Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Mendacious Mitch McConnell -- "We Don't Need No Stinking Witnesses"



A bipartisan majority of Americans want to see new witnesses testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.”

Reuters/Ipsos polling released January 22, 2020.

Despite Trump blocking the Democrats' requests for documents related to the administration's activities in Ukraine last year and urging officials like former national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo not to participate, a poll shows that both Republicans and Democrats want to see these officials tell the Senate what they know about the administration's policies in Ukraine.

About 72% agreed that the trial "should allow witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the impeachment charges to testify," including 84% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans. And 70% of the public, including 80% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans, said senators should "act as impartial jurors" during the trial.

The evidence presented in the House was not all the evidence available, and at least one witness, John Bolton, has indicated his willingness to appear before the Senate. According to Bolton, former White House national security adviser and potentially crucial witness …

"Accordingly, since my testimony is once again at issue, I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study. I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify."

Meanwhile as the trial begins, doubt about the leadership of the majority party continues. About 40% of Americans said they have a favorable view of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, while 60% said they have an unfavorable view of him.

It seems Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has a problem with the facts. He is taking the position that the evidence presented in the House impeachment inquiry is all the Senate needs to decide whether Trump should be removed from office, and that further testimony from witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial is unnecessary.

McConnell has other credibility problems. Early in December 2019, long before the impeachment trial, McConnell boldly announced to Fox News …

"Everything I do during this I'm coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this.”

McConnell added that he'll be in "total coordination with the White House counsel's office and the people who are representing the president in the well of the Senate."

McConnell also told reporters in December that he will not act as an "impartial juror" in the likely event of a Senate trial, stating: "This is a political process."

With his lockstep-with-Trump announcement, McConnell denies impartiality – negating an affirmation he took upon assuming the office. Senators must take the following oath before being sworn in for an impeachment trial:

"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [name of person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God."

As for witnesses, Mieke Eoyang, former professional staff member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Anisha Hindocha, former law clerk for the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs say …

The Constitution is clear: The Senate has “the sole Power to try” – not review – 'all Impeachments.' Unlike an appeals court, the Senate’s powers are not limited to review and remand; instead, it alone has the power to determine whether an impeached president should be punished by removal from office and disqualification from “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” These are powers reserved for trial, not appellate, courts.

What’s more, the two times in history that a presidential impeachment has reached the Senate, the chamber has treated it as a trial. The Senate proceedings in Andrew Johnson’s case included the testimony of 25 witnesses for the prosecution and 16 for the defense.

During the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the Senate deposed three witnesses—even after the extended independent counsel investigation that preceded the Senate trial. In fact, the Senate has obtained testimony from witnesses in every impeachment trial held in the past 50 years.”

(Mieke Eoyang and Anisha Hindocha. “The Senate Impeachment Trial: Call the Witnesses or Concede the Facts.” Lawfare. January 14, 2020.)

Moderate Republicans including Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Mitt Romney (Utah), Cory Gardner (Colo.) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) previously said they would be open to hearing from the likes of Bolton, but later in the trial, after opening arguments, per the McConnell rules, which follow the pattern of the rules used in the 1999 Bill Clinton impeachment trial.

A trial without all the facts is a farce,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. The public would be denied the opportunity to fully judge the president's actions without hearing from the people closest to him, Democrats have argued.

Still, in defiance, McConnell and many Republicans say they’re under no obligation to call witnesses, given that the Senate trial will almost certainly end in an acquittal that allows Trump to remain in office. In other words, partisanship is enough evidence for their important votes. Perhaps, impartiality is more than fleeting. It is long gone.

Witnesses in a controversial trial – the need is compelling. Without witnesses, the senate trial would be a sham. Besides, wouldn't a trial with witnesses be both fair to Trump, whose lawyers should be able to cross-examine them, and in the national interest? And who knows? Maybe the witnesses would best serve the president's interest (getting off the hook) … I doubt it, but after Trump won the election, I can truly say I have been surprised before.

A standard requiring proof of corrupt motive beyond a reasonable doubt is unworkable without witnesses. Testimony of witnesses who spoke directly with the president can raise or dispel doubts about motive and should be given the chance to perform that essential function.”

Evan A. Davis, The Hill



No comments:

Post a Comment