He found one in Barack Obama, who thought he could find a middle path between Democrat and Republican extremes to form a bipartisan consensus on dealing with critical national issues. In other words, Obama tried to act like a President, or, at least, like the type of President polls are always telling us is the type of President we want to have.
But McCONnell knew better. To paraphrase James Baldwin, he didn't believe in what polls said people wanted, because he saw how people voted. Or, rather, he saw how people were willing to vote with the underhanded aid of a little manipulation of the truth, funded by some well-heeled supporters with a vested interest in manipulating the truth.
So when the hinge of fate (thank you, Sir Winston Churchill) swung in Obama's direction early in the final year of his Presidency, and allowed him to nominate a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, McCONnell was more than prepared to swing back. With the assistance of a typically unartful speech by then-Senator Joe Biden, he invented a brand-new Senate rule to the effect that nominations to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, if made in the final year of the President's term, would be ignored by the Senate, thus giving the voters in the next presidential election a chance to "weigh in" on how the vacancy should be filled.
And it worked, from a purely partisan perspective. McCONnell got a Republican President out of the 2016 election and, with a little manipulation of Senate rules, got a filibuster-free confirmation of a Republican nominee to fill the Scalia vacancy. After that, when polls suggested that a rising wave of Democratic voters might actually threaten his Senate majority, lo and behold, another vacancy magically appeared (and you can see me about this bridge I own if you think that was merely a lucky coincidence). And when the President's nominee to fill that vacancy arrived at the Senate Judiciary Committee with more baggage than a train-full of Pullman cars, McCONnell magically made all of the baggage disappear (or most of it, anyway).
So it's hardly surprising that he would attempt similar political magic now that his partner in constitutional crime, D***** T****, has gotten himself into a legal pickle that not even Rudy Giuliani can get him out of, in part because Rudy appears to be hip-deep inside the same pickle: using military aid to bribe a foreign country into playing dirty tricks on T****'s behalf. The House of Representatives has examined witnesses, given T**** and his attorneys a chance to respond, drawn up and passed articles of impeachment in the absence of a response, and is now ready to refer those articles to the Senate for a trail..
Or will they? Should they? Or, at least, should they do so right away?
In answer to the latter question, there's a powerful argument for not doing so. No one, even T****, benefits from a trial that has so little substance to it that it cannot even be said to be all form. The point is often made that a trial by a court of impeachment (which is what the Senate becomes for such a trial) is more political than judicial in nature. And there's a significant amount of truth to support that point. The charges in the articles are more of a constitutional rather than criminal in nature, such as the second article in the T**** case, which charges him with obstruction of Congress. The prospective punishment is losing his office, and/or the right to hold a similar public office.
In between the articles and the verdict, however, an impeachment trial is very much meant to resemble a criminal or civil style in two very important respects: the right of each side to present and examine evidence to support or rebut the charges in the articles, and the obligation of the jurors (i.e., the members of the Senate) to examine that evidence and render a verdict on it in a fair and impartial manner.
Is that going to happen here. Well, if McCONnell's public statements on the matter are to be believed, he's apparently determined to try running true to form, if not to his official obligations.
In fact, he has publicly stated that he will coordinate his Republican caucus with the White House defense lawyers in order to not merely declare T**** to be found not guilty of the impeachment charges, but also completely innocent of them. This action would not only be completely illegal if it occurred during a civil or criminal trial, but is in fact a violation of the specific oath that Senators must take in order to perform their duties at an impeachment trial.
It's impossible to overstate how brazenly unethical McCONnell's behavior in all of this is. I heard him state on television his plans to coordinate with the White House, and I found myself wondering if he knew that the microphone was on. But I had and have no real doubt that what he was doing was purposeful on his part. In any case, it illustrates the extent to which his success with Supreme Court nominations has enabled what seems to be a serious G-d complex, one that puts him in direct competition with T**** himself for the honor of displacing the King of the Universe. Both of them are now in the position of attempting to get away with murder on Fifth Avenue. I doubt that's something that McCONnell is going to be able to coordinate with the White House.
But where does that leave Nancy Pelosi, and House Democrats?
The text of the Constitution does not specify a specific timetable for turning over the articles of impeachment to the Senate. To the extent that there's a governing principle for doing so, it lies in the area of tradition and common practice. There have only been two impeachment processes with regard to Presidents that resulted in a trial but, in both of those cases, the articles were transmitted without delay. Then again, in neither of those cases did the leader of the Senate effectively attempt to announce the outcome in advance, or prevent the House managers from presenting evidence. So there's an obvious limit to which history can serve as an effective guide.
In fact, McCONnell's gambit quickly led many in and outside of Congress to suggest delaying the transmission of the articles until assurances that can be relied upon are made that the trial will be conducted in a fair and impartial manner, as contemplated by both the Constitution's authors and as previously practiced. Again, such a delay is not specifically authorized by the text of the Constitution. On the other hand, the text does not forbid it, either. And to assume that the House should transmit articles of impeachment to a Senate that has declared its intention to act unfaithfully is an assumption utterly unsupported by the Constitution, the record of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers published in support of the Constitution's adoption.
For the forgoing reasons, and after a certain amount of internal debate on my part, I came to the conclusion fairly quickly that a delay in transmitting the articles for the purpose of assuring the integrity of a Senate trial is not merely the right thing to do, but the essential thing to do if the purpose of the trial in the first instance is to honor our system of constitutional government.
In fact, one of the reasons that makes such a delay essential is T****'s own propensity for serving up evidence that demands a verdict, and could in fact lead to more impeachment articles, or at least buttress the case for the existing ones. Since the articles were approved by the House, such evidence has already emerged. It is continuing to emerge, in a big way. And the House Democratic counsel has already argued for the possibility of additional articles.
Putting it simply, McCONnell, the master bully, is by all accounts being out-bullied by Pelosi. But that's not the only way he's being out-bullied.
For one thing, he's being out-bullied by T**** himself. As it turns out, he wants a full-scale trial as well, and is pressuring McCONnell to cave in to Democratic demands for one. He is, unsurprisingly, deluded enough to think that a real trial will produce a real acquittal. Naturally, he's the only person who feels this way. But, for my part, I've always believed that everyone's entitled to their own fantasies, so long as they don't necessarily inflict them on others. And this is one instance where I would be willing to give T**** exactly what he wants. See? Bipartisanship!
Then too, there's the Republican Senate caucus, which, after years of marching in lockstep with their leader, seems to be showing some signs of finally cracking. Could it be in part because of news stories like this one?
Yes, when it comes to the court of public opinion, and the question of impeaching T****, the proverbial dam finally seems to be bursting. Even in Kentucky, where voters have continually sent McCONnell back to Washington on their behalf time and time again, even though polls have continually shown that they hate him, his time just may be up at last.
Four bullies. Pelosi. T****. The Senate Republican caucus. And the American people. A confederation of bullies that not even McCONnell may not be able to withstand.
*****
That wraps up TRH not merely for the year, but for the decade. It's been tumultuous on both fronts. I would not dream at this point of speculating what the future has in store. I pray for all of us, and especially for all of you reading this. May you have a New Year filled with nothing but the very best of everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment