Trial and Error
The impeachment trial stumbles to an end, but plants the seeds of success for Democrats and a potential debacle for Republicans.
A Kerfuffle
That was fast. Five days after Donald Trump’s impeachment trial started, it ended on Saturday, as planned.
On Friday night, however, evidence from Republican Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler and other sources kicked off a last-minute kerfuffle over extending the trial. In the wake of Beutler’s earlier statements at a town hall, they confirmed to news outlets that, amidst the Capitol riot, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy had an expletive-laced shouting match over the phone with Trump. McCarthy urged presidential action to stop the attack; the president dismissively focused only on his political fortunes.
The Beutler revelations momentarily set in motion a process to call witnesses. But after some back and forth between and within the two political parties over allowing testimony, the House impeachment managers reversed themselves and settled for simply putting Beutler’s statement on record.
Did they err by not calling Beutler and other witnesses concerning what Trump said, did and didn’t do during the crucial hours of the seizure? On balance, I think not.
Trial testimony by Beutler and potentially others could have been devastating, if simply considered in isolation. But it would have triggered a rush of he said/she said rebuttals and lengthy procedural delays, including attempts to draw testimony from reluctant and resistant witnesses such as McCarthy. And it would have diverted the public’s and Congress’s attention away from the positive things the Biden administration is trying to do, not least regarding its massive Covid relief bill.
With the possible wisdom of hindsight, cases could be made for postponing the trial from the outset until more evidence was gathered — and in the process, leaving it dangling over Trump’s head — or suspending it on Saturday until more witnesses and evidence could be gathered. But that’s water under the bridge.
Even more to the point, it’s likely that none of this would have changed many or any Republican senators’ votes. If the House impeachment managers’ substantively superb and media-savvy presentation didn’t do the trick for the 43 who voted to acquit, some additional and disputed witness testimony would not have done so either. As impeachment manager and U.S. Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett put it, “We didn’t need more witnesses, we needed more senators with spines.”
Another question regards whether the anti-Trump testimony would have swayed much of the public to better understand how much his conviction was justified. But it seems that the pro-Trump public is locked in to its take on January 6, evidence be damned. And an extended trial would have attracted declining attention from people potentially persuadable.
In a more positive vein, there may yet be opportunities ahead to bring to the fore Beutler’s and other Trump-damaging information anyway, via congressional hearings, press reports, criminal investigations and other avenues.
The Magnificent Seven
All praise is due to the seven Republicans who bucked their craven colleagues’ tide to vote for conviction. But let’s bear in mind that five of them are either retiring from the Senate or won’t have to face re-election until 2026.
The sixth, Mitt Romney, has performed admirably during the post-Election Day period. But his stature and Utah’s unique politics make him less vulnerable than many colleagues regarding his (2024) re-election campaign.
The seventh, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, is the one who courageously put her neck most out on the line, given that she faces the voters again in 2022. However, she might be emboldened by the fact that she lost the Republican primary to a right-wing opponent in 2010 but went on to win the general election as a write-in candidate. And this might well be wishful thinking, but perhaps Trump’s attacks and the threat of him backing a 2022 primary opponent against her will push her right into the Democrats’ arms, as an independent who caucuses with them.
A Deal with the Devil
If the Democrats arguably didn’t err, what about the Republicans? And our Founding Fathers, for that matter?
On the moral and constitutional implications of the 43 senators’ de facto support for Trump, I’ll defer to an apocryphal James Madison tidbit, by way of satirist Andy Borowitz:
“I remember being in the writers’ room and asking Alexander Hamilton if we should put something in [the Constitution’s impeachment clause] about how a President should be convicted if he attempts a violent overthrow of the government,” Madison said. “Hamilton was, like, ‘First of all, that’s so obvious, we don’t want to insult people’s intelligence by spelling it out. And, second, a President would have to be a complete and utter psycho to try something like that. You have a wild imagination, my friend.’ “
As for the Republican Party’s future…its leaders are seeking to square the circle of retaining Trump’s support on the one hand, while pretending to have some principles and appealing to moderates and principled conservatives on the other. That’s certainly what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was after in decrying Trump’s conduct but nonetheless voting to acquit him.
I suspect that they won’t pull it off, that the voters they forfeit in the wake of January 6 will outweigh those they draw from the racist, sexist, nativist, outraged and ill-informed. Memories and videos of January 6 could come back to haunt the political fortunes of at least a few of the cowardly 43.
In addition, as former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum asserts, Trump lost. A majority of the public wanted him convicted. The bipartisan nature of the pro-conviction vote helps provide political cover for civil and criminal cases against him.
The Republican leaders’ deal with the devil may yet rend the party in some very predictable ways, should infighting tear it apart.
Or it may damage the party in ways unforeseen. After all, as Madison’s apocryphal ghost might put it, the inmates are running the asylum.
[Hat tip: DT]
Originally published at https://apromisedland.org on February 15, 2021.
