I Don’t Get Republican’s Impeachment Trial Posture

If Senator McConnell and his Republican colleagues truly believe that the Democratic case for impeachment is so weak, a sham, wouldn’t it be to their political advantage to run a proper trial, to give the appearance of impartiality, and then acquit Trump.  They have certainly prejudged the case, so that is a foregone conclusion.  Why not subpoena Mulvaney and Bolton and have them support the President’s version of things under oath?  And apparently Trump wants a real trial, not some quickie; he wants to be vindicated.

There is only one reason:  they fear that more of the public will come to support impeachment after being exposed to the facts in such a trial, perhaps even some Republican Senators.  And what if Mulvaney and Bolton support the Democrats’ charges, not Trump’s version of things?  That would really throw a wrench in things.

There is no way that McConnell will change his posture, unless Trump forces him to.  Democrats only hope is that when they challenge the process in various ways with Chief Justice Roberts, who will be the Presiding Officer and under the rules of the Senate controls all aspects of the process … although he can be overruled by a simple majority … he will side with them.  

In that case, if the Republicans overrule his decisions, that would expose the whole Republican stance as dishonest and a farce to all but Trump’s devoted base.  The Democrats will have won even if Trump is acquitted.

Some Republican Senators Have Crossed a Line and Disqualified Themselves as Impeachment Jurors

In an impeachment, the Senate’s role is to sit in judgment and vote either to convict or acquit the person charged.  The Senators are the jury.  No Senator is appointed to play the role of defense counsel.  That role is undertaken by the President’s lawyers.  

As jurors, when the impeachment trial begins, the Senators swear an oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’

Now, no one expects any Senator, certainly not in the current environment, to be impartial when sitting in judgment of President Trump.  However, there is a difference between Senators prejudging the case and Senators meeting with top White House aides, as reported recently in The New York Times, to discuss the strategy to be used for the impeachment trial.

That crosses the line between being a juror and being part of the defense team.  Their action flouts all pretense of impartiality.

There is no precedent for this.  In Nixon’s impeachment, the Republican leadership did not strategize with the White House; they (Hugh Scott, Barry Goldwater, and John Rhodes) went to the White House to tell Nixon that he faced near-certain impeachment because of eroding support among Republicans.  As for Clinton, I could find no indication on the internet that Democratic Senators met with him to strategize his impeachment trial.

I would therefore argue that when the Senators are sworn in as jurors by the Chief Justice, the House managers of the impeachment should raise an objection with the Chief Justice that because of their strategizing with White House officials regarding the impeachment trial, such Senators should be barred from voting. They have disqualified themselves.  Who are they? Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, John Kennedy, and Lindsey Graham.  Mind you, a majority of the Senate can overrule such a ruling by the Chief Justice; but McConnell has only 2 votes to spare.

Then there’s majority leader Senator McConnell.  He recently stated that he’s “taking his cue” from the White House on how to run the impeachment trial.  "Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel." He made clear he would do everything in his power to quickly acquit the president.” 

That without question also crosses the line.  He has stated he’s going to be talking to the Democratic leader and others, but if the bottom line is what the White House wants, those other conversations make no difference.  By running the trial the way Trump wants it run, he is abandoning all appearance of independence and impartiality.  The trial must be set up to get at the truth.

Removal of these senators from the Senate jury would not likely change the result of the trial.  With 95 senators voting, 16 Republican senators would still have to vote for impeachment, assuming a solid Democratic voting bloc.  But their removal may embolden enough Republicans to vote for impeachment to at least provide a simple majority, if not the required 2/3 majority to convict.  A bi-partisan majority in favor of impeachment would gravely weaken Trump in the 2020 election.

And it would send a very clear message that even in politics, some actions are beyond the pale.  We have lost that faith under Trump.  It needs to be reasserted.

The Problem with a President Bernie Sanders

Senator Sanders is a good, intelligent, forthright man.  His heart is in the right place.  And he certainly believes strongly about what is right and what is wrong.

But there’s a problem with Sanders as President.  It lies in primarily two areas:  rhetoric and policy development.

When it comes to rhetorical style, Bernie Sanders and his fire-breathing progressive allies share much with Donald Trump.  It is confrontational in both tone and substance.  As Trump and many autocrats have shown, this is certainly the way to build a devoted, unwavering base.

But such a style and the unwavering … dare one say, unthinking … political support it engenders does not bode well for the future of our democracy.  If Sanders, or AOC (Ocasio-Cortez), or Trump say something, their followers take it as gospel truth and praise the speaker.  A healthy democracy depends on people thinking, sifting through competing ideas, not leaving it to leaders to think.

This style also exacerbates the us v them aspect of politics and social dynamic.  Before the recent extreme polarization of American politics, people were usually sorely disappointed when they lost an election, but the call by all was for unity, for forming a “loyal” opposition.  In Congress or elsewhere, there were political disagreements, people took their stands, but it was with the feeling that everyone had the country’s best interest at heart and so there was civility in the midst of disagreement.  People could agree to disagree.

Gone are those days.  While the problem started with Senator Dole's very negative relationship with President Clinton during his 2nd term, it became all -consuming when Obama was President and Republicans in Congress, led by Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, decided that they were just going to say, “no,” to anything floated by Obama; their only purpose in Congress was to defeat him.  It went so far as to not giving Obama’s 2016 Supreme Court nominee a hearing in order to keep the slot open should a Republican win the next election, even though that was almost 8 months away and the start of the new term 10 months away.

There is a danger in Sander’s campaign style as with the combative style of some of the newly-elected progressives in the House.  The danger is that you may win some battles, but you will ultimately lose the war. You will not change the culture/government in the ways you would like because you have alienated many rather than generated good will among your opponents.

The other problem with Sanders as President comes in the all-important area of policy development.  Let’s take as an example Sander’s Medicare-for-All.  A wonderful idea, but as I explained in my post, “Medicare for All or Some?” not the way to ultimately get to where he wants to be ... universal single-payer coverage.  But Sanders has no use for discussing all the problems, all the dislocation, inherent in implementing his health plan should it pass.  

I draw from this, in combination with his rhetorical style, that Sanders is not a reasonable man … meaning that one cannot reason with him and he can’t employ reason with those not on his team, convincing them to support him or finding a place for compromise where both sides win.  It’s like W saying, “Either you’re with us or against us.”  Like it’s impossible to imagine the reality of someone being on your side but having a difference of opinion on tactics.  What we very much need in a President is a reasonable man.

So I was not for Sanders in 2016 and I’m not for him now.  But not for the reasons of the Democratic Party establishment.  Not because he fights the larger ills of our culture and government.  Not because he sees the ills of capitalism.  Not because he thinks the super rich are richer than they need be.  I have no problem with any of those positions.

It is rather because his rhetorical style will leave us with a country which drifts even further apart.  Where the concept of an American social contract is even more distant.  Where the phrase “my fellow Americans” becomes an unimaginable anachronism.

Sen. McConnell's Dereliction of Duty

Senator McConnell’s refusal to consider legislation that the President will not sign is a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of Congress’ role under the Constitution.  

Our democracy is justifiably famous for its then-novel system of checks and balances.  The three branches of government check each other.  Simply put, the executive checks the legislative through its veto power.  The legislative checks the executive through its power to override a presidential veto.  And the courts have the power to overturn executive or legislative action if it is either unconstitutional or if it doesn’t conform to the authority under which it was taken.

But we now have a Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who has stated very bluntly that he will not put any measure before the Senate that the President will not sign.  So much for the legislative check on the President by overriding his veto.  It is the President who now calls the tune.  

This is no small matter.  It goes to one of the most basic aspects of our system of government.  If the Senator insists on maintaining this kowtowing to the President, then he should be removed from his office of majority leader.

Senator Murkowski as Role Model

Last week, after being harangued and bashed by President Trump, Senator Murkowski (R-AK) said what all Republican Senators should say and what should govern their actions. “With all due respect, Mr. President,” she reportedly told him, “I didn’t come here to represent the Republican Party. I am representing my constituents and the state of Alaska.”

This is the duty that all Congressmen and Senators have … to represent the best interests of their constituents and state.  That is their responsibility as elected officials.  If those interests go against the desires of Party leadership, so be it. 

We would not be in the partisan predicament we’ve been witnessing in Congress if all members acted on that responsibility of office.  Sure, some are truly far-right conservatives and know that’s why they were elected.  But many who have toed the line of Senate majority-leader McConnell on numerous issues are not hard-line conservatives.  Their fealty to the Party is misplaced and goes against the best interests of their constituents.

Some Republicans might try to argue that their sworn oath “to support the constitution” overrides the interests of constituents.  That may be true when a matter truly contravenes the constitution in letter or principle, but the types of things that Congress has been debating, and regarding which Senator McConnell has repeatedly enforced party discipline, do not rise to that level of import. 

Which raises the question.  Who are the “constituents” when that phrase is used?  Is it the people who voted for President Trump or a particular Representative or Senator?  Or is it all the people in their respective jurisdictions?

Presidents often say in their inaugural speech that they promise to be the President for all Americans.  Even Trump made such a statement.  He said he would restore the promise of America "for all our people. " And that is indeed as it should be.  The President is not elected just to promote the interests of those who voted for him.  He is the President of the entire country.  Yes, he campaigned on certain themes and made certain promises, and he should live up to those, in general.  But once elected, those campaign themes need to be tempered by the best interests of the country as a whole.

Such tempering is not an example of a President selling out, any more than is the change in tone and position from the primaries, when the combat is between members of the same party and the audience are members of that party, to that of the general election when the audience is the entire country.  The same change can be often be seen in those who are appointed to the Supreme Court.  Many a President has been dismayed that the person they appointed because of his politics, legal and otherwise, has turned out once on the bench to change his respective because of the role he has assumed.  Perhaps the most famous example of this was Justice Earl Warren.

Each and every Representative and Senator should keep Senator Murkowski’s words before them when they debate a matter and feel pressure from Party leadership to vote in a way which is contrary to the interests of their constituents.  Often that pressure is nothing short of blackmail, as it was when Senator Murkowski was threatened with Alaska’s losing a variety of significant benefits from the Federal government.  She still stood her ground, as was her duty.