Who Knows How History Will Really Judge Anything-- Other Than The Climate Change Deniers?

Pretty much everyone I know agrees that history will judge the Trump enablers in Congress harshly, very harshly. But I don't know Ken Starr. Yesterday on Fox News' American Newsroom, Starr asserted that history-- which already judges him harshly for his failed attempt to railroad Bill Clinton out of office-- will judge congressional Democrats harshly. "The text of the Constitution," he said, "just entrusts [impeachment] to the good judgment, whether it's being exercised or not, to the House of Representatives. But history will, I think, judge this not well. It should judge it not well. [You] didn't have a full debate on the floor of the House-- and that just lends itself to, 'then to let's go to court and have this litigated.' And of course, the chairman then says, 'you go to court, you're in contempt.'"

Starr said that "For [Schiff to] essentially declare guilt... is another procedural irregularity. He should try his best... to give the appearance of fairness and open-mindedness. He's already declared the president substantively guilty, as well as procedurally guilty."

Republicans have been whining-- for no sane reason-- that the deposition phase of the impeachment inquiry was secret. It was secret because the Democrats were following House rules proposed by John Boehner and passed by the Republican-dominated House. Well, now they'll have nothing to whine about, right? Pelosi announced the public phase of the hearings will be voted on this week. You think Trump and his enablers want that?

Yesterday, the National Review ran an op-ed by Matt Continetti of the American Enterprise Institute, explaining why Republican senators aren't going to vote for impeachment. He points out that they would need Republican voters to change their minds about Trump in order for even senators who loath him and want to vote to expel him to do so. He points to a column by Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post for backup. "Samuelson acknowledges that public opinion is sticky. People don’t like changing their minds. 'People define themselves by their beliefs. It’s who they are and want to be.' Their views of Trump are like hardened concrete. 'At least for his core supporters, Trump has seemed remarkably adept at controlling the narrative of his presidency.' Samuelson offers two examples of shifts in public opinion: same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization. The public changed its mind about both. But advocates of impeachment shouldn’t get their hopes up. The comparison between cultural issues and political figures is misguided [and] the timeline for cultural change is much longer than the political calendar. It took decades for the public to accept same-sex marriage and pot. The rising generation is responsible for much of the difference in attitude. House Democrats hope to vote on impeachment by the end of 2019. Absent some technological breakthrough, there is not enough time for a pro-conviction GOP youth movement to be born, come of age, and displace Senate Republicans."

The Democratic strategy, Samuelson writes, “is premised on the hope that further shocking revelations will alter the political climate. Trump’s image will be so shattered that Republican senators will feel free to join the revolt against him.” This assumes the aim of the Democratic strategy is Trump’s removal, and not simply weakening him ahead of reelection while putting at-risk Republican senators like Susan Collins and Cory Gardner in difficult positions.

The record is clear that not much Donald Trump does shocks conservative Republicans. They are prepared to tolerate a high degree of instability and dysfunction simply to prevent the Democratic left from gaining power. They would have to reject this bargain rapidly, wildly, stunningly, and decisively for the Senate to remove the president from office. As Lincoln said: Public sentiment is everything.

A former assistant to Starr, now a member of Congress, told me these assertions yesterday were "bullshit piled on top of other bullshit. For three out of the last five federal officials who were impeached, there was no authorizing vote. And the impeachment target never has the right of cross-examination during the investigation, only during the Senate trial, and only when the Senate feels like it. The Supreme Court has ruled that an official being impeached has, basically, NO due process rights; the Fifth Amendment doesn’t even apply. I think that history already is judging Ken Starr harshly, and he knows it."