's already been around.