I am taking a little detour from my “fixing the GOP” series and a talk about campaign reform to look at the U. S. Senate and the Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump, Private Citizen.
On Tuesday, the Senate voted 56-44 to proceed with the trial. On the same day, an ABC poll said 56% of Americans want to convict former President Trump, which would ban him from running for office again. That is the endgame for Democrats. From that standpoint the senate represents the people. However, this is not a pure democracy where the majority always rules and this part of the process is protected from reflecting the emotion of the moment. The House of Representatives is more volatile in its reflection of the mood of the moment because they are elected every two years. That is why the Constitution requires the Senate reach a 2/3 bar, 67 votes in this case, to convict In an impeachment proceeding. So, the polling is right, but also the Constitution is right and Impeachment Theater is a waste time.
Now back to the 56-44 vote. Last week, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky presented a vote on the constitutionality of the impeachment of Trump. The vote on that was 55-45. That was one more Republican, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who voted with the Democrats than voted with them last week. Cassidy said the House Managers made a better case and the former president’s lawyers did not. But it is worth pointing out Sen. Cassidy lead the delegation of GOP Senators who met with President Biden last week about the GOP alternative Covid-19 Relief package. I am not suggesting any connection, but it is interesting to see how members of the Senate are maneuvering in this 50/50 shared leadership U. S. Senate. Over the next few weeks and months, you will see certain senators vie for the attention of the leadership.
What is important to note that the former president's lawyers presentation accepted fully the loss of the election on the former president's part and said it was constitutional. I think that is important to move on from this.
I was asked today by a fellow radio host, “If you were in the Senate, how would you vote?” I would vote against conviction. If we mean that we want unity, the real definition of unity, which means we can robustly discuss issues and agree to disagree without consequence, then this process is more of a divider than a uniter.
Sadly, I have had a friend or two who can’t agree to disagree and we don’t talk much anymore. But this era will pass and I’m the same person I’ve always been. I welcome discussion and debate, I apologize way too much to make peace and I can laugh at myself.
