Here is a good indication of how Gordon Sondland’s testimony on Wednesday played out for the president and his defenders:
Moments before Wednesday’s impeachment hearings and right after U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland’s opening statement was released, Fox News contributor Ken Starr wondered aloud whether Sondland flipping on President Trump would cause GOP senators to push Trump to resign. “The real issue is the senators are watching,” Starr said. “Are senators going to now say in light of what we hear today, it’s going to be a long day even with the ambassador alone, in light of what we have heard, ‘We need to make a trip down to the White House’? That historic example set during the Nixon presidency. From what I’ve been able to glean I don’t think that’s going to happen. But obviously what happens today could—has the potential to be a game-changer.”
In his opening statement, Sondland claimed that Trump was seeking a quid pro quo with Ukraine in exchange for investigations into the president’s political rivals, adding that Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani was “expressing the desires” of Trump.
During a break in the hearings a few hours later, Starr was just as emphatic in his belief that this could spell bad news for Trump. Noting that “articles of impeachment are being drawn up if they haven’t already been drawn up” over Sondland’s testimony, Starr concluded by saying “this obviously has been one of those bombshell days.”
Kenneth Starr used to be the main instrument of the far right’s Clinton Derangement Syndrome. At this point, he sounds like just another “Never Trumper.” But it’s getting to be almost impossible to remain in the president’s corner and maintain a straight face.
I think we can all list the many ways in which Republican officeholders find it extremely difficult to criticize the president, let alone vote for his removal from office. But, against that, is what exonerating the president will ultimately entail. At a certain point, the Republicans will be asked to vote, first in the House and thereafter in the Senate. A vote against impeachment or conviction will also be a vote that creates a precedent about what is permissible and what is not permissible in the future.
I think Kenneth Starr is struggling to see how the Republicans can say the president’s behavior is permissible in light of the testimony that has emerged so far, and yet he’s still not willing to predict that the president will be removed. Nonetheless, he sees Wednesday’s testimony from Sondland as potentially game-changing, and the reason is that it stripped the president’s best defenses away and left his defenders sputtering about process and a few spare and parsed interpretations of the president’s denials.
We’re still seeing only the tip of the iceberg with the Republicans. We see and hear from those whom chose to be seen and heard, but the vast majority of Republican officeholders are maintaining their silence. We don’t know how opinion is shifting among them because they have no incentive to advertise their opinions. What we do know is that they cannot be enjoying how things are progressing because they have to leg to stand on in defending the president’s behavior. They need something more solid than complaints about the whistleblower or the process. They really can”t rely on the totally implausible theory that Rudy Giuliani was freelancing and the president was not orchestrating the whole scheme.
They are at the point where acquitting the president requires them to admit the charges against them and then say that they aren’t a serious problem, but that also requires them to say that future administrations don’t have to respond to congressional subpoenas for witnesses and documents. It requires them to say that future administrations can condition military aid on getting phony evidence ginned up by foreign governments against their presidential contenders.
That’s a very heavy price to pay to preserve a dysfunctional and basically disastrous presidency. Are they going to be willing to pay it?
5
4.5
5
Consider this, too: A vote to acquit essentially greenlights Trump to do whatever he wants in Ukraine. Or, more succinctly, it greenlights PUTIN to do what he wants in Ukraine. It’s not even necessary to accept that Trump is a Russian asset to see that he won’t lift a finger for Ukraine ever again, especially if doing so means confronting Putin.
That’s not the right reason to vote for conviction. But if the evidence proves the guilt, and you, a Russia skeptic of the old school, have to ask whether surrendering Ukraine altogether is too high a price for eleven more months* of Trump… well, you might at that point come to see that there’s just no upside in saving Trump anymore.
*Assuming a February vote
McConnell is the key. He was the one whose refusal convinced Obama not to say anything about Russia publicly in the campaign. He’s the one who sees the only way to preserve Republican power in any form is to confirm judge after judge. Thats his only goal now that he got his corporate welfare bill.
At what point does he think it’s best to throw Trump away?
But there’s also the real threat that the base will assassinate senators who either vote for impeachment or demand Trumps resignation. I think thats new.
I agree McConnell is important, but I also think it’s important that—like Pelosi, or any good party caucus leader—his main job is to protect his members and keep his caucus together. If a critical mass of Republican senators (publicly or privately) moves against Trump, McConnell will respond, in some fashion, to his members.
4.5
As has been noted before, Trump is really just the apotheosis of the modern GOP. They created this Frankenstein monster and they are stuck with him. They will let him slide and he will be an existential threat to many of them.
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying to friends since Trump’s election. I’ve even used that odd, old-fashioned word, apotheosis. I don’t know what it will take for the Republicans to change. For the longest time, I’ve thought it would take multiple electoral shellackings. But at this point I wonder if they’ll be willing to go along with the corruption of our democracy set forth in Martin’s article. They stand to lose just as much as anyone else because the next president who abuses such precedents might not be a Republican.
“creates a precedent about what is permissible and what is not permissible in the future.”
I keep seeing this and I have to wonder – haven’t you been paying attention? The Republicans’ hypocrisy knows no bounds. They will have no problem bucking precedent. Stare decisis is dead. Long live IOKIFYAR!
Seemed to me Starr made a point of leaving room to backtrack. He said the evidence will be a big deal for Democrats, a basis for drawing up impeachment articles but he also said the issues set forth in those articles were “litigable” (as if that were a word). I didn’t see a prediction that Republicans would have no choice but to back off or get real. Rather, he seemed to think it could leave a few worried, thoughtful, pensive.
The way I see it, they’re between a rock and a hard place of their own creation. The Frankenstein monster has escaped and they own it. If the continue to obfuscate and vote against impeachment, they weaken our democracy in ways they know may not ultimately benefit them or their rich friends. At the same time, they can’t turn on Trump without being pummeled by their own supporters. They’ll be mocked as RINOs and cucks. Most of them can kiss their careers goodbye. And after doing what they can to weaken and destroy our system of government, they may lose their seats anyway.
I’m not expecting any profiles in courage from that side of the chamber. My guess is most will continue to man the barricades. Some will retire and get the fuck away from this toxic stew. That said, if others go first we could see a cascade.
I try not to be too too cynical, but I’m surprised that you think that Republicans will be concerned about the precedent that the executive can ignore congressional subpoenas. If you ask them, I’m sure they will tell you with grave serious looks that they are concerned about other precedents that are more important right now – for example, the danger of removing a president based on a political vendetta. (Which, if you think about it, was the argument that we used to defend Clinton.) Rationalization is a powerful thing, and it seems unreasonable to expect politicians who has spent their entire lives in the Fox News/Wingnut ecosystem to have much self-awareness on this topic. Maybe a small number on that side, but only a handful.
In this context, I found Bill Barr’s recent speech very illuminating. Remember how everyone said that he was an institutionalist, and that he wouldn’t want to trash his reputation, or the reputation of the justice department? Well, it turns out that he thinks he is doing the right thing, because Republicans are always guided by good motives, and Democrats are always guided by bad ones. So, when he lied about the Mueller report, or ignored congressional subpoenas, it was only because he cared so so much about the rule of law. He had to burn the village in order to save it.
In a related vein, it is my belief that one reason that Rs will continue to defend Trump is that, ultimately, they don’t really think he did anything wrong. After all, he was trying to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. In the R mind, this isn’t using his office for personal gain, this is using it for the national good. Maybe he went about this the wrong way, but his motives were good. It is the same logic that makes them ultimately unconcerned with Russian meddling in the election. Sure, they think, Putin isn’t the best guy, but he’s just small fry. The Democrats are the main enemy. Sometimes in war you need to make alliances.
Been catching Hill and Holmes’ testimony in bits and pieces this morning. More devastating stuff. How much more that tells us beyond the closed door depositions earlier is unclear, but if nothing else the public is getting to hear directly from the sources. In saner times, I’d have long ago said that the mounting evidence against a sitting president meant “game over.” In saner times, GOP leaders would high-tail it to the WH and demand the WH Occupant resign effective immediately.
Gotta think that a number of Republicans are ready for John Bolton to come in and euthanize the Trump presidency.
Don’t bet on it
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/stop-assuming-senate-republicans-will-do-the-right-thing.html
LOL! Not out of the goodness of their putrid shriveled hearts but for self preservation.
Senate Republicans will be given an opportunity to remove Donald Trump from the Presidency. In their considerations of their votes, they will have to not only consider if the articles of impeachment are worthy of conviction and removal, they will also have to consider what it will look like if they vote to keep Trump in office and he and his Administration continue to escalate their outrageous behaviors.
If Trump is kept in office after these actions and behaviors, why would he not proceed to, for example, publicly order Attorney General Barr to launch investigations and eventually indict all the top Democratic Party POTUS primary candidates? Why would he not do the same to all the Dem candidates who would have a chance to flip control of the Senate? Why would he not negotiate a sham “trade” deal which includes a side agreement that China will help Trump win re-election? Why would the President of the United States not call the Speaker of the House “a fucking cunt” in a prime time address to the nation? Why would he not order the Army or Border Patrol to summarily execute immigrants attempting to apply for asylum at the border?
He’s capable of saying and doing unbelievably vile things. Senators who fail to end this nightmare when they had the chance will own the very worst things Trump does between the end of the impeachment trial and Election Day.
Many, even most, think there is very little chance this impeachment will end in removal. But is there any rule he cannot be impeached again?