John Bolton's gag slipped a bit. For whatever reason, an excerpt from his book made it into the Times, and now Republicans have to address why it makes sense to deny witnesses at the Senate trial. The standard argument that they will make, based on my interactions with the Trumpenproletariat online, is that the Democrats had their shot in the House and blew it.
Of course, that argument is based on a number of faulty presumptions. First, it presumes that all discovery needed to take place in the House. That's not true of trials in general, but it's especially not true in this case. One of the two impeachment charges against Trump is obstruction of justice. His refusal to let ANYONE testify is both undeniable and by definition obstructive. The counterargument I heard about this was that the Courts should have weighed in on his obstruction and forced people to testify. The counter to that is that impeachment is a power vested solely in Congress. If Trump stopped people from testifying before a normal subcommittee, then it should go to the Courts. Once it's an impeachment hearing...that power lies with Congress.
Secondly, they will go back to arguing that Trump was completely within his power to ask Ukraine to ratfuck and American election. You won't hear this argument from Senators, but the various trolls, bots and True Believers will basically throw out the Nixonian argument of "If the President does it, it's not illegal." In effect, the argument is "Sure, he used the power of the presidency for personal political gain, but suck on it."
There were powerful incentives for the House to expedite impeachment. For all the caterwauling about how rushed the process was, it's worth rehashing the timeline. In early August, we got wind of the whistleblower's report. At some point in September, the House moved forward with impeachment hearings. Those took place in October and November, followed by a vote in December. Articles were referred to the Senate in January. Does that seem rushed? In 1868, Andrew Johnson fired Edwin Stanton on February 21st. He was impeached on February 24th. On March 4th, the articles of impeachment were sent to the Senate.
Yes, Watergate took so much longer, but that was because Nixon was obstructing the investigation - similar to how Trump is obstructing this one. Unlike Watergate, however, evidence of Trump's wrongdoing has been available from the start. The Watergate hearings had to peel back layers of cover-ups and make connections that were actively being hidden. Trump walked on to the White House lawn and asked Ukraine and China to investigate the Bidens. The evidence of his guilt has been pretty solid from the start.
The Clinton impeachment took a fairly long amount of time, at least in part because Clinton's behavior was hard to prove. Throughout the spring of 1998, Ken Starr and House Republicans worked hard to create a patina of guilt over Clinton's actions. Most people didn't buy it, so they kept grinding away. Today, a plurality to a slight majority support impeaching Trump. Those numbers slightly favor removing him. Those numbers were never true for Clinton.
Trump refused to let anyone currently working for the executive branch testify in the House, because they said the process was rigged by House Democrats. Now, in a Senate Chamber controlled by Republicans, they say that the House should have called witnesses.
Every single Republican Senator who votes against hearing from John Bolton (or Mick Mulvaney or Mike Pompeo) is aiding and abetting a criminal cover up and obstruction of justice. Every single one.
No comments:
Post a Comment