Wednesday, October 30, 2019


The Washington Post ran a peculiar op-ed yesterday. Lanny Davis, the longtime Clinton confidant and, more recently, attorney for Michael Cohen, joined forces with Trumper turned anti-Trumper Anthony Scaramucci to argue that the president should be impeached ... but probably shouldn't be tried in the Senate.
... President Trump must be impeached by the House and removed from office, either by the Senate or at the ballot box on Nov. 3, 2020.

...But we believe the Senate should proceed to a trial only if at least 20 Republican senators announce beforehand that they are open-minded about removing Trump from office.

... If such public announcements of open-mindedness by at least 20 Republican jurors do not occur within a month or so after the House impeachment resolution, then we suggest a Senate trial would be a waste of time and unwise.

... we would propose that the president be given the option of having a full Senate trial if he wants one.

But our instinct is that, if given a choice, Trump would say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” ...

We still believe a House impeachment vote must occur.

... we are confident that the American people will use the ballot box on Election Day to remove him from office.
Then last night, from the far right, there was this from Fox's Laura Ingraham:
Laura Ingraham sent a warning to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Tuesday, calling on him to "stand up" to House Democrats and warning him and Senate Republicans that if they do not act against the impeachment inquiry against President Trump that "the republic" and "future presidencies" are at risk.

"A Senate majority leader must start using his power to stand up against the Democrats political reign of terror. This is McConnell's moment. He needs to show the American people that the GOP stands united behind the man that they elected to lead this country, run our foreign policy, help advance our economy," Ingraham said on "The Ingraham Angle."

... Ingraham called on McConnell to consider changing the rules regarding an impeachment trial and try to make it as short as possible.

"But I will say this these times require extraordinary measures. The House Democrats have decided to launch a partisan hit on a sitting president using members of the foreign policy establishment to trigger a bogus process," Ingraham said. "McConnell can and should aggressively push for a blisteringly short impeachment trial."

Ingraham said:
Now, it is true that there are current rules governing how impeachment is done. Those rules have largely been unchanged for decades and decades. Probably time for some updating, don't you think? ... Giving Democrats maybe an afternoon to put on their sham case -- I think that's too generous.
What's going on here?

Ingraham, Scaramucci, and Davis aren't in sync on all matters, but they know how dangerous a Senate trial could be for the swing-state Republicans who give McConnell his majority. I imagine they all agree that it would be worrisome to give a House and Senate majority to that crazy radical Elizabeth Warren if she's elected president (even though House and especially Senate Democratic majorities would be, on average, much more moderate than Warren).

When vulnerable Senate Republicans are afraid to cast any votes against Trump because they need to protect their right flank while fearing pro-Trump votes because many of their states' voters are disgusted by the president, you can see why Ingraham and the still-conservative Scaramucci might be wishing the Senate trial would just go away. You can make up your own mind about why Davis, a lawyer with the occasional dictator or dodgy corporation on his client list, might be signing on to this idea.

In any case, I don't think anyone here is concerned about the proper conduct of government. They just want Collins, Gardner, McSally, Ernst, Cornyn, and Tillis reelected.

No comments: