When it comes to political machinations, the latest Senate GOP desperation talking point in defense of President Trump is, well, instructive …
“Let’s say it’s true, okay? [Harvard Law professor Alan] Dershowitz last night explained that if you’re looking at it from a constitutional point of view, that that is not something that is impeachable,” Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) told reporters Tuesday morning.
“Alan Dershowitz said it was not” impeachable, said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a top ally of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “And I don’t disagree with that.” [WaPo]
For the GOP, now it’s not so much that Trump is innocent, but that he’s not guilty enough – if you believe Dershowitz. For the record, legal academics disagree with the Harvard Law professor:
Lawyers and academics strongly disagreed with Dershowitz. Frank O. Bowman, a University of Missouri law professor and author of the book “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” said Dershowitz’s view is out of step with mainstream constitutional scholars and historians.
“In making this argument, Alan is essentially alone, and I mean alone,” Bowman said Tuesday, accusing Republicans of seizing on Dershowitz’s argument because it gives them cover not to convict a president in their own party. “What Dershowitz did yesterday was stand up and be a guy with Harvard attached to his name and spout complete nonsense that’s totally unsupported by any scholarship, anywhere.” [WaPo]
Steve Benen is appalled over the latest Republican defense strategy in the impeachment trial:
The party’s indifference seemed liberating. If Trump’s culpability is no longer relevant to his GOP acolytes, then the answer to every question could be effectively the same: “It doesn’t matter.”
Even if every allegation is true, even if the president did exactly what he’s accused of doing, even if he abused the powers of his office in the precise way Democrats claim, much of the Republican Party has convinced itself, quite suddenly, that the presidential misdeeds simply don’t meet the arbitrary threshold for importance.
And if the allegations are no longer relevant, then the trial is no longer relevant, and the need for witness testimony is no longer relevant. Dershowitz effectively handed the GOP a key to get his client out of this mess, and several Senate Republicans rushed to use it.
As a substantive matter, the party’s new posture is indefensible. Trump’s abuse of power was staggering on a historic scale and, according to Congress’ independent watchdog, blatantly illegal. For lawmakers to say it’s perfectly permissible for a president to ignore the law, withhold congressionally approved aid to a vulnerable ally, as part of an extortion scheme the president hoped to use to cheat in an election, is madness.
I think, for my part, this is going to fall right into the Pelosi strategy for the November elections. It’s important to remember that not all battles need to be won in order to win the war; indeed, impeachment may have been planned as a feint to lure the Republicans into self-destructive statements.
One must always keep in mind – neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have enough voters enrolled on their membership lists to win outright. Independents embody the balance of power. This disregard for corruption by the Republican Party may be acceptable to much of the Republican base, but the independents, if it’s pitched properly to them by the Democrats, may be a fertile field for the harvesting of votes against Trump and all of his supporters.
The November elections are looking to be more and more interesting for Republicans who thought they sat in safe seats. While McConnell himself is probably safe, despite his horrendously low approval ratings, Senators such as Loeffler (newly appointed in Florida) and Graham may find, if they let their mouths fly too freely in praise of the above position, that the independents will have had enough of naked power-mongering, of putting Party over country, and dump them on their asses.
And, if I may put on my cynic’s hat for a moment, I must wonder just who the hell Alan Dershowitz is playing for fools. Given the strong negative reaction to his posturing concerning what he said above, I have to wonder:
Is he purposefully setting up the Republicans?
Dershowitz followed up with this one:
Alan Dershowitz, a member of President Donald Trump’s legal team, argued on Wednesday that a quid pro quo that benefits the president politically is fine because all politicians believe their elections are in the public’s interest.
He explained that if Trump did withhold nearly $400 million in aid to pressure Ukraine into announcing investigations of Democrats to help his campaign, it’s not an impeachable offense because Trump thinks his election is to the country’s benefit. Therefore, he has no corrupt motive.
“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” he said during the first day of the question-and-answer period of the Senate impeachment trial. [NBC News]
Utterly screwy, isn’t it? It’s not in the least difficult to falsify, even to ridicule, Dershowitz’s assumption that the President cannot have purposes other than the best interests of the Republic at heart and to hand – suppose, for instance, the President is being blackmailed.
But Dershowitz has shoveled this utter drek into the waiting mouths of the Republican Senators regardless, and some seem to be contentedly chewing on it.
I think Pelosi must be awfully pleased. All this and a valid trial, to boot. She’s one smooth operator.
