This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-too-early-for-democrats-to-move-on-from-impeachment/2020/01/03/76a9f5ba-2e5b-11ea-9b60-817cc18cf173_story.html
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Democrats shouldn’t let Republicans off the impeachment hook so early | |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| Democrats face risks in delaying and prolonging the impeachment debate. Prime among them is the collision of the presidential primary calendar with a Senate trial — especially when the outcome does not appear in doubt and voters will render the ultimate verdict on President Trump in November. But there are risks in the other direction as well, to constitutional duty and to history, that argue in favor of standing firm on the demand for witnesses and documents. It’s premature for Democrats to move on. It may not even be smart politics. | Democrats face risks in delaying and prolonging the impeachment debate. Prime among them is the collision of the presidential primary calendar with a Senate trial — especially when the outcome does not appear in doubt and voters will render the ultimate verdict on President Trump in November. But there are risks in the other direction as well, to constitutional duty and to history, that argue in favor of standing firm on the demand for witnesses and documents. It’s premature for Democrats to move on. It may not even be smart politics. |
| Even as the House voted to approve two articles of impeachment, it was abundantly clear there was more relevant testimony to which lawmakers are constitutionally entitled. That has become even more apparent in the weeks since, with additional revelations on Trump’s personal involvement in withholding aid to Ukraine. You can argue about whether the House should have acted before pursuing this information, but that is irrelevant to the position in which the Senate now finds itself. | Even as the House voted to approve two articles of impeachment, it was abundantly clear there was more relevant testimony to which lawmakers are constitutionally entitled. That has become even more apparent in the weeks since, with additional revelations on Trump’s personal involvement in withholding aid to Ukraine. You can argue about whether the House should have acted before pursuing this information, but that is irrelevant to the position in which the Senate now finds itself. |
| The latest Trump impeachment updates | The latest Trump impeachment updates |
| Which boils down to this: A reasonable senator could decide that there is enough evidence to convict Trump of abusing power and obstructing Congress based on the available evidence, despite the missing witnesses. | Which boils down to this: A reasonable senator could decide that there is enough evidence to convict Trump of abusing power and obstructing Congress based on the available evidence, despite the missing witnesses. |
| But the converse question — is there enough evidence on which to acquit the president? — demands a different answer. How can a reasonable senator — an “impartial juror,” as the senatorial oath will require — determine that Trump should be acquitted of the charges without hearing from former national security adviser John Bolton, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and others with direct knowledge of Trump’s behavior? That is hard if not impossible to justify — unless you are a Fifth Avenue senator, one who would not convict the president if he shot someone on the Manhattan street. | But the converse question — is there enough evidence on which to acquit the president? — demands a different answer. How can a reasonable senator — an “impartial juror,” as the senatorial oath will require — determine that Trump should be acquitted of the charges without hearing from former national security adviser John Bolton, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and others with direct knowledge of Trump’s behavior? That is hard if not impossible to justify — unless you are a Fifth Avenue senator, one who would not convict the president if he shot someone on the Manhattan street. |
| Political positions have flipped — surprise! — between then and now, but the arguments made by the Republican House managers at the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton illustrate how untenable the no-witnesses position is. Then, as Clinton attorney David E. Kendall noted in arguing against the need to call witnesses, every relevant party had been heard from, including Clinton himself, in testimony before the grand jury convened by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. | Political positions have flipped — surprise! — between then and now, but the arguments made by the Republican House managers at the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton illustrate how untenable the no-witnesses position is. Then, as Clinton attorney David E. Kendall noted in arguing against the need to call witnesses, every relevant party had been heard from, including Clinton himself, in testimony before the grand jury convened by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. |
| “The managers have simply identified no particular need for witnesses, no specific areas of testimony that might contribute to what is already in the record and, indeed, no material questions,” Kendall said. | “The managers have simply identified no particular need for witnesses, no specific areas of testimony that might contribute to what is already in the record and, indeed, no material questions,” Kendall said. |
| For their part, the Republican House managers, prosecuting the case, said they wanted to hear from 10 or so witnesses — including Clinton. They eventually whittled their request to three — Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal — who had already testified at length before the grand jury. | For their part, the Republican House managers, prosecuting the case, said they wanted to hear from 10 or so witnesses — including Clinton. They eventually whittled their request to three — Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal — who had already testified at length before the grand jury. |
| Then, the argument was not that the witnesses would provide essential facts but that senators were entitled, if not obligated, to determine their credibility. “Seeing, hearing, observing those live witnesses is important,” argued Florida Republican Bill McCollum. The Senate acceded to the managers’ request and saw videotaped testimony from the three. | Then, the argument was not that the witnesses would provide essential facts but that senators were entitled, if not obligated, to determine their credibility. “Seeing, hearing, observing those live witnesses is important,” argued Florida Republican Bill McCollum. The Senate acceded to the managers’ request and saw videotaped testimony from the three. |
| It cannot be that assessing demeanor is more important for the Senate than obtaining relevant facts. If witnesses were advisable then, they are essential now — and at an earlier stage of the process than during the Clinton proceedings, when the witnesses were called after the two sides had made their cases for and against removing the president. It makes no sense, in the far different context of the Trump proceedings, to present a picture that is by definition incomplete. | It cannot be that assessing demeanor is more important for the Senate than obtaining relevant facts. If witnesses were advisable then, they are essential now — and at an earlier stage of the process than during the Clinton proceedings, when the witnesses were called after the two sides had made their cases for and against removing the president. It makes no sense, in the far different context of the Trump proceedings, to present a picture that is by definition incomplete. |
| “Just like 20 years ago, we should address mid-trial questions such as witnesses after briefs, opening arguments, senator questions and other relevant motions,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Friday. “Fair is fair.” Well, logic is logic. Trial first, evidence later — if at all — gets the logic backward, which may be the goal here. | “Just like 20 years ago, we should address mid-trial questions such as witnesses after briefs, opening arguments, senator questions and other relevant motions,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Friday. “Fair is fair.” Well, logic is logic. Trial first, evidence later — if at all — gets the logic backward, which may be the goal here. |
| There are a few tiny cracks emerging among Senate Republicans, including Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Maine’s Susan Collins. Will more follow, such as Mitt Romney (Utah), Cory Gardner (Colo.), who is facing a difficult campaign in a purple state, or Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), who is retiring? | There are a few tiny cracks emerging among Senate Republicans, including Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Maine’s Susan Collins. Will more follow, such as Mitt Romney (Utah), Cory Gardner (Colo.), who is facing a difficult campaign in a purple state, or Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), who is retiring? |
| Maybe not, but we won’t know if Democrats don’t keep pushing. As a matter of crass politics, Democrats shouldn’t let Republicans, especially vulnerable incumbents, off the hook so easily. And there is far more at stake than mere politics. Even if it puts their presidential candidates at a disadvantage, senators have a duty to try to unearth the facts, whether or not it will change any minds. | Maybe not, but we won’t know if Democrats don’t keep pushing. As a matter of crass politics, Democrats shouldn’t let Republicans, especially vulnerable incumbents, off the hook so easily. And there is far more at stake than mere politics. Even if it puts their presidential candidates at a disadvantage, senators have a duty to try to unearth the facts, whether or not it will change any minds. |
| Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), then one of the House impeachment managers, put it well 21 years ago. “Under our Constitution, you don’t impeach people at the ballot box, you trust the U.S. Senate,” he said. “And I am willing to do that. Rise to the occasion for the good of the nation.” | Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), then one of the House impeachment managers, put it well 21 years ago. “Under our Constitution, you don’t impeach people at the ballot box, you trust the U.S. Senate,” he said. “And I am willing to do that. Rise to the occasion for the good of the nation.” |
| Read more from Ruth Marcus’s archive, follow her on Twitter or subscribe to her updates on Facebook. | Read more from Ruth Marcus’s archive, follow her on Twitter or subscribe to her updates on Facebook. |
| Read more: | Read more: |
| Jennifer Rubin: The jig is up: Bolton and Mulvaney have no excuse for not testifying | Jennifer Rubin: The jig is up: Bolton and Mulvaney have no excuse for not testifying |
| Doug Jones: Every trial is a pursuit of truth. Will my colleagues in the Senate uphold that? | Doug Jones: Every trial is a pursuit of truth. Will my colleagues in the Senate uphold that? |
| Jeff Flake: The president is on trial. So are my Senate Republican colleagues. | Jeff Flake: The president is on trial. So are my Senate Republican colleagues. |
| Tom Daschle and Trent Lott: Tom Daschle and Trent Lott: The Senate can hold a fair impeachment trial. We did it in 1999. | Tom Daschle and Trent Lott: Tom Daschle and Trent Lott: The Senate can hold a fair impeachment trial. We did it in 1999. |
| Max Boot: Democrats can prevent a sham trial in the Senate if they hang tough | Max Boot: Democrats can prevent a sham trial in the Senate if they hang tough |
Previous version
1
Next version