Larry Schweikart: Don’t Worry About Mitch McConnell On Impeachment

Poor old Mitch McConnell. The Senate Majority Leader is frequently accused of being part of the “Swamp.” Perhaps he is, but he has been superbly effective for the last four years, and almost nobody notices. Indeed, Yertle (as I affectionately call him) has been a one-man Senate wrecking crew against liberals.

Yet he is constantly under fire, most recently from Rush Limbaugh who cited Yertle’s comment that if the House impeaches President Trump, the Senate must have a trial. Well, duh.

But I don’t think it means at all what it seems, and I think Nancy Pelosi (who I refer to as “Botoxic”) is realizing that. But let’s review Yertle’s record first, shall we?

In 2015, at no one’s urging, Yertle took it upon himself to block Barack Obama’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, from receiving a vote, claiming (with no particular historical precedent) that because Zero (my nickname for Obama) was in the last year of his presidency, that would not be fair. Keeping Garland off the Court and preventing a Democrat 5-4 majority would have been huge, to say the least.

*Lucy Koh, nominated to the Ninth Circuit, was reported out of the Judiciary Committee but Yertle didn’t give her a floor vote. Instead that went to a Trump appointee, Daniel Collins.

*The same story was true of Donald Schott, a Seventh Circuit nominee. The seat ultimately went to Trump pick Michael Brennan.

*In the Eighth Circuit, the nominee Jennifer Puhl likewise was not given a vote. That went to. Trump pick Ralph Erickson.

*At the Supreme Court level, Yertle promised that both Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would be confirmed. They were. (By the way, yesterday Russell Bucklew was executed: his appeal, Bucklew v. Precythe involved the issue of capital punishment, and the Court ruled against Bucklew. That very well may not have happened without Kavanaugh.)

*He promised to bring Obamacare up for a vote (note: Yertle did NOT promise to pass it, as I think he knew John McCain would do his infamous “thumbs down.”)

So as best I can tell, every time Yertle says he will do something, it gets done. Let’s return to Yertle’s comment about holding a trial if Botoxic passes impeachment: I don’t think this was Yertle laying down at all (or, I guess, retreating into his shell). I don’t even think this was him absentmindedly saying he’d follow the Constitution.

This was a shot across Botoxic’s bow. This was Yertletalk for “Make my day.” This tells me Yertle knows he hsa 34 hard “acquits” in his caucus (and likely another 10 squish acquits—that is, RINOs who, when they see how the vote is going, will be on the winning side). Indeed, I think Yertle is right now just a couple of votes away from something that is rarely mentioned: a “dismissal.” The Senate must convene a trial, but in Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, two weeks in, Senator Robert “Sheets” Byrd filed a motion to dismiss.

It only failed by seven votes—for a president who had clearly lied and obstructed justice. Therefore, I think Yertle probably could count on about 45-47 votes to dismiss right now. If the impeachment charges from the House are lame (as almost certainly they will be), Yertle can reach 50, and Mike Pence breaks the tie. By saying “We’d have to have a trial,” Yertle was promising Botoxic and the Democrats would lose in a most embarrassing way, that there would be no stalling, and that it would be over before Ilhan Omar could marry another male relative.

Yertle knows his caucus, and he knows that other than Mitt (“Minion”) Romney, no one will vote to convict Trump of anything. I can almost hear Yertle, in his best Pedro Serrano voice (from “Major League”), “You bring dat chit to me, mon. Bring dat chit to me!”

Larry Schweikart, co-author of the New York Times #1 bestseller, A Patriot’s History of the United States with Michael Allen and author of Reagan: The American President, has regular court and political updates at his site www.wildworldofhistory.com on the VIP side. For a free “Reagan” webinar, email him at larry@wildworldofhistory.com.

I think Trump should aggressively challenge whether impeachment itself is a wholly political act subject to the sole discretion of congress.

I posted this the other day, suggesting a stronger role for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that brings a more active participation of the third branch.

Here's what I'd like to see happen.
Even though the Constitution calls this a "trial," we saw in the Clinton impeachment trial that the Senator still think of themselves as Senators first, jurors second. This means that that the Constitutional power of each chamber to make its own rules applies to the trial in the Senate, too.
This means that the "trial" does not have to operate like any civil or criminal trial. It's actually a loose term as applied here, more like a body that decides one's political fate. The Senators will debate the rules of the trial before it begins. I expect the Democrats to try to limit the subpoena power of the President, that is, his ability to call witnesses in his defense. The Democrats may also try to limit the scope of the defense to only what was in the article of impeachment, and not allow the President to call into doubt the veracity of other Congressional Democrats. They may even try to limit the number of days that the President has to offer his defense and who may be allowed onto the Senate floor in his defense (e.g., no Giuliani).
The wild card here is the part of the Constitution that says that the Chief Justice "presides" over the trial. Does this mean that he is simply a figurehead who rubber-stamps anything that the Senators demand, or will he actually run the proceedings and exercise his authority to "preside" as HE sees fit (separation of powers)? Rehnquist seemed a bit weak, to me, in this aspect during the Clinton trial. I'd like to see a more assertive "presiding" by a Chief Justice to ensure that the Legislative and Executive branches both get fair treatment, even thought this is the Senate's playground.
So, I'd like to see the President's team try a trial tactic of motioning the Chief Justice for a summary judgment, saying that the outcome is obvious. I'd like to see the President's team declare that the articles of impeachment are flawed, that they are based on unproven hearsay by biased witnesses, that the procedures that produced them in the House were illegitimate, that there were no "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed by the President, and that the nation would be severely harmed by proceeding with this when an election is less than a year away. Essentially, let the people decide.
The House Democrats would naturally object, and Roberts would hear their objections. Then Roberts should decide for the President and summarily end the trial. No Senator will be on record voting for or against, so they are all protected with their constituents. The House will say they did their part. The Chief Justice will be somewhat rehabilitated with conservatives. The People will be spared a national embarrassment.
And the President is free to begin his reelection campaign.

-PJ

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.