The #NeverTrumpers Now Prefer Pelosi Over Moscow Mitch

Moscow Mitch didn't become Moscow Mitch out of the blue, did he?

The Bulwark is the foremost #NeverTrump publication, an elite gaggle of Republicans, like William Kristol, Charlie Sykes, Mona Charen, Molly Jong-Fast, Tim Miller, Hannah Yoest, Richard Paterson and Jim Swift, who are nauseated by Trump and by Trumpism. Apparently they’re also #NeverMoscowMitch as well too now, a step in the right correct direction. Last week they defined him as a problem for the U.S., a problem for the Constitution and a problem for the Senate, who is “fundamentally distorting our constitutional norms and damaging the health of American politics.” They’re pouting because Señor Trumpanzee “has been impeached by the House of Representatives and one man stands in the way of a fair trial in the Senate: McConnell.” They seem to prefer Nancy Pelosi-- at least in this instance-- even though “she took too long to move to impeach a president who has been abusing his powers in multiple ways that extend well beyond the two passed articles.” Still, they commend her for “her commitment to the Constitution and her accomplishment in leading the House to well-crafted impeachment articles,” which they dub “remarkable and historic… In contrast, what has Senator McConnell done in response to the Speaker’s request and the proposal of Minority Leader Schumer that the Senate tailor the Trial Rules for Impeachment to this case in a way that permits the House managers to make their case and the president’s counsel to defend him? McConnell has shown contempt for the very notion of a fair trial. Indeed, he and Sen. Lindsay Graham have announced-- effectively pledged-- that they will not follow the new oath that they will be required to take once the chief justice is invited to preside.”

The Bulwark crew asserts McConnell (and Graham), the Senate’s top most prominent closet cases, by the way, "know what they are doing, are conscious that it is wrong, and are willfully pursuing this course anyway in order to support a president whose prospect for anti-constitutional behavior had worried both of them during the 2016 election season. These are why their comments on the upcoming Trial are among the most contemptible by any Senators in American political history."

[McConnell] has promised that there would not be a fair trial on the pattern of previous impeachment trials in the Senate, with rules negotiated by the two parties that allow for both sides to call witnesses and makes their cases.

He has laid down a diktat that the matter will be dispatched with as quickly as possible, without any witnesses or new documents.

He has repeatedly promised to violate the new oath he will take to do impartial justice-- as has his Judiciary Committee chair, Lindsay Graham.

He has publicly claimed that the case is worthless before allowing the case to be made.

He has disparaged the sole power of impeachment of the other house of the Congress.

He has insisted that his caucus stay in lock step with him as if impeachment were a matter of ordinary politics, rather than an upcoming trial where all of his colleagues are equal judges of the House articles.

In sum, McConnell’s actions to date prevent the Senate from organizing the trial-- whatever the ultimate verdict-- in a way consistent with the constitutional design and with a sense of fairness in the body politic.

…McConnell is abusing his own office in his attempt to dismiss a trial before it can be conducted fairly.

If a bipartisan group of public-spirited constitutionalists on both sides of the aisle come together, they can tell McConnell that he will only get 51 votes for amending the Rules of the Senate for Impeachment Trials if he works with them to fashion a fair process that allows for crucial documents to be compelled to be produced, and a reasonable number of witnesses to be called-- and for reasonable times and procedures be set.

Republicans should be willing to accept the witnesses the Democrats want called, and Democrats should be generous in permitting the president his number of witnesses. By generous, we mean that, contrary to Senator Schumer’s proposal, judgment on the relevance of the president’s witnesses should be made publicly at the trial, with the aid of the chief justice’s rulings, rather than ruled out now.

If the president wants to call Joe Biden, for example, so be it. Objections to particular questions to any of the witnesses, including perhaps the president himself, can be adjudicated at the trial by the chief justice and the senators, acting in their new role as fellow judges.

There is no good reason to fear a fair and complete Senate trial. The House managers will make their case, and whatever additional witnesses they can call in the Senate whose testimony was blocked in the House will be experienced public servants who will, we trust, testify truthfully and appropriately.

The president’s lawyers may be tempted to try to create what some of us would consider a circus, but the character of the president’s defense surely has to be up to him. In any case, the nation will survive a bit of a circus. And ultimately we need to turn to their common sense to judge the president and his defenders.

If conducted under rules acceptable to all Senators, as was the last Trial twenty years ago, at the end of the day, a verdict will be rendered that will vindicate the Constitution and convey to the nation a sense of a fair and orderly process. The only way to get to that outcome is if some Senate Republicans refuse to lower themselves to be the mere agents of an unprincipled and partisan leader and instead rise to the demands of principle and statesmanship.

Seems odd that there are no public polls available showing how Kentucky voters feel about Moscow Mitch’s role in this… drama. There was, though, a very provocative OpEd in McConnell’s hometown paper. “We Kentuckians know that our word is our bond,” wrote law professor Kent Greenfield last week. “Oaths are the most solemn of promises, and their breach results in serious reputational-- and sometimes legal-- consequences. President Donald Trump will soon be on trial in the Senate on grounds that he breached one oath. Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is about to breach two.”

The Constitution does not set out the text of the trial oath, but the Senate rules do. Senators will "solemnly swear ... that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God."

The presidential oath and the senatorial oath to be taken before an impeachment trial are kin. The president must act faithfully and without corruption. In those (presumably) rare situations in which the president has failed to be faithful, the Senate is required to be faithful in its adjudication of the case against him.

But we have already seen indications that McConnell has no intention of doing impartial justice. He has said that he does not consider himself an “impartial juror.” He is coordinating strategy with the White House. He has already called the case against the president “thin” and “incoherent.”

Every senator has a constitutional obligation of impartiality. But McConnell’s role as Senate leader makes his obligation even more important and crucial to the constitutional framework. This is not a time for political cynicism or constitutional faithlessness. McConnell’s loyalty to Trump should not overwhelm his loyalty to the Constitution. If he fails in this, he is not only violating his Article I oath but his Article VI oath.

An important caveat about these elite Republicans: they feel entitled to tell Democrats who their nominee should be (Biden or Bloomberg) and not be (Bernie and Elizabeth). Let they go lay in the bed of shit they have created for themselves-- and the rest of us-- over the course of the past few decades.