71% Of Voters Want The Senate To Call Witnesses-- But Trump Has Ordered Moscow Mitch Not To-- Do You Wonder Why?

Friday morning, Señor Trumpanzee went bonkers when he was told that the night before, top evangelical magazine, Christianity Today, had called for his removal from office in a powerful editorial.

Hours later, right-wing polemicist Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor of National Review did much the same in a lengthy OpEd, calling on the Senate to remove Trump from office. He wrote that "Advocates of a president’s removal from office by Congress should have to climb over four walls to reach their objective. First, they should have to show that the facts they allege are true. Second, they should show that the fact pattern amounts to an abuse of power or dereliction of duty by the president. Third, they should show that this abuse or dereliction is impeachable. And fourth, they should show that it is prudent for Congress to remove the president for this impeachable offense: that it would produce more good than evil."

His conclusion was that the House met all four requirements. The fourth wall, he asserted, was the hardest to prove... but he concluded that the facts of the matter do show that removing Trump would indeed produce more good than evil.

The strongest arguments against removing Trump fall under the heading of prudence. They hold that while he abused his power, it would be better to let voters judge that abuse in the upcoming election than for Congress to remove him; that his removal would be bitterly divisive; that it would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging Congress to strike against presidents over trivial disagreements. Like a nuclear weapon, in short, impeachment should be deployed extremely sparingly if at all.

The analogy is common but inapt. It is a nuclear weapon that replaces the president with his own handpicked ally, making it less potentially devastating in that respect than a general election. It also can’t be deployed unless the public has a much larger level of support for it than it has mustered for any presidential candidate in decades. Only once in U.S. history has a president left office because Congress was going to remove him. The possibility of impeachment is a weak check on the presidency and cannot be made into a strong one.

It might be possible to regard Trump’s Ukraine misadventure as a lapse of judgment, with little harm done, if he showed any repentance or even understanding of what he has done wrong. Instead it looks more like a window into tendencies of his that are incompatible with performing the functions of his office.

Whether Trump should be removed from office over the objections of nearly half the country is not an important question. He can’t be. There are better questions. Would it be good for the country if a large majority of Americans were to be persuaded that it is unacceptable for a president to use his office to encourage foreign governments to investigate his political opponents? Assuming that the necessary level of support to remove a president from office for that offense will not be reached, should we prefer that more elected officials go on record that it is unacceptable-- or that fewer do?

If you have read this far, you know my answer to these questions. The Constitution provides for impeachment and removal to protect us from officials, including presidents, who are unable or unwilling to distinguish between the common good that government is supposed to serve and their own narrow interests. Though he has done some good things in office, Trump is just such a president. Congress should act accordingly.

That isn't what MoscowMitch has in mind. He-- working with the White House, as he has admitted, has decided on a trial with no impartial jurors, no witnesses-- just an opportunity for senators to make video clips for their campaigns. At this point, all that the Senate trial envisioned by Trump and McConnell would accomplish, as Seth Abramson noted in Newsweek, "would be a disingenuous exoneration for a profoundly disingenuous man, indeed one that would set a terrible example both for future generations and for a country whose rule of law is presently near the tipping point."

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Pelosi is going to delay sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate under these circumstances, "seeking more clarity on the rules for President Trump’s trial and potentially pushing the proceedings well into the new year."

Trump and his allies are flipping out again and but Pelosi said that "she couldn’t select impeachment managers and advance the matter without more details about the Senate’s plans for a trial, which she has said should be conducted in a manner that she considers fair. 'When we see the process that is set forth in the Senate, then we’ll know the number of managers that we may have to go forward and who we will choose,' Mrs. Pelosi said shortly before the House adjourned for the rest of the year."

Friday morning, Maria Cardona editorialized in The Hill that "Trump’s legacy is marred forever. But so are the legacies of Republicans who have put party and president over country and Constitution. History will not be kind to Trump. Wednesday’s impeachment already has marked what will be the lead in any history book or internet entry about Donald J. Trump. But history also will not be kind to Republicans who have enabled and stood by Trump with every vile tweet and defended every racist, hurtful policy, even as they privately acknowledged that they don’t like this president and don’t like what he is doing to their party. History will call them cowards, and that will be correct. History will find they were wanting of the qualities the nation needed at an uncertain, dangerous time. At a moment when the chief executive of the most powerful nation on Earth has made clear that he will do what he wants, abuse his power at will and destroy any Republican who dares to speak or act against him, Republicans failed the nation and their constituents miserably. Instead of standing up for truth, honor and American values, they chose the path of least resistance, the one most likely at the moment to lead to their reelections."

In the words of Iowa progressive Michael Franken, a retired admiral running for the Senate seat occupied by Trump enabler Joni Ernst: "The GOP faces a Sophie’s Choice in the Senate: Senators must consider the implications of a 'nay' vote now and what that means at the Republican National Convention next summer, versus an 'aye' vote and attempting to bring a viable candidate forward in 2020 in place of President Trump. Surely the thought of a President, whose popularity has diminished since 2016 coupled with overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing with Ukraine, means the GOP must either brace up VP Pence following an impeachment vote now or face down a roaring President Trump at the convention next summer. The Sophie’s choice is their's."