What’s Impeachable? Nothing, Republicans Seem to Say

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Get Jonathan Bernstein’s newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe.The impeachment trial of President Donald Trump moved to questions from senators on Wednesday. It wasn’t an encouraging day.The president’s lawyers moved closer than ever to simply embracing the idea that the president can do whatever he wants. Alan Dershowitz even went so far as to argue that since presidents always think that their re-election is in the national interest, they cannot be legitimately impeached for any use of their powers of office to aid that re-election. This would have been good news for President Richard Nixon. And surprising news to pretty much everyone throughout U.S. history. It appears more and more that even if the House managers serving as the impeachment prosecutors are eventually allowed to call one or more witnesses, the trial will end after establishing the principles that the president may use the powers of the office any way he or she wishes to without constraint, and that presidents will no longer have any legal obligation to submit to congressional oversight. That said, future Congresses will still have plenty of weapons to use to fight back against presidential misbehavior. And it’s true that impeachment has never been a particularly strong congressional weapon. But now it will be weaker. Presidents will be emboldened, and the norm that the president’s party will exercise absolute fealty to the Oval Office, which has been building since the 1980s, will be even further strengthened. The Republican Party, meanwhile, has fully surrendered to its least responsible members; not just Trump, but the worst of the House Freedom Caucus and its allies in the Republican-aligned media. There was a defense of the president available that involved accepting the overwhelming evidence that he had tried to use the powers of his office to force the government of Ukraine to help his 2020 re-election campaign, and declaring it not quite up to the level of impeachment and removal. Instead, the president’s team, with the support of most Republican senators and the apparent willingness of the rest to go along, staked out wild constitutional positions, used their time to throw mud (including flat-out falsehoods) at former Vice President Joe Biden and anyone else who gets in their way, and generally disgrace themselves. The House managers did not respond in kind. Indeed, when one Democratic senator invited them to attack Trump’s children, manager Val Demings, a representative from Florida, dismissed the question and asked everyone to stick to the topic at hand. (Immediately after which Trump’s lawyers resumed their attack on Biden’s son). I do wonder whether the House managers have made the right choice in putting so much emphasis on hearing from witnesses. It’s true, as I noted at the start of the trial, that the question of witnesses polls well, and it puts pressure on Republicans up for re-election later this year. But it’s also true that every minute House managers spend on the question of witnesses and other procedural issues is a minute they’re not spending making the case for what Trump did wrong and why it matters. They have, of course, spent time on that as well. Not, however, as much as they could have if they had spent less time on the other fight.Most senators used their opportunity to ask questions to instead give their partisan side a chance to repeat talking points. A few — notably Mitt Romney of Utah — did ask serious questions. I’m not inclined to judge senators harshly for that; it’s not as if tough questions to the opposite trial team would force errors and break things open. At any rate, it appears likely that the trial will end by Friday or, in what appears now to be the unlikely event that four Republicans join the Democrats in calling a small number of witnesses, soon after. And then we’ll all see what a Trump freed from the fear of impeachment will be like. I suspect it isn’t going to be pretty.1\. Lynn Vavreck and Chris Tausanovitch on ideology and Democratic voters.2\. Sarah Binder at the Monkey Cage on the politics of calling former National Security Adviser John Bolton as a witness. 3\. Also at the Monkey Cage: Dan Hopkins on Ezra Klein’s book, “Why We’re Polarized.”4\. Julia Azari considers a Bernie Sanders presidency. 5\. Matt Grossmann talks with Lee Drutman and Jack Santucci about multiparty politics in the U.S.6\. Pema Levy on electability and women running for president.7\. NBC News has a terrific resource on the history of the Iowa caucuses.8\. And Ryan Goodman looks at the obituaries of House Judiciary Committee Republicans from 1974. Fascinating.Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You’ll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close.To contact the author of this story: Jonathan Bernstein at jbernstein62@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Landman at jlandman4@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. He taught political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University and wrote A Plain Blog About Politics.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2S44uH2