January 31, 2020: The Senate on Trial - Charged with Cowardice

 

1/31/20: I did my last ditch civic duty today, emailing several U.S. senators with variations of the letter below.

 

____________________ 

“When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.” 

Sen. Lamar Alexander

____________________

Do you need witnesses to find out what happened?

 

Senator Portman,

 

I hope you will stand by the U.S. Constitution today and call for witnesses to testify, as 75% of Americans say they want. Future historians will mark those who vote against witnesses for their shame.

 

Most of your Republican peers are prepared to say that President Trump can ignore all congressional subpoenas, as he has already done on the House side. Agree to this, and Trump will never have to honor Senate subpoenas, so long as he remains in office, and those who enable him now may live to regret this catastrophic mistake. Not only Trump, but all other corrupt presidents in the future, will cite the precedent Senate Leader McConnell is only too ready to set.

 

Even if you called one witness and one document, you assert the power of Congress, as the Founding Fathers hoped you would, to check abuses in the other branches. In fact, as I told one of your aides in a recent visit to your office, it is, in theory, possible, that witnesses would clear the president's name. That would seem to be a goal even Mr. Trump would support.

 

(Much more likely, of course, is that they will prove his corrupt and unlawful intent.)

 

Please, Senator Portman, do not go down in history as a patriot who blanched. Don’t be remembered by historians, as Rand Paul and others will be, as among the pygmies in office. As a former Marine, who did not have bone spurs in 1968, I am appalled by their stance.

 

You might also want to hear from Elaine McCusker at the Pentagon. We have learned recently that she warned the White House repeatedly they were breaking the law by withholding the aid.

 

(Her un-redacted emails, leaked to the press after the House finished its investigation, also go to the heart of the case.)

 

*

 

If nine witness say you shot the mailman, do you need a tenth? 

HOPE THAT THE SENATE would perform its constitutional duties faded when Senator Lamar Alexander issued the following statement. In so doing, he gave the rule of law a few kicks in the nuts: 

I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven [emphasis added] and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.

 

There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a “mountain of overwhelming evidence.” There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

 

It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

 

Yes, the Democrats proved it. But they were “frivolous.” Yes, Trump did ask a foreign country to help him win the next election (and let’s not forget he and his aides were happy to take Russian help three years ago). 

Yes, it was “inappropriate.” 

Yes, what Trump did “undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.” 

And sure – although Sen. Alexander doesn’t mention it – it was wrong to put U.S. national security at risk in the pursuit of personal gain. But, hey, the Founding Fathers wouldn’t mind! If John Adams had asked the British to help him in the election of 1796, and Thomas Jefferson had turned around and asked the French to do a similar favor in 1800, what could have gone wrong? 

Finally, one might argue that while a president can “protect confidential conversations with his close advisers,” he cannot claim that prerogative when he is asking advisers to break the law.

 

Soon after, a Capitol Hill reporter tweets: 

ALEXANDER tells me why he’s a NO on additional evidence: “I was concerned about the Senate as an institution... I’m pursuaded [sic] the President did what he did I don’t need to hear anymore. If you have 9 witnesses who say you left the scene of an accident you don’t need a 10th one.”

 

“In other words,” your favorite blogger tweeted in response, “Trump could run over a citizen with a car, but Alexander wouldn’t want to see the police report.” 

The vote soon follows: 47 Democrats vote to call witnesses. They are joined by two Republicans, Romney and Collins. 

We learn that there are 51 pusillanimous cowards currently serving in the United States Senate.

 

* 

Ignoring an order that would have involved illegality. 

ALMOST AS SOON as the last vote in the Senate is counted, fresh revelations make it clear the 51 “no’s” should have waited before wrapping up the “trial.” The New York Times, relying on leaks, but holding the powerful to account, says Bolton’s book includes damning new evidence. According to the Times, Bolton writes that Trump told him in early May 2019, during an Oval Office meeting, to pressure Ukraine to come up with damaging information on the Biden family. 

Bolton says the meeting included Rudy Giuliani, Mick Mulvaney and Pat Cipollone (ironically, one of the leaders of Trump’s defense during the witness-free, evidence-free, Senate “Ghost Trial”). Trump wanted Bolton to call the newly-elected President of Ukraine and tell him to meet with Rudy. Bolton would have testified – had he been called – that, like Don McGahn during the Russia investigation, he decided not to follow an order that would have clearly involved illegality. 

In response to the Times article, Trump acted as his own witness, although he was not under oath. “I never instructed John Bolton to set up a meeting for Rudy Giuliani, one of the greatest corruption fighters in America and by far the greatest mayor in the history of N.Y.C., to meet with President Zelensky,” he told reporters. “That meeting never happened.” 

Which…if the Senate had had the courage and subpoenaed a few witnesses – Bolton, Mulvaney, Don McGahn, too – plus a few handy documents – would have proven who was lying. 

The Democrats in the House of Representatives did subpoena Bolton and others. 

The White House blocked every subpoena.

 

White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, for instance, refused to appear before the House – even though he would have been in position to defend Mr. Trump if he were innocent. 

The Democrats in the House of Representatives did subpoena documents. The White House blocked every subpoena. 

Rudy Giuliani and others defied a request for documents. 

Bolton was ready to honor a subpoena. The White House blocked him anyway. 

Now, the White House is reportedly trying to block publication of Bolton’s book. You know: Because Trump is innocent. 

A lawsuit in federal court, related to a subpoena for Don McGahn (a key witness in the Russia probe) to testify before the House of Representatives, has been tied up in court for months. The White House does not want the president’s former White House counsel to testify, even though he would be in a perfect position to prove Trump’s innocence in regards to the Mueller investigation.

 

* 

“If John Bolton says that in the book, I believe John Bolton.” 

AND HERE we should add an interesting sidelight. Former White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly decided to weigh in on the news of the day. The retired Marine general, who served in the White House from July 2017 to January 2019, had ample opportunity to observe Trump in action. 

See if you can guess who he thinks might be lying. 

He was asked if he would believe Bolton’s claim (as reported by The New York Times) that Trump told Bolton last August to keep holding the military aid until Ukraine agreed to do the investigations. “If John Bolton says that in the book, I believe John Bolton,” Kelly said without hesitation. “John’s an honest guy. He’s a man of integrity and great character, so we’ll see what happens.”

 

As for a trial in the Senate, Kelly warned against taking the path the 51 chickenshit GOP cowards later decided to follow. He said again, he believed Bolton was an honest guy, and “a copious note taker.” 

“If I was advising the United States Senate, I would say, ‘If you don’t respond to 75 percent of the American voters [who want witnesses] and have witnesses, it’s a job only half done,” Gen. Kelly said. “You open yourself up forever as a Senate that shirks its responsibilities.” 

And shirk them, they did. 

 

POSTSCRIPT: John Warner, a former longtime U.S. Senator from Virginia, issued this warning, to no avail. “Should the Senate allow additional sworn testimony from fact witnesses with firsthand knowledge and include relevant documents?” he asked in a written statement before the vote. 

Then he answered: 

As a lifelong Republican and a retired member of the U.S. Senate, who once served as a juror in a Presidential impeachment trial, I am mindful of the difficult responsibilities those currently serving now shoulder. I believe, as I’m sure you do, that not only is the President on trial, but in many ways, so is the Senate itself. As such, I am strongly supportive of the efforts of my former Republican Senate colleagues who are considering that the Senate accept the introduction of additional evidence that they deem relevant

 

Not long ago Senators of both major parties always worked to accommodate fellow colleagues with differing points of view to arrive at outcomes that would best serve the nation’s interests. If witnesses are suppressed in this trial and a majority of Americans are left believing the trial was a sham, I can only imagine the lasting damage done to the Senate, and to our fragile national consensus. The Senate embraces its legacy and delivers for the American people by avoiding that risk.

 

Throughout the long life of our nation, federal and state judicial systems have largely supported the judicial norms of evidence, witnesses and relevant documents. I respectfully urge the Senate to be guided by the rules of evidence and follow our nation’s judicial norms, precedents and institutions to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law by welcoming relevant witnesses and documents as part of this impeachment trial.