In my recent Washington Post column, I stated that the Bolton leak accomplished its obvious design to throw the White House defense into disarray and to secure the votes for witnesses. However, I noted that the success could come at a price through ” a mutually assured destruction option: allow both sides to lay waste to each other and leave it to the public to pick through the ruins.” That appears to be the “Plan B” being discussed by Republicans in a game of chicken over witnesses.
While I disagreed with Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz on this theory of impeachment, I recently praised his presentation in the Senate as a cogent and well-constructed case for the defense. Clearly, his colleague Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe does not share my view. He denounced Dershowitz’s argument as “remarkably absurd and extreme and dangerous.” In this presentation, Dershowitz defended his own switch on the issue of the prerequisite of criminality for impeachment by noting that Tribe had also switched his view. Tribe went further to declare that the choice was now between witnesses and “dictatorship.” Even as someone who favors witnesses, I fail to see the imminent danger of dictatorship on the issue. Indeed, I understand the reluctance over witnesses aside from any desire to protect Trump. I believe senators have a legitimate interest in not creating precedent allowing the House to impeachment on such a slipshod and incomplete record. That is why I proposed an alternative solution.
Recently, I criticized Lawrence O’Donnell for proudly proclaiming that MSNBC would not invite Trump defenders on the network because they are liars. O’Donnell’s comment brought a rare joining of voices from across the political spectrum denouncing the knowing bias in such statements. Once again, however, President Donald Trump has supplanted the story with his own equally objectionable statement. On Tuesday, he attacked Fox News for interviewing Democrats like Sen. Chris Van Hollen and declared “this will be the beginning of the end for Fox.” If so, it would mean the end of journalism since Fox News was merely offering both sides of these stories in interviewing one of the senators who will be voting in the upcoming trial.
Rudy Giuliani has a curious response to New York Daily News reporter Chris Sommerfeldt in a late night text on the developments in the Senate. He explained that the Democrats would not call him as a witness because “[Democrats] have indicated in every way possible they are afraid of my physical presence.” It was a bizarre moment because Giuliani has been a perpetual motion machine of controversy. The House is not the only group of lawyers fearful of his presence.
Below is my column in the Washington Post on the best course for the House managers in securing witnesses. The column was posted before the Bolton leak, which may now secure the needed four votes of swing Republican senators. However, Article II is as dead as Dillinger. Indeed it was dead on arrival. The two days of White House argument wiped out what little support existed for the charge given the decision to rush this impeachment and then impeach a president for raising executive privileges and immunities. The strongest material of the White House was directed at this exceedingly weak and unwarranted article of impeachment. Democratic senators speak a great deal of the need for bipartisanship . . . for Republicans. It is time for those same senators to show that they are equally expected and capable of putting aside party for principle. It is time for Democratic senators to join in the call to reject Article II.
In the 1960s,
many of the Senators heard the anti-war slogan of “what if they held a war and
nobody came?” This week, they finally learned the answer . . . at least in
holding an impeachment. Senators have
expressed surprise at the empty seats in the Senate gallery. Sen. James Inhofe
(R-Okla.) said he was “really surprised . . .
because this is kind of historic.”
It is but the members are increasingly making history alone. Not only
are spectators sparse, but the television audience has been declining to the
point that, by the second day, the networks quickly switched over to shows in
greater demand like The Young and The
Restless. Nielson rating showed that
the soaps were twice as popular as the trial.
The Supreme Court delivered a major, if temporary, victory for the Trump Administration in the immigration field. The Administration has sought to implement the “public charge rule,” that would allow the denial of immigrants who will rely on public assistance, including most forms of Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers. In a brief order, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to lift a nationwide injunction and allow the rule to be implemented while litigation continues.
Alan Dershowitz is hardly someone in need of the defense of others. However, there is a disturbing level of acrimony and personal attacks directed at the retired Harvard professor after he agreed to speak in defense of President Donald Trump. As I tweeted last night, I have strong disagreements with Dershowitz over his theory that impeachment articles must be based on criminal acts. However, I thought his presentation last night was outstanding. It was powerfully presented and he made some compelling points. While we disagree, it is a presentation that everyone should have watched. The shame is that few people are watching and even fewer are listening. To make matters worse, liberals (who pride themselves on supporting individual rights) are attacking Dershowitz for defending unpopular individuals like O.J. Simpson and Jeffrey Epstein. That is what criminal defense attorneys do. They represent accused and often highly unpopular individuals. It is the rankest form of attack to suggest that a lawyer defending a client is somehow tainted by the crimes alleged in the case.
The news of the Bolton book leak has electrified Washington and, as intended, has rekindled calls for witnesses. I have long stated a preference for witnesses despite my criticism of the historic blunder of the House leadership in rushing this impeachment forward on an incomplete record. However, the media has now latched on to a column in the New York Times by Neal K. Katyal, Joshua A. Geltzer and Mickey Edwards that Chief Justice Roberts can not only order a subpoena for Bolton solely on the request of the House managers but that his decision cannot be overturned by anything less than a two-thirds vote. I believe that the premise of the argument on the vote is highly flawed and should not be seriously entertained by either the House managers or the Chief Justice.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the adoption of language and theories in the impeachment trial that has alienated key senators. Neither side appears to be tailoring their cases to secure bipartisan votes.
We have seen repeated instances where President Donald Trump has stepped on the narrative of his defenders with a single misplaced tweet — often giving opponents precisely what they have been alleging. This weekend is another such example with a tweet saying ominously the House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff has not paid the price yet” for his role in Trump’s impeachment. The tweet sounded not only threatening but was immediately raised by Democrats as supporting what Schiff said in his closing argument about senators fearing retribution from Trump. One can easily view the tweet at a statement about political accountability, but the insistence on attacking Schiff personally is both improper and counter-productive. Trump was impeached by the House, not Schiff. He is fulfilling a duty under the Constitution. Some of us have criticized his representations, but alluding to personal costs for the House managers is wildly inappropriate in the middle of a Senate trial.
We have previously discussed President Donald Trump’s personal spiritual adviser, Paula White, and her bizarre sermons denouncing the ‘demonic networks” and stating that Christians who vote against Trump will be called to account before God. She is back in the news with a sermon that calls for opposing the marine and animal kingdoms as well as commanding “any satanic pregnancies to miscarry right now.” President Trump has not only embraced White as a spiritual counselor but made her the head of his Faith and Opportunity Initiative
While I maintain that the scientific community has for hundreds of years steadfastly failed to exercise a modern sense of decency and respect for human remains of the ancients, a recent article in Ars Technica prompted me to type my concern.
The objection I have is that most societies in the world currently place special value and reverence in the preserving and protection of interred human remains, often citing the desire to allow the departed the right to rest in peace. Yet, among governments, scientific organizations, academics, and museums we allow an abandonment of these values and permit the continual insult to the deceased–who’s remains serve as equivalents to rock samples and objects to be endlessly studied and displayed to the curious.
Would we allow such a spectacle to be exacted upon our own families?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the lemonade of Andria & Zoey.
In a welcome departure from Washington State’s penchant to overbearingly tax, regulate, and control every aspect of human existence possible, a state senator recently introduced Senate Bill 6320 titled “AN ACT Relating to the ability of a minor to operate a lemonade business on an occasional basis” as a prophylaxis against the state shutting down another fledgling business and cultural icon: the childhood lemonade stand.
It is, however, a rather sad commentary that such a bill becomes necessary, but given the unholy alliance between the neighborhood busy-bodies who shake their canes at all things enjoyed by children and mindless automatons of local government who put rules above reason, it seems we now have to legislate discretion to protect young entrepreneurs from being thwarted by the ridiculousness sometimes displayed by adults having more power than sense.
