As the House-led impeachment inquiry nears the trial phase, some Democrats are accusing Republicans in the Senate of being partial.
You know, the same House Democrats who bent over backward for their “friends” on the other side of the aisle to ensure transparency during their interminable and partisan impeachment inquiry.
“I think we see clearly what’s going on here with the comments of Lindsey Graham and others, and that is they don’t want the American people to see the facts. They realize what’s been presented in the House is already overwhelming, but there’s more damning evidence to be had, and they don’t want the American people to see that, and I, you know, think that’s disgraceful.”Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) echoed Schiff’s remarks, stating on CNN, “It’s why I’m so disappointed in my colleagues, this ’see no evil, hear no evil' attitude, that they don’t want to look at anything that might disagree with their world view of Republicanism and this president.”
In other words, they listened to the evidence, weighed the evidence, judged the credibility of the various witnesses, and ultimately reached a conclusion. There’s nothing partial about this process.
McConnell and Graham’s opinions weren’t partisan in nature. They weren’t voting against conviction and removal because of their relationship with Trump. Rather, their decisions were strictly based on the fact that House Democrats failed to provide any evidence of an impeachable offense.
Schiff’s promise to present additional “damning” evidence is also unconvincing, as the House would have definitely presented such evidence during the inquiry phase, had it existed (Schiff can’t rely on the allegedly privileged documents that have been withheld because he hasn’t seen them and can’t speak to their contents or how allegedly “damning” they are). The fact that House Democrats failed to do so in a timely manner falls on them and is of no concern to Senate Republicans.
Nadler’s comments about McConnell’s determination to coordinate with White House counsel also fail to establish a violation of the oath. Generally, in a traditional civil or criminal trial, jurors aren’t permitted to discuss the case with one another until the jury begins deliberations. They also aren’t permitted to discuss the case with anyone else until the case is over. These rules don’t necessarily apply to the Senate. Therefore, McConnell is permitted to coordinate with White House counsel.
As McConnell pointed out, similar coordination happened during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.
This makes sense, given that impeachment is a political process and not a civil or criminal one.
For all intents and purposes, House Democrats presented their case during the impeachment inquiry phase. They were in complete control of the process by way of their partisan and one-sided resolution, prevented Republicans from calling multiple witnesses to testify, and called those witnesses whom they felt best helped their case to impeach the president.
McConnell and Graham heard the evidence, judged the credibility of the witnesses, and made a determination on the president’s “guilt” or “innocence” based on the complete record.
The Senate also has the right to revise or re-interpret the rules by way of a vote. If the Senate moves to immediately dismiss the case, would this be deemed a violation of the oath? This is highly unlikely.
McConnell and Graham are entirely correct in their assessment. The Senate shouldn’t waste too much time with this partisan impeachment. Having listened to the evidence during the inquiry phase, it should quickly dismiss this farce or acquit the president.
That would allow for a temporary reprieve until such time as the Democrats think of the next “made-up” indiscretion to pin on the president.
