Nothing he can’t do

I last posted about the impeachment trial a week ago. Of course it has continued. The Democratic House managers wrapped up their case. The nasty guy team didn’t use all three days to spread their lies. And today is the third day of questions from senators. I hear a vote on whether to call witnesses will be held tomorrow.

Most of my sources are Daily Kos, so I’ll leave that as the default source unless I say the source was a tweet.

I start with a tweet from Sarah Kendzior. It’s from a new episode of Gaslit Nation which I’ll probably discuss in full once a transcript is available. Here’s the tweet:

There is no presentation of evidence that will sway the GOP. We know this because Trump has openly committed and confessed to crimes. He gets out of crimes by declaring them not to be crimes, not by actually proving his innocence.

If actual confession of crimes won’t sway this jury, nothing will. And declaring them not to be crimes – his defense team has been following that lead.

In an email to me my friend and debate partner wrote:

One big catch 22... Trump tried to cheat on the 2020 election all right, and for his own narcissistic purposes, for sure, but also to benefit the Republican Party and maintain its power. No one other than Trump could possibly be the GOP Presidential nominee this year, so his corruption is being tried before a "jury" whose key members (vote #34 to keep Trump in office) have a deep conflict of interest. Of course, we could demand that the Republicans all recuse themselves as jurors because of this major conflict of interest, leaving just the Democratic "jurors"... Sure, in my dreams. Not what the Framers intended.

The only cameras allowed in the Senate chamber during the trial are those of C-SPAN and they are aimed only at the speaker’s podium. Because of the camera ban the New York Times sent sketch artist Art Lein to see things the camera won’t. This link is to the series of sketches he has made during the trial. You can check back each day for more sketches.

So, backing up a few days…

Mark Sumner posted that the closing arguments from lead House manager Adam Schiff was one for the ages. Schiff said:

If right doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter how good the Constitution is. The framers could not protect us from ourselves if right and truth don’t matter. And you know what he did was not right. That’s what they do in the old country, where Colonel Vindman’s father came from, the old country that my great-grandfather came from, or the old country that my ancestors came from, or maybe where you came from.

Because right matters. And the truth matters. Otherwise, we are lost.

On to the nasty guy’s defense.

Mark Sumner describes the defense teams efforts as “Poppycock, pettifogging, and foul calumny: Trump’s team tries it all in the Senate trial.” Their efforts continued as the New York Times released an excerpt of John Bolton’s book in which Bolton says the nasty guy committed the crime he is being accused of. Sumner concluded:

In any case, the real case on Monday wasn’t happening in front of Mitch McConnell’s carefully aimed camera. It was happening offscreen, where Republicans were trying desperately to calculate whether giving Trump the quick acquittal that he wants—a move that had seemed like a sure thing on Friday, despite a crackerjack case from the House managers—was still such a slam dunk. Republicans always knew that going along with Trump was going to make them part of the conspiracy. They just didn’t know it was going to be this damn obvious.

In more posts, after the defense team concluded their case, Sumner summarized it this way:

1. It’s not really a crime anyway.
2. Joe Biden had it coming.
3. There could have been reasons.
4. You can’t prove it.

And with this:

Not one of Trump’s attorneys could produce anything that looked like a closing argument. Because that first requires an argument.

About Joe Biden … This whole Ukraine scandal was about the nasty guy trying to get the president of Ukraine to announce an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter. They didn’t need for there to be an actual investigation. Simply announcing an investigation they hoped would be enough to derail the candidacy of the former vice president. The plot was exposed before it actually happened.

No problem. Kerry Eleveld reported that the smearing was done by the nasty guy’s defense team as part of this impeachment trial. One could wonder what one has to do with the other. But that’s irrelevant.

Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa was gleeful that Biden was smeared. Beaming with all the enthusiasm of a high school cheerleader she said:

Iowa caucuses are this next Monday evening. And I'm really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters, those Democratic caucus goers. Will they be supporting Vice President Biden at this point? Not sure about that.

Eleveld responded:

Wow. Senate Republicans, supposedly weighing whether the nation's commander in chief tried to corrupt the 2020 elections with bogus investigations, are gleefully finishing the job Trump started.

Part of the defense was there was no actual crime. Hunter (no last name given) disputes this. It was bribery. Seeking something of personal value – an investigation into the Bidens to harm his elections chances – in exchange for performing an act as a public official is seeking a bribe.

It's bribery. Just say it. And every Republican senator either knows full well that Trump was soliciting a bribe or, by denying it, has indicated that they too are sufficiently corrupt to consider demanding precisely the same thing in exchange for doing their own official duties.

That is likely the case. It is evident, at this point, that nearly every Republican senator both stipulates that Trump did exactly what John Bolton claims to be an eyewitness to and is taking the official position that members of their party are indeed allowed to solicit such "favors" without repercussion or recourse. But it is unambiguously bribery, and each of them is now conspiring in that act.

And another crime: The nasty guy tweeted that “Shifty Adam Schiff” hasn’t yet paid the price for what he has done to our country. Joyce Alene, a federal prosecutor, responded:

What price are you suggesting he should pay?

It is a federal crime to threaten to assault a federal official in order to impede their performance of their duties, so if any Republicans still think impeachment requires a crime, I’ve got this one for you.

I read a bit of the liveblogging of the senators asking questions of the prosecution and defense teams. Some of those questions from the GOP side were designed to let the nasty guy defense repeat their favorite conspiracy theories or to smear Adam Schiff or Joe Biden.

These questions are written down and passed to Chief Justice Roberts to read. Which means he chose to read the questions about conspiracy theories. Sen. Rand Paul wrote a question that contained the name of the person presumed to be the whistleblower (the person who uncovered this whole mess) so the name would be said on TV. I’ve written before that all sorts of nasty guy fans would be delighted in bagging the kill. Which means Paul wanted to enable that killing to happen. Roberts, thankfully refused to read the question. In a huff, Paul left the Senate chamber (which he isn’t allowed to do with the trial in progress), to hold a press conference. He read is question in hopes the press will print the name. It looks like the press didn’t bite.

Sumner notes that GOP senators are no longer trying to say the nasty guy is not guilty. They are now saying, “So what?”

Republicans are aware that the case against Trump has been both overwhelming and compelling from the outset—which is why the “defense” of Trump was primarily focused not on proving his innocence, but on pretending that extorting foreign involvement in an election is a perfectly valid activity.
…
Republicans aren’t going to the “So what?” position because they feel it’s strong. They know it’s not strong. They’re going there because it is all they have left.

Kerry Eleveld says that the GOP is in a double bind on the subject of whether John Bolton should testify. If the vote tomorrow is against calling witnesses the GOP is ignoring 70% of the public and will pay the price at the ballot box. If they vote to call witnesses they open a Pandora’s box and lose control of the process. Either way the House has one final play of issuing a subpoena to Bolton to have him testify there.

Hunter reports the cost of the nasty guy’s defense team, expected to be in the millions of dollars, won’t be paid by the nasty guy. They will be mostly paid by the Republican National Committee. Which means they’re being paid by GOP donors. And because the money isn’t going to an actual campaign there are no campaign limits. There are a few government lawyers from the DoJ and the White House on the team – and we the taxpayers are paying for them.

Joan McCarter adds that Ken Starr and Robert Ray of the defense team have donated to Moscow Mitch’s campaign fund. Yeah, all that is corruption.

Laura Clawson reports that poll after poll shows that 66% to 80% of Americans, including substantial numbers of Republicans, want witnesses. Clawson concludes:

Senate Republicans don’t care what [Trump] did. They just want to stay in power, and they think Trump is their best bet for doing so. And even though voters have seen through their intent to cover up, they’re going through with it anyway, because apparently Republicans are convinced it’s better to have people know you’re covering something up than to have them knowing what lies under the covers.

Mark Sumner says the most damage was done by the answers given by nasty guy defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz. He claimed abuse of power isn’t impeachable. He claimed there is nothing the president can’t do in pursuit of reelection as long as the president believes his reelection would be for the good of the nation.

Of course, this particular occupant of the Oval Office believes whatever is good for himself is good for the nation.

Some of the things Dershowitz said a president could do include: Extort foreign governments. Threaten an ally. Investigate a political opponent (not just OK but desirable). Wrote Sumner:

He argued that daring to run against Trump painted a target on anyone’s back, and that Trump had all the power he needed to shoot at it.

If there was any doubt going into the evening, Dershowitz removed it: voting to acquit Trump means voting not just to dismiss this charge, but to embrace the idea that Trump trumps the law. He didn’t hint that Trump could do anything he wanted in pursuit of reelection; that was the core theme of his whole presentation. That was the point. That was what he said.

The Senate listened to a presentation from Trump’s legal team according to which there is nothing Trump can do in pursuit of reelection that isn’t justified. There is no limit to how Trump can use his power to persecute political opponents. According to the theory that was put forward on the floor of the Senate, Trump could simply lock up every Democratic opponent, or suspend elections indefinitely, and that would be just fine—not only an impeachable offense, but a good thing.

Republicans are going to vote for that. Republicans are going to press the button on not just a step toward autocracy, but a full-on embrace of it. They’re going to do it with a smile.

In a tweet Leah McElrath noted that bit about canceling the election.

That was last night. This morning, after a great deal of “concern” (except from GOP senators), Dershowitz claimed people were taking it the wrong way. Uh huh. We’re glad Moscow Mitch ordered the cameras remain on you the whole time you spoke.

Alexander Erin tweeted a long thread saying that the GOP has been moving towards authoritarian rule for some time now.

But Dershowitz is articulating the GOP's overall strategy as a legal theory governing impeachment and oversight, and that is a dangerous new wrinkle.

"If the president does it, it's not illegal" in defense of Low Poly Count Nixon, from a supposedly liberal supposed legal expert. We've got to repudiate this argument thoroughly, in the halls of Congress and beyond.

And we've got to recognize that this has been the GOP's game for decades. Concoct and spread a worldview in which Democrats are literally murdering babies. Cast them as anti-American. The GOP project is to cast mere policy differences by Democrats as a criminal attack on the continued existence of the country, and crimes by the GOP as mere policy differences.

People very reasonably responding to this with "But won't the GOP regret this precedent when the Democrats are in charge?", but the goal here is to prevent that. Make sure they hold power forever.

If, along the road to that level of autocratic control, they lose an election or two, they can count on the Democrats being far less ruthless in applying the power the GOP establishes, and far more susceptible to shaming and outcry over it.

When Norquist declared the beginning of a permanent conservative majority back in the 90s, he was asked "But what if the Democrats win an election?" and his answer was "It won't matter. We won't let them govern."

(Does that help put a lot of the past few decades in perspective?)

Here's some truth that Donald has always understood deep in his bones, perhaps better than anyone alive: it doesn't matter what the rules say, all that matters is if anyone will stop you. The rules as written are obstacles to slow lesser men.

Erin includes a tweet from Senator Chris Hayes:

Here's the ugly truth at the core of all of this: the president actually can do whatever he wants - rob, cheat, steal, murder - if he can hold 34 senate votes.

Back to Erin:

If Donald Trump is president at the end of the Senate trial (and this still strikes me as likely), he will be emboldened both by the acquittal and by the shiny argument gifted to him by Dershowitz. "I have an article II that says I can do whatever I want" and now this.

It's been ugly, neighbors, and it's going to get uglier. If he's acquitted, I think we're going to be hearing a lot more about "heads on pikes" and "getting tough" and "second amendment people" and "taking out".

That “heads on pikes” thing is from a nasty guy tweet. GOP senators were not upset the nasty guy tweeted it. They were upset that Schiff mentioned it.

Andrea Chalupa tweeted a map from The Economist with the quote:

More than a third of the world’s population still live under authoritarian rule.

The map shows much of Africa and Asia as being under authoritarian regimes. A few countries classify as hybrids, part democracy and part authoritarian. The US is shown as a flawed democracy.

That prompted several to respond with a link from BBC News in 2014 that America is an oligarchy, not a democracy.

I followed the link to The Economist. I couldn’t read the whole article because it is behind a paywall. However, their chart is in the open for all to see. It shows the democracy index for 167 countries (though you must run your mouse along the right edge to see them all) and for each year since 2006. Norway is at the top with a score of 9.87 out of 10 based on 60 indicators. North Korea is at the bottom with a score of 1.08. It shows that the US dropped from full democracy to flawed in 2016.