By David Harsanyi
Monday, February 03, 2020
Unless more incriminating evidence emerges to
dramatically alter public perception, the impeachment trial of Donald Trump is
effectively over.
It’s comforting, no doubt, to believe that Trump has
survived this entire debacle because he possesses a tighter hold on his party
than Barack Obama or George W. Bush or any other contemporary president did.
But while partisanship might be corrosive, it’s also the norm. In truth, Trump,
often because of his own actions, has likely engendered less loyalty than the
average president, not more.
It’s difficult to recall a single Democratic senator
throwing anything but hosannas Obama’s way, which allowed the former president
to ride his high horse from one scandalous attack on the Constitution to the
next. In 1998, not a single Democrat voted to convict Bill Clinton, who had
engaged in wrongdoing for wholly self-serving reasons, despite the GOP’s case
being methodical and incriminating. Attempting to impeach a president for lying
under oath to a federal grand jury in a sexual-harassment case in an
effort to obstruct justice was, as Alan Dershowitz and many others argued,
“sexual McCarthyism.” Few Democrats, though, claimed Clinton was innocent,
because no one could credibly offer that defense; they merely reasoned that the
punishment was too severe for what amounted to a piddling crime.
The chances of any party’s removing its sitting president
without overwhelming evidence that fuels massive voter pressure are negligible.
It’s never happened in American history — unless you count the preemptive
removal of Richard Nixon — and probably never will. Democrats are demanding the
GOP adopt standards that no party has ever lived by.
Perhaps if the public hadn’t been subjected to four years
of interminable hysteria over the United States’ imaginary decent into fascism,
it might have been less apathetic toward the fate of “vital” Ukrainian aid that
most Democrats had voted against when Obama was president.
And perhaps if institutional media hadn’t spent three
years pushing a hyperbolically paranoid narrative of Russian collusion — a
debunked conspiracy theory incessantly repeated by Democrats during the
impeachment trial — the public wouldn’t be anesthetized to another alleged
national emergency.
You simply can’t expect a well-adjusted voter to maintain
CNN-levels of indignation for years on end.
Beyond the public’s mood, the Democrats’ strategy was a
mess. House Dems and their 17 witnesses set impossible-to-meet expectations,
declaring that Trump had engaged in the worst wrongdoing ever committed by any
president in history. (I’m
not exaggerating.) When it comes to Trump criticism, everything is always
the worst thing ever.
Even if Trump’s actions had risen to the level of
removal, Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler were quite possibly the worst possible
messengers to make the case. These are not the politicians you tap to persuade
jurors; they’re the politicians you pick to rile up your base.
Despite all the fabricated praise directed at Schiff over
the past couple of weeks, the man reeks of partisanship. Not only because he’s
been caught lying about the presence of damning evidence against Trump on more
than one occasion, but because he personally played a sketchy role in helping
the whistleblower responsible for sparking the impeachment come forward.
Lots of Americans rightly believe that a large faction of
Democrats has been looking to impeach the president from Day One. Nadler
happened to be someone who was actually caught scheming to do it.
Even then, instead of spending the appropriate time building
a solid case, subpoenaing all the “vital” witnesses, and laying out a timeline,
House Democrats, by their own admission, rushed forward. They justified taking
shortcuts by warning that the country was in a race to stop Trump from stealing
the 2020 election just as he had allegedly stolen the 2016 election.
That wouldn’t have been a big deal if Nancy Pelosi hadn’t
exposed the supposed need for urgency as a ruse, by withholding the articles of
impeachment from the Senate for weeks. She did so despite having zero standing
to dictate the terms of the trial, no constitutional right to attempt to
dictate them, and no political leverage. In the end, she got nothing from Mitch
McConnell for her trouble.
Meanwhile, Democrats had spent most of the House hearings
focusing on the specific criminal offenses of “bribery” and “extortion” —
poll-tested words that were taken up after the House realized “quid pro quo”
didn’t play as well with the public. If, as seems likely, it’s true that
Americans are more familiar with the concepts of “bribery” and “extortion” than
with the concept of a “quid pro quo,” that just means they have clearer
expectations regarding the evidence needed to substantiate those accusations.
And the Democrats didn’t have such evidence. They didn’t even bother including
the former “crimes” — no, you don’t need a violation of criminal law to
impeach, but the word was incessantly used by House Dems anyway — in their
open-ended articles of impeachment, which were expressly written to compel
Senate Republicans to conduct an investigation for them.
The House had no right to demand that, and the Senate had
no reason to comply. So as soon as the upper chamber took up impeachment,
Democrats began dropping one “bombshell” leak after the next — the same strategy
they deployed during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings — to try and drag out the
spectacle and maximize the political damage. It didn’t work.
Some of us would certainly have preferred that more
Republicans concede Trump’s call was unbecoming and, in parts, inappropriate,
even if it didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Those who did,
such as Alexander and Pat Toomey, had a better case to make in dismissing the
need for any witnesses. Trump’s actions, though not ethically “perfect,” fall
under the bailiwick of presidential power. Voters can decide his fate soon
enough.
Democrats, though, keep demanding that Republicans play
under a different set of rules. The Constitution, a document that is under
attack by the very people claiming to want to save it from the president,
worked exactly as it should in this case. The House is free to subpoena all the
“vital” witnesses Republicans have supposedly ignored, and then send a new
batch of impeachment articles. Impeachment isn’t tantamount to a “coup,” any
more than Senate acquittal is unconstitutional or corrupt.
Pretending that Republicans are motivated by historically
unique strains of partisanship, acting like democracy is on the precipice of
extinction simply because you didn’t get your way, though, is nothing but
histrionics.
No comments:
Post a Comment