Quantcast
Connect with us

Trump’s infuriating sham of an impeachment trial confirms our worst fears

Published

on

Thanks for your support!
This article was paid for by reader donations to Raw Story Investigates.

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber? Try us and go ad-free for $1. Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.

Terry H. Schwadron
Terry H. Schwadron

So, this is what rot in American politics looks like.

It arrives in the padded cats-feet of mostly polite testimony and argument, of tipping hats and heads to Misters, Ma’ams and Senators, and then slowly twisting the knife of majority-dictated rules to turn search for what’s happened into ridicule and sneer.

If you were unsure before, there are 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats and independents in the Senate, and by the end of a long, uncomfortable day of deciding on rules for a Senate “trial” of Donald Trump, the 53-47 outcome was heard 11 times, each aimed at undercutting any sense of actually acknowledging that there was anything wrong with running a rogue shakedown campaign from the White House for personal political gain.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now, thankfully, we’re into the actual recitation of the case against and for the president’s bad behavior, with Democrats operating with the testimony of government ambassadors and Trump appointees that we’ve already heard, and the president’s team offering, well, just ridicule. Sometime next week, it is possible that the Senate will reconsider the witness question, but it will be a show for the reelection of moderate Republicans, not out of interest in investigating truth in this matter.

The outcome of the Senate proceedings never has been in doubt – the numbers of Trump loyalists in the chamber alone has been a bulwark against conviction by two-thirds of senators – but the elimination of any curiosity in learning whether there is evidence in the case is beyond the pale.

It makes clear that the law is what a majority says it is. Ironically, that is exactly the substance of the Republican arguments against Democrats in the House who voted for impeachment.

But this process also will ensure that we have vastly expanded powers for the presidency, and has seeded Democracy a poison pill. Bring on King Trump.

*

ADVERTISEMENT

See No Evil. . .

As expected, Mitch McConnell used his all of his bureaucratic ruses to deny the prosecuting House managers the ability to call new – or, importantly, previously blocked — witnesses or even to subpoena the documents that had been obstructed by this White House.

Still, the House Democrats managed to use their arguments over procedural issues to include a lot of the substantive material about what has already surfaced as evidence, or what should have surfaced. By contrast, most of the argument by Trump defending lawyers was shrill, nonsensical and often aimed as either general lambastes against the audacity of Democrats everywhere to even question the wisdom of Donald Trump or against the individuals arguing the case.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Trump defense was all-but-nonexistent. As Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank noted, “They shouted. They spouted invective. They launched personal attacks against the impeachment managers. But they offered virtually nothing in defense of the president’s conduct, nor anything but a passing reference to Ukraine.”

Instead, we can expect that they will continue to hit as haste in the House to impeach, and defend the right of this president or any president to conduct foreign affairs as he or she sees fit, to have latitude not to have to answer to Congress for any behavior and to protect any conversations ever held by the White House.

ADVERTISEMENT

*

Hear No Evil . . .

I realize that I am not the primary audience for either side in this proceeding. House managers are trying to persuade one or two more senators to allow John Bolton and others as witnesses, and, in their fondest dreams, 20 senators to part with Trump; Trump defenders are speaking only to Trump himself.

ADVERTISEMENT

But, to be honest, the first days’ arguments were infuriating.

The Washington Post editorialized that “The defense would also set the precedent that presidents may flatly refuse all cooperation with any congressional inquiry, even though the House’s impeachment power is spelled out in the Constitution. And it would establish that no president may be impeached unless he or she could be convicted of violating a federal statute — no matter the abuse of power.”

At the end of the day, the Trump defense is that even if he did abuse his powers in an attempt to bully Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election on his behalf, it would not matter because the House never accused him of committing an ordinary crime. Hundreds of legal experts around the country have gone on public record to say that view is incorrect, including Jonathan Turley, the constitutional law professor who spoke on Trump’s behalf before House.

It is clear that Trump did abuse his office, and it is clear that laws were broken along the way. It is also clear that the effort of proving so was obstructed by the very White House that now claims with self-pity for being the object of a hoax inquiry.

ADVERTISEMENT

And it is clear to me, at least, that once this Senate majority decides against conviction, 53-47, that Trump will boast of conquering the Senate, the Democrats, and Americans in general, and demand re-election and the full pomp and powers of an authoritarian king.

At one point, White House counsel Pat Cipollone claimed that Trump, author of 16,000 public lies in office, “is a man of his word.”

Perhaps he hasn’t heard about Speak No Evil . . .

ADVERTISEMENT

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber? Try us and go ad-free for $1. Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

An insider says that white rural Christian America has a ‘dark, racist underbelly’

Published

on

A common theme keeps cropping up from all sides: "Democrats fail to understand white, working-class, fly-over America.”

Trump supporters are saying this. Progressive pundits are saying this. Talking heads across all forms of the media are saying this. Even some Democratic leaders are saying this. It doesn’t matter how many people say it, it is complete BS. It is an intellectual/linguistic sleight of hand meant to draw attention away from the real problem. The real problem isn’t East Coast elites who don’t understand or care about rural America. The real problem is that rural Americans don't understand the causes of their own situations and fears and they have shown no interest in finding out. They don’t want to know why they feel the way they do or why they are struggling because they don’t want to admit it is in large part because of the choices they’ve made and the horrible things they’ve allowed themselves to believe.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Clinical psychologist explains how Ayn Rand helped turn the US into a selfish and greedy nation

Published

on

The 'Atlas Shrugged' author made selfishness heroic and caring about others weakness.

This story first appeared at AlterNet.

Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society....To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil.— Gore Vidal, 1961

Only rarely in U.S. history do writers transform us to become a more caring or less caring nation. In the 1850s, Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896) was a strong force in making the United States a more humane nation, one that would abolish slavery of African Americans. A century later, Ayn Rand (1905-1982) helped make the United States into one of the most uncaring nations in the industrialized world, a neo-Dickensian society where healthcare is only for those who can afford it, and where young people are coerced into huge student-loan debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

People who say they’re ‘fiscally conservative but socially liberal’ just don’t understand these 7 things

Published

on

"Well, I'm conservative, but I'm not one of those racist, homophobic, dripping-with-hate Tea Party bigots! I'm pro-choice! I'm pro-same-sex-marriage! I'm not a racist! I just want lower taxes, and smaller government, and less government regulation of business. I'm fiscally conservative, and socially liberal."

How many liberals and progressives have heard this? It's ridiculously common. Hell, even David Koch of the Koch brothers has said, "I’m a conservative on economic matters and I’m a social liberal."

Continue Reading
 
 
close-image