Two Republican senators have decided they don't need witnesses because they believe the House was correct in its factual findings against Trump.
First up, Lamar Alexander. After months of saying literally nothing about whether Trump should be investigated or impeached (other than maybe Trump's call was "inappropriate"), Alexander said he now agrees the facts show Trump illegally withheld aid to Ukraine, something the federal government's own General Accountability Office (GAO) also found after their independent investigation. And after the Trump White House admitted it withheld emails--remember how important Hillary Clinton's withholding of emails were?--that further proved Trump's guilt.
Second one up, Ted Cruz. Cruz has been more outspoken and, therefore, needed to pivot in the face of the evidence. In December 2019, Cruz had publicly stated in an interview, where he also acknowledged his constitutional law experience and appearances as a solicitor general at the US Supreme Court:
First up, Lamar Alexander. After months of saying literally nothing about whether Trump should be investigated or impeached (other than maybe Trump's call was "inappropriate"), Alexander said he now agrees the facts show Trump illegally withheld aid to Ukraine, something the federal government's own General Accountability Office (GAO) also found after their independent investigation. And after the Trump White House admitted it withheld emails--remember how important Hillary Clinton's withholding of emails were?--that further proved Trump's guilt.
Second one up, Ted Cruz. Cruz has been more outspoken and, therefore, needed to pivot in the face of the evidence. In December 2019, Cruz had publicly stated in an interview, where he also acknowledged his constitutional law experience and appearances as a solicitor general at the US Supreme Court:
...You remember three weeks ago, you had just about every Democrat in the House using the word bribery. They were all saying bribery, bribery, bribery. And the reason for that is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had polled it and done focus groups. And they discovered that bribery is really bad. And when it polled, it polled really bad, and so they said okay, let’s all say bribery, bribery, bribery. Here’s the problem. When the actual evidence was listened to, the testimony was listened to, there wasn’t a case of bribery. They couldn’t prove bribery. That’s not what the evidence proved....
Cruz also said in December 2019 that Democrats "don't want to find out what happened..." and were only making "partisan attacks" against the president, as if there was evidence being suppressed which showed Trump did not engage in bribery or extortion. In this regard, it is important to note the definitions of bribery and extortion include attempted bribery and extortion--for good reason. The reason is to not allow politicians to even try to bribe or extort. It is why Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was impeached and went to jail for trying, but failing to get money to give someone Obama's Senate seat Obama was vacating after his becoming president in 2008. Cruz had also said, just before the end of 2019, "anyone voting on the facts, anyone voting on the the law, this is a very easy vote....That plainly doesn't meet the constitutional threshold" of the Constitution's statement about "high crimes and misdemeanors." In that same interview, he called the charges against Trump "laughable."
But then, faced with John Bolton's statements in Bolton's book, with Bolton being in the room with Trump, Cruz shifted to saying the quid pro quo within bribery and extortion cases "doesn't matter." That's some pivot. From denying there is any evidence to convict Trump to saying, well, there is, but it doesn't matter.
But then, faced with John Bolton's statements in Bolton's book, with Bolton being in the room with Trump, Cruz shifted to saying the quid pro quo within bribery and extortion cases "doesn't matter." That's some pivot. From denying there is any evidence to convict Trump to saying, well, there is, but it doesn't matter.
Overall, there is no reason to acquit Trump that has any integrity, and every single Republican Senator knows it. Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Trump supporter in 2016, and a certifiably right wing political commentator as well as former federal judge, had admitted for months the case against Trump was objectively strong. He finally wrote, on January 23, 2020:
It leaves us with valid, lawful, constitutional arguments for Trump's impeachment that he ought to take seriously. That is, unless he knows he will be acquitted because Republican senators have told him so. Whoever may have whispered that into his ear is unworthy of sitting as a juror and has violated the oath of "impartial justice" and fidelity to the Constitution and the law.
What is required for removal of the president? A demonstration of presidential commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, of which in Trump's case the evidence is ample and uncontradicted.
This is why Lamar Alexander had to admit the truth of the allegations. This is why Ted Cruz had to pivot to saying the president's bribery or extortion of Ukraine's president "doesn't matter." It is important that Jerry Nadler (D-NY), a leading House Manager, quoted Alexander Hamilton's letter to George Washington about the intrigues of Hamilton's own day:
When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanour—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may “ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.”
And here is a right wing oriented law website explaining, in 2018, Hamilton's views on impeachment, particularly in Hamilton's contributions to what we call The Federalist Papers, which leaves no doubt, under the facts and laws of our nation, Trump was guilty under the two impeachment articles.
The argument over witnesses is an exercise in gaslighting and cynicism
It is important to note Cruz voted against allowing any witnesses to appear, even as some of his Republican colleagues, such as Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), also voting against witnesses appearing, claimed the House impeachment process rushed and flawed, which can only mean additional witnesses needed to be heard, at least according to Republicans. But if it was true more witnesses need to be heard in the face of the uncontroverted evidence, let's remember what Cruz said about the House impeachment process in December 2019: "The process they're (the House Democratic Party leadership) employing continues to deny basic due process protections, including, most critically, the right for the minority to subpoena witnesses." He even said, before deciding otherwise, Trump had the right to call witnesses in his "defense."
It is important to note Cruz voted against allowing any witnesses to appear, even as some of his Republican colleagues, such as Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), also voting against witnesses appearing, claimed the House impeachment process rushed and flawed, which can only mean additional witnesses needed to be heard, at least according to Republicans. But if it was true more witnesses need to be heard in the face of the uncontroverted evidence, let's remember what Cruz said about the House impeachment process in December 2019: "The process they're (the House Democratic Party leadership) employing continues to deny basic due process protections, including, most critically, the right for the minority to subpoena witnesses." He even said, before deciding otherwise, Trump had the right to call witnesses in his "defense."
What is pathetic about the "we need more witnesses" argument is, if Republican senators really believed that, they could have openly asked Chief Justice John Roberts to order a subpoena be issued. See this New York Times article from a former Republican Congressman from Oklahoma and two law professors showing how Roberts could have done the same himself, in the interest of conducting a fair trial where some jurors wanted to hear more evidence.
But let's not let the Democrats in the House and Senate completely off the hook with regard to the Republicans' cynical argument about needing more witnesses. I am also angry the Democratic House Managers did not call the bluff of these phony Republicans, but I have decided the House Managers wanted to protect Hunter and Joe Biden from being included as witnesses--something Cruz, in an off-guard moment, had quietly "floated" as a compromise, meaning force Trump officials to testify in return for Hunter and Joe Biden testifying. My take is the Bidens could have easily and successfully testified, and the Trump defense lawyers would have failed as much as the Benghazi hearings failed to show Hillary Clinton did anything wrong. As former NY Times reporter James Risen, who broke the initial story about Hunter Biden joining the Ukrainian company board, wrote, Hunter Biden joined the Board after the period in which the prosecutor was investigating that company, and how the company had made wholesale changes to the executive officers and boards. Biden's call for investigation of corrupt Ukrainian companies and the former Ukraine government included the very company Hunter joined, as Risen noted, in his great extended article linked above from The Intercept online magazine, which article is so worth reading. In short, there was far more risk to Republicans than Democrats in having Pence, Pompeo, and Mulvaney testifying under oath than the Bidens testifying under oath. And with John Bolton, one of the guys in the room on Trump's end of the calls, admitting in his new book (and saying he would agree to be a witness) the allegations against Trump were correct, there was nothing left factually to argue about.
The Sinclair Lewis 1935 prophecy and the Echoes from 1968
As I have consistently said, with all we know about Trump's relationships with Russians and Russia over the past 25 years, and during and after his 2015-2016 presidential campaign, for Republicans to continue to defend Trump is to give the ultimate lie to the entire post-World War II period and beyond Red Scare, starting with the attacks against people such as Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, and John Stewart Service. I have also said Trump is undermining what remains of our Republic, and, will now feel free to do worse--such that I have reluctantly found "strange bedfellows" among the Cold Warriors I have long despised. I had wanted this impeachment process to expose the Republicans, and I think among a majority of Americans, that has been done. And a majority of Americans see how the US Senators are gaslighting America.
I get it, as Chris Hedges and other anti-anti-Trumpists have argued, how Trump could have been found guilty under other facts and conduct. However, that does not exonerate Trump from being found guilty under the two articles presented to the Senate. I, too, would have raised my voice against anyone saying, as was said after Nixon resigned in 1974 in the face of impeachment proceedings, that "the system worked" if Trump was convicted and removed from office following this impeachment. No, the process would not have "worked" in the sense of completely working. But it would have shown there are limits to the arbitrary executive power and some reason to hope we may not cross lines that only give more portent to Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here (1935). However, I continue to fear Trump could easily prevail in his November 2020 re-election through the Electoral College, as Trump is still likely to lose fairly big in the popular vote, and Republicans continue to hold the Senate.
As I consider those fears, I sometimes think the nation is under a curse, but why now, and why hundreds of years after the European settlers in this nation began the process of exterminating native peoples and enslaving Africans, and continued injustices we see? Yet, the thought remains our nation may be cursed with a corrupt system, and with too many leaders who are continually defying good sense, any sense of moral justice, and any sense of decency. It is scary so many of us are relying on Bernie Sanders, an old guy most admittedly, to save us, in the way so many hoped Bobby Kennedy would save America from itself in 1968. I continue to worry about Bernie's safety as the slings and arrows become more sharp and frequent. I pray Sanders can defeat the corporate Democrats, who are so often handmaidens to corporate power and inadvertently Trumpism, unite young people, sensible white folks, people of color, and workers overall. I pray Sanders can begin to help us wean ourselves from the military-industrial complex.
I get it, as Chris Hedges and other anti-anti-Trumpists have argued, how Trump could have been found guilty under other facts and conduct. However, that does not exonerate Trump from being found guilty under the two articles presented to the Senate. I, too, would have raised my voice against anyone saying, as was said after Nixon resigned in 1974 in the face of impeachment proceedings, that "the system worked" if Trump was convicted and removed from office following this impeachment. No, the process would not have "worked" in the sense of completely working. But it would have shown there are limits to the arbitrary executive power and some reason to hope we may not cross lines that only give more portent to Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here (1935). However, I continue to fear Trump could easily prevail in his November 2020 re-election through the Electoral College, as Trump is still likely to lose fairly big in the popular vote, and Republicans continue to hold the Senate.
As I consider those fears, I sometimes think the nation is under a curse, but why now, and why hundreds of years after the European settlers in this nation began the process of exterminating native peoples and enslaving Africans, and continued injustices we see? Yet, the thought remains our nation may be cursed with a corrupt system, and with too many leaders who are continually defying good sense, any sense of moral justice, and any sense of decency. It is scary so many of us are relying on Bernie Sanders, an old guy most admittedly, to save us, in the way so many hoped Bobby Kennedy would save America from itself in 1968. I continue to worry about Bernie's safety as the slings and arrows become more sharp and frequent. I pray Sanders can defeat the corporate Democrats, who are so often handmaidens to corporate power and inadvertently Trumpism, unite young people, sensible white folks, people of color, and workers overall. I pray Sanders can begin to help us wean ourselves from the military-industrial complex.
