Impeachment and partisanship meet in Trump trial

For the third time the United States has impeached a president, Donald Trump, and has entered a legal version of the Bermuda Triangle, in  an era where partisanship reigns, or perhaps more accurately rules, with accusations, counter charges, and tweets from the White House and a president known for his thin skin, screaming, “witch hunt” and another move from the “do nothing” Democrats, while in fact they have done the one thing that many of its critics wanted, impeaching Trump.

The trial, beginning on Tuesday with opening arguments, is a gateway to the victims of Potomac Fever, as the ranks swell, and Trump has asked, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz to join his defense team.

His position that there needed to be a crime in order for impeachment was refuted by one of his own law school students, Frank Bowman  a University of Missouri law professor and author who, according to a Chicago Tribune report said, “Its comically bad. Dershowitz either knows better or should.”

Stonewalling is certainly not unknown in American politics, but the White House has become the master of the game with misusing “executive privilege” to prevent key witnesses from testifying to holding necessary documents, that prompted Chuck Schumer, Senate minority leader to formally ask for all pertinent documents.

While much of America rolls its collective eye at the proceedings, many are watching to see the much used term of “Democracy at work” --- and to see the GOP, under Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell pledge to subvert the process in Trump’s favor, and do a one-night, at best, that would last long into the night, when most Americans are asleep.

Some wonder if this is what the framers of the Constitution intended, but it seems that those bewigged and knee breached men wanted was a broad frame to wrap around behavior that met political malfeasance, and not criminal, despite the assertion of Dershowitz.

With support from James Madison, the impeachment process was considered necessary, and political, as a check on the abuse of power by the chief executive, and words such as “impunity” and “perfidy” were added by others, in what was clearly delineated as a political process.

Keeping that in mind, the result hammered out in the 1787 Convention clearly supports the assertions by the House of Representatives against Trump.

While the 53-47 Republican majority in the Senate gives less chance of a removal from office, the obligation was clearly obligated by the lower House, and while Speaker Pelosi received her share of criticism by progressives, many of whom confused impeachment with removal from office, the pattern and path work today is as intended in 1787.

What we may not see is a design - broad as it was intended from the Trump defense team, but Tuesday’s pressure to allow some witnesses and documents suggest that McConnell is seeing some pressure from GOP senators to provide more legal cohesion.

A recent poll revealed that 69 percent of Americans favored Trump’s removal from office and 58 percent believe that he had abused power when he witheld military aid from Ukraine, unless there was an investigation of Hunter Biden, former Vice President Biden’s son for corruption, a charge that has proven baseless.

Later on Tuesday, the Senate rejected Schumer’s amendment requests, “and Democrats continue to seek documents about a series of four calls March 27 from Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to the State Department switchboard. The calls came at a time when Giuliani was organizing a campaign to remove Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Another document Democrats seek is a cable that William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine, sent to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to describe concerns about withholding $391 million in military aid from Ukraine,” reported the right leaning USA Today.

“The State Department has not produced a single document in response to the congressional subpoena,” said Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., one of the managers prosecuting the president.

“Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s defense lawyers, said courts have long recognized executive privilege to protect the confidentiality of communications with the president. Sekulow argued that the privilege also applied to communications between the president’s aides, as they formulate advice.”

“Sekulow called it “a dangerous moment for America” if Trump couldn’t assert executive privilege and defend the claim in federal court.”

As if to paraphrase, or provide a coda to this opinion, Trump and company want a swift end to the trial so that he can go back to holding rallies and name calling and denying the facts, set forth by people such as Lev Parnas, and aide to Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, and former Ambassador to the Ukraine, Masha Yovanovich, and Alexander Vindman, all from the Administration who have clear evidence that the bribe, for there is no other term for it to the Ukrainian president.

The speed that Trump wants is a reversal from a full trial seeking vindication to realizing that if witnesses do come forward he could bring what the Wall Street Journal called “unpleasant surprises”.

What might happen is anyone’s guess in the fight to the finish about what might happen, even without removal, but an indication of what that might be seems to belong to conjecture, but it’s safe to assume that even more of the same mix of personal attacks, weakening the relationships with America’s allies, and the same underhanded tactics that have weakened America’s faith in good governance will continue.