Jennifer Rubin: Trump should be very worried about Senate Republicans
Trump should be very worried about Senate Republicans
By Jennifer Rubin, Opinion writer
Oct. 25, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. EDT
Think of Senate Republicans current antics protesting secret House hearings on impeachment in which Republicans sit on the relevant committees as not simply spurious (recall that Benghazi depositions were held by the House in private), but a warning sign to President Trump that his allies in the Senate seem altogether unwilling to defend him on the merits.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) pleads that he cannot comment on substance because he cannot separate that from the unfairness" of the House process. (Its fairly simple, honestly.) Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) claims he cannot comment on testimony he hasnt seen that Trump used taxpayer money (in the form of foreign aid) to extort the Ukrainian government to interfere in our election. The problem with that: The testimony, at least the opening statement from acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr., was released publicly this week.
No senator is saying openly that the presidents conduct is not impeachable. No senator is saying the witnesses lack credibility. No senator is saying it is perfectly appropriate for the president to use his powers to aid his campaign effort. There is a reason for that stunning silence: There is every reason to view this conduct as unprecedented, impeachable and amply provable through multiple witnesses and documents.
The unfairness excuse to attack the House is also of very limited duration. Next month, the House case will be put on in public. What excuse will Republicans use then?
....
still_one
(92,217 posts)yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Except for many of them signing on to Lindsey's nothing burger of a resolution.
Part of the reason for the quiet is that they do not want to say, "well, if this is proven, I would vote to convict." Because the truth is that most are terrified that many bad things are going to be proven and they want to reserve the out that, "well that is bad but it is not cause for impeachment and removal." However this only works if public opinion does not shift dramatically for impeachment AND removal, say - that number hits 60%. That is essentially what happened with Nixon and then Goldwater led the Republicans over to the WH to tell Nixon that Republican support in the Senate had collapsed and he would be removed if he did not resign first. The equivalent today would be for Mitt Romney to lead such a mission, which probably won't happen so it might be up to Mitch McConnell if it comes to that. I can see McConnell doing it if he became convinced that Republicans will lose everything in 2020 - House, Senate, and White House. We will see what the silence means. But silence is better than "We will not convict no matter what." Only Lindsey appears to be saying that and if I were Trump, I wouldn't put too much stock in it because Lindsey is a political weasel also and he will run and hide in the South Carolina swamps rather than risk so much as a scratch.
crickets
(25,981 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)"If not, why not?"
Also, "If Obama had made this phone call, how would you react?"