The shrug emoji

It is one thing to know the GOP in the senate would refuse to hear witnesses on their way to acquitting the nasty guy. It’s another for them to do it. I felt dread when I heard various senators announce their votes and it would actually happen. I was safely eating supper with friends then off to an orchestra concert when the votes were counted.

There appears to be a general vote was 51-49 to prevent witnesses. Then five more votes to deny hearing from particular witnesses and to refuse subpoenaing documents.

Colin Jost of Saturday Night Live summarized it this way:

Democrats spent three days laying out in great detail how they believe President Trump has been the most egregious abuser of power in American history. And then Republicans laid out their defense: the shrug emoji.

And a summary by Greg Sargent:

GOP argument:
* We've already heard enough witnesses, so we don't need to hear from the one with the most direct knowledge of Trump's central act.
* We'll acquit, b/c Ds failed to produce testimony from anyone with direct knowledge of Trump's central act.

People have wondered why the Republican senators who have already announced retirement are still toeing the party line. Why can’t they do the right thing? Tim Alberta explains part of it is their earning power after the Senate. Alberta adds they feel trapped and even retirement isn’t an escape:

And it’s not just about money. I’ve had numerous retiring Rs talk warily — sometimes fearfully — about the “cult” of Trump supporters back home. They worry about harassment of their families, loss of standing in local communities, estranged relationships, etc.

If you think this is a bunch of weak-ass excuse making from people who ought to rise above it and do what they think is right..... well, no argument here.

Pardon me while I fail to find any sympathy.

Even though the GOP still intends to shred the constitution Mark Sumner of Daily Kos has praise for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, lead manager Adam Schiff, and the rest of the prosecution team. The team repeatedly showed they were prepared and gave stirring speeches in defense of democracy and did everything they could. They are American heroes.

They did convince many in the Senate that what the nasty guy did was a crime. But those senators were never willing to say such a crime is important enough to remove him from office.

When the House impeachment managers come back to the other end of Capitol Hill, they should do so with heads held high. More than that, they should be met with trumpets. With flowers. With every plaudit that can be brought to genuine heroes of their nation. They should get a parade.

And then there should be another parade of people in the streets. In every street in the country.

A quote of the day:

Black nationalists have always perceived something unmentionable about America that integrationists dare not acknowledge --that white supremacy is not merely the work of hotheaded demagogues, or a matter of false consciousness, but a force so fundamental to America that it is difficult to imagine the country without it.
~~Ta-Nehisi Coates, We Were Eight Years in Power: An American Tragedy (2017)

Kimberly Adkins tweeted that during the question and answer days…

CJ Roberts just read @SenWarren’s Q: “Does fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, #SCOTUS or Constitution?”

Warren was criticized for the question because Roberts wasn’t going to answer and the defense team wasn’t going to answer honestly. But many others praise the question because it shows Warren understands what is going on.

Walter Einenkel of Daily Kos summarizes the important points in the whole trial, for those who want to revisit the whole mess.

Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine comments that the Democrats were worried that the impeachment trial will keep too many of candidates who are current senators off the campaign trail so they signaled for a short trial – which the GOP used against them by declaring if witnesses were called the trial could go on for months.

This threat underscored the method Trump has used all along to ward off accountability. He threatens to exhaust every avenue to withhold evidence, running out the clock, and then uses the fear of a lengthy process as a shield. Trump will drag it out, and then Democrats will be blamed for running the process into the election season.

But what if you assume, instead, that the cover-up affixes the blame onto Republicans?

Chait goes on to say the House doesn’t have to be done with impeachment hearings. And they could add to that hearings to contradict the GOP belief that abuse of power is permissible.

Matt Glassman tweeted “The ammunition of an ‘unfair trial’ seems quite valuable.”

Kerry Eleveld of Daily Kos also has a summary:

But politically speaking, this proceeding was never about putting Trump on trial—everyone who had been paying attention knew the outcome in advance, including Nancy Pelosi. It was about putting the GOP-led Senate on trial. That's why Pelosi held the articles of impeachment for nearly a month, so she could frame the proceeding as a referendum on Senate Republicans. And guess what? They failed spectacularly in a disgraceful show of craven hubris. They couldn't even fake impartiality long enough to allow for witnesses to be heard. In the end, they offered America no justice—no feeling of finality—just a hollow sense of being wronged with no recourse.

But here's the silver lining: During a time when Washington commanded the attention of most Americans and when polling consistently showed that voters overwhelmingly craved resolution, Senate Republicans exposed themselves a nothing short of tools of Trump's regime. They no longer serve the people, they serve him and him only.

Many pundits are now talking about a backlash that puts the Senate in play.

Pam Keith tweeted:

Can we all just be honest?

The GOP no longer believes in fair elections because fair elections gave us a black president.

It’s really NOT more complicated than that.

That’s the heart of Dersh’s argument that 45 can cheat if he thinks it’s in the national interest.

Commenters corrected her that the GOP has been against fair elections since at least Gore/Bush in 2000.

I enjoy Paula Poundstone when she’s on the NPR comic news quiz show Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me. So perhaps she, a perceptive comedian, should get the last word:

I didn't used to think Trump would win the next election, because he has been a historically bad President. However, now that the Republican Senate has given the o.k. to his cheating, I don't see how he won't. #ThanksVlad