With the Thanksgiving weekend beckoning, it might be prudent to take a breath and move away from politics, impeachment and Trump for a bit (clearly, Trump fatigue is setting in), and write about other things. (Wait, Thanksgiving weekend; I’m retired. Isn’t Thanksgiving weekend like any other weekend?). So, today’s Around the Block, and perhaps a few more upcoming ones, will cover the other part of the newspaper that I devour: the Sports Section. (Newspaper? Sports Section? Am I really that old?).
Despite my move to Florida, after 40+ years in the Bay Area, my team affiliations remain in place: the Giants, Niners and Warriors in particular. (Hockey and the Bay Area never made it for me; and, as you’ll see below, in a market with more than one professional team, you gotta make a choice. So, sorry A’s. And not sorry Al Davis as it never seemed possible to root for the Oakland/Los Angeles/Oakland/Las Vegas Raiders.
Hope you enjoy reading!
As the 2019-20 NBA season gets into full swing and the incredible reign of Golden State Warriors as one of the greatest teams in history of sports appears to be coming to a close, I thought I’d put some perspective on what it’s like to watch a team go from the very top, the absolute pinnacle, to well, mediocre at best, unwatchable at worst.
Louisiana senator’s outrageous statements regarding Ukraine interference topped only by his cowardly retraction
Senator John Neely Kennedy (R-La) appeared on Fox News Sunday this weekend for an interview with that network’s Chris Wallace. The interview came a few days after Dr. Fiona Hill, a former member of Donald Trump’s National Security Council warned in her public testimony that the idea of Ukraine interfering with the 2016 election, rather than Russia, was “a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by” Russia itself.
But guess what? Kennedy actually floated that “fictional narrative” in his interview with Wallace.
Is the world turning upside down, or is it just me?
Commentary
I’ve been following the impeachment hearings during my Japan trip but as I’m leaving tomorrow without a lot of time to write, I thought I’d turn Around the Block over to some professional commentators and reporters who might help answer the question: Is the world turning upside down, or is it just me?
But first, some opening comments.
Needless to say, based on what’s been revealed over the last few days, Donald Trump’s malfeasannt actions and his corruption of the executive branch can only be matched by his defenders in Congress and on Fox News.
While we (or at least, some) have gotten past the “hearsay” defense, there are still no “Nixon-like tapes.” And, it seems, without a recording of Trump actually committing a high crime or misdemeanor, some people will not be convinced that he should be impeached and removed.. (By the way, isn’t a misdemeanor something like “disorderly conduct?” And, what we’ve seen so far does not rise to that standard? Wonder what Madison would say. Oh, well, never mind.)
While the evidence mounts and mounts and mounts with all of it pointing to a presidency based solely on self-aggrandizement, it does not seem to be enough to convince almost any Republican Congressman or Senator.
While the true heroes of this impeachment inquiry, the Hill’s, the Yovanovitch’s, the Vindman’s, the Taylor’s, the Holmes’s, the Kent’s and more…the true professionals (as compared to the dilettante, Sondland)…are ostracized and vilified by Trump toadies and sycophants, the cowards and the real miscreants, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Barr, Pompeo, stay silent.
While John Bolton, the man with probably the best insight into what transpired in this Ukrainian shakedown, teases with his newly re-opened Twitter account, his potentially incriminating testimony will have to wait until his $2-million advance book is published.
And, in the meantime, Trump goes on and on and on.
So with that as a preface, here are some recent articles and columns that begin to sum up what is increasingly becoming the world turned upside down.
New Documents Reveal Details of Pompeo’s Role in Ukraine Affair
Well, it looks like my world is the same world as Wong’s and Vogel’s, and as Stephens’ and Helderman’s, and Jaffe’s and Rieger’s. But at least, they have answered my question. Problem is, their world is as upside down as mine!
With senators as jurors, this is like jury tampering on steroids
Commentary
The Washington Post reported today that “a group of Republican senators and senior White House officials met privately Thursday to map out a strategy for a potential impeachment trial of President Trump, including rapid proceedings in the Senate that could be limited to about two weeks, according to multiple officials familiar with the talks.”
“The prospect of an abbreviated trial is viewed by several Senate Republicans as a favorable middle ground — substantial enough to give the proceedings credence without risking greater damage to Trump by dragging on too long,” the Post continued.
There were six Republican senators in attendance: Lindsey Graham, (SC), Mike Lee (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wis.), John Neely Kennedy (La.), Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Tom Cotton (Ark.). White House attendees included: White House counsel Pat Cipollone; acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney; senior adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner; and counselor Kellyanne Conway.
Earlier this month I wrote about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s comment, “I will say I’m pretty sure how it’s likely to end,” McConnell said to reporters. “If it were today, I don’t think there’s any question — it would not lead to removal.” https://wordpress.com/block-editor/post/around-the-block.com/244
Based on that statement, and given that in an impeachment trial, senators are the jury, I wrote, “that leads to the obvious question: If the Senate trial is really a trial, wouldn’t McConnell be challenged for cause as he’s actually gone on the record, publicly, that he is sure how the trial will end…in an acquittal. Doesn’t that sound like a juror who “is unable to reach a fair verdict?”
Now, we have six additional senators who are actually plotting with defendant Trump’s legal and political team on how to conduct the trial. Don’t they sound like jurors who should be disqualified as well? Including McConnell, that makes seven disqualifications leaving the vote to the remaining 93: 46 Republican/47 Democrat or Independents, which is still a quorum. And by my math, two-thirds of 93 is 62, which would be the number of votes necessary for removal.
While this won’t happen, it should; 15 Republican converts is a lot easier than the 20 that would be required with a full Senate.
Can you imagine the outcomes if John Gotti, Al Capone, the Rosenbergs, the Menendez brothers, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer…well you get the point…were able to collude with the jury before their trials? Do you think the judges at those trials would have stepped in?
But wait, maybe the presiding judge in the Senate trial will do the right thing. Who is that? Chief Justice John Roberts? Never mind.
Note: the defendants listed above are for illustrative purposes only. The use of their names does not suggest I am comparing them to defendant Trumpin any way.
How low will Trump defenders go? Very low, it seems
News with a Twist
Satire from Ted Block
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R., Wis.)
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), in a letter sent Monday to House Republicans, questioned the credibility of Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine specialist with the National Security Council who listened in on President Donald Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine’s president, in which Trump pressed his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate his political rivals.
Vindman, a decorated U.S. Army infantry officer who received a Purple Heart medal for wounds he received from an IED attack in the Iraq War in 2004, is also the recipient of many other decorations and medals including, Defense Meritorious Service Medal with bronze oak leaf cluster (2nd award), Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal with three oak leaf clusters (4th award), Army Achievement Medal with two oak leaf clusters (3rd award), National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korea Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon (4th award), Valorous Unit Award, Navy Unit Commendation, National Intelligence Meritorious Unit Citation, and Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation. He is a recipient of the Combat Infantryman Badge, Expert Infantryman Badge, Ranger Tab, Basic Parachutist Badge, the Presidential Service Badge, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge.
Lt. Col Alexander Vindman’s medals and decorations
“A significant number of bureaucrats and staff members within the executive branch have never accepted President Trump as legitimate and resent his unorthodox style and his intrusion onto their ‘turf’,” Johnson wrote. “They react by leaking to the press and participating in the ongoing effort to sabotage his policies and, if possible, remove him from office. It is entirely possible that Vindman fits this profile.”
Of course, in context, “entirely possible” is an unfortunate way of Johnson saying he has no proof to substantiate his irresponsible rhetoric.
Johnson’s letter prompted Rep Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) to offer the far-right senator some sensible advice: “Here’s a pro-tip: if you find yourself lying about a war hero, you should probably question your choices in life. My advice to Ron Johnson is to walk around the block and think about it.”
Well, Around the Block has learned that apparently Ron Johnson has done a lot of walking “around the block,” not just thinking, but writing.
In his forthcoming book, “Profiles in Uncourage,” Johnson will reveal the truths about many decorated American war heroes, debunking their heroism wherever it was “entirely possible”
In a service to our readers, Around the Block was able to get some pre-publication excerpts of Johnson’s book:
U.S. Army Sgt Alvin York, WWI: “York was awarded the Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Service Cross as a pacifist? Pacifists can’t be real heroes. If it wasn’t for Gary Cooper playing him in a fake biopic, no one would have heard of York.”
U.S. Army Lt. Audie Murphy, WWII: “Murphy received every military combat award for valor available from the U.S. Army, as well as French and Belgian awards for heroism. Really? The rumor was that he was gay. And then he went on to star as himself in a biopic. Not a hero. Just part of that Hollywood elite.”
U.S. Navy Cmdr. David McCampbell, WWII: “Campbell won the Medal of Honor for shooting shot down nine Japanese planes in 95 minutes? Didn’t even reach the standard for the award – 10 planes in 90 minutes! What were they thinking?”
U.S. Army Lt. Eddie Rickenbacker, WWI: “He was awarded the Medal of Honor for attacking a formation of five German planes and downing two of them…but he let the other three escape? That’s a hero?”
U.S. Navy RADM James B. Stockdale, Vietnam: “Stockdale won the Medal of Honor for spending eight years in a Vietnamese POW camp.” (See John McCain)
U.S. Army Gen Jimmy Doolittle, WWII: “How could he have received the Medal of Honor? He was only 5’6”. American heroes are tall, like John Wayne and Donald Trump.”
U.S. Navy LtCmdr. John C. McCloy*, Boxer Rebellion; Battle of Veracruz: “The what rebellion? Battle of what? They actually gave medals for wars no one’s ever heard of?”
*Full disclosure: I served on USS McCloy, DE-1038, named for John C. McCloy.
U.S. Navy LtCmdr. John McCain, Vietnam: “Yes, I know McCain was shot down over Hanoi and was imprisoned and tortured in the Hanoi Hilton for 5-1/2 years and he won the Silver Star, two Legion of Merits, Distinguished Flying Cross, three Bronze Star Medals, two Purple Hearts, two Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals, and the Prisoner of War Medal. But, so what? As my real hero, Donald J. Trump said, ‘He was captured. Does being captured make you a hero? I don’t know. I’m not sure. I like people that weren’t captured.’”
The book is due out in January and will reportedly have a cover blurb from Donald Trump: “It’s over three pages so I didn’t read it. No time. Too busy making America great again after O’s disaster. I’m a big fan of Ron Johnson. I know he’s a big supporter of mine. So I’m sure it’s a great book. In fact, people tell me it’s maybe the best book…fantastically, terrific!!!
Protesters gathered on the Ellipse outside the White House to show their opposition to a proposed ban on flavored e-cigarettes.Credit…
I wanted to do a quick follow up on my column entitled, “Trump Retreats From Flavor Ban for E-Cigarettes.”
My issue with the Trump retreat from banning the sale of most flavored e-cigarettes for blatantly political reasons was the that he did it for, well, blatantly political reasons. And, of course, for his own personal interests. Just like everything else he does.
The real issue is not about Trump but, more importantly, what should be done about e-cigarettes. In his pullback from the ban, Trump indicated that he still “wants to study the issue”. While “study” and “Trump” are mutually exclusive, I’d like to hold out some hope that there will be a positive outcome from all this dithering.
The fact is a sweeping ban on e-cigarettes is probably not a good idea. (I think something else “nefarious” was banned by the government years ago; they called it Prohibition. How did that work out?)
As the Times editorialized last week, “Banning E-Cigarettes Could Do More Harm Than Good,” noting that “prohibition is not a good long-term solution, for a number of reasons. Such measures are not guaranteed to prevent teenagers from getting e-cigarettes. And they would almost certainly force people who already use these products, including roughly 11 million adults, to choose between traditional cigarettes (which remain widely available, despite being deadlier than e-cigarettes) and black-market vaping products.” The Times suggests, “the better, if more complicated, option would be to build a public health system that’s strong enough to combat all nicotine addiction in the long term.”
For more on the Times proposals, download the following link.
Hopefully, despite his antipathy for the New York Times, someone in the Trump “study group” will read the editorial and, perhaps, take some of the advice.
Oh, wait. That’s not going to happen; Trump banned all federal agencies from subscribing to the Times. And the Post for good measure. No, not the New York Post, that’s still allowed. It’s the other Post, the Bezos fake news one, The Washington Post. Perhaps this is another ban that will be retreated from, allowing some thoughtful staffers to take heed.
Battleground state polling of Trump’s base shows issue costing him support.
President Trump discussed a ban on most flavored e-cigarettes in the Oval Office in September. From left, Ned Sharpless, the former acting chief of the Food and Drug Administration; Melania Trump; the president; and Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of health and human services.
Back in September, showing uncharacteristic concern for the growing public health crisis affecting American teenagers, President Trump said at a meeting with the acting head of the FDA and the secretary of health, that he was moving to ban the sale of most flavored e-cigarettes as vaping among young people continued to rise.
At that meeting, Trump said, “We can’t have our kids be so affected,” The first lady, Melania Trump, who rarely involves herself publicly with policy announcements in the White House, was there, too. “She’s got a son,” Mr. Trump noted, referring to their teenager, Barron. “She feels very strongly about it.”
Trump’s unusual comment, “She’s got a son,” did not get much notice from the White House press corps, but Around the Block’s White House correspondent did ask Mrs. Trump what her husband meant by that comment. We can now report on her response: “She got son? Of course he say because he not father. I von’t let creep come near me. Only marry to get parents into country illegally. Barron father in Ljubljana. Vlad. Miss him so. Going back after creep loses election or maybe sooner if, how you say, impeached.”*
*In case you’re wondering, this is the News with a Twist part.
But I digress. Where was I? Ah yes…Trump’s admirable ban on flavored e-cigarettes.
Wait, what? That was then…this is now:
According to reporting by the New York Times, under pressure from his political advisers and lobbyists to factor in the potential pushback from his supporters, Trump has resisted moving forward with any action on vaping, while saying he still wants to study the issue. The Times writes that Trump is concerned about his chances in 2020 and allies working for the vaping industry have told Mr. Trump of battleground state polling of his own voters that showed the issue costing him support.
So, votes trump a health crisis.
Sound familiar? It should. Because it is exactly the same sequence of events Trump took after the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. As the Times writes, “…from a bold pronouncement of swift action to a fizzle after the political realities of taking such an action emerge.”
Trump’s personal interest always seem to come before the nation’s. Obviously, that’s what the impeachment inquiry is all about; his personal interest coming ahead of a rational foreign policy and national security. And, of course, personal interest has played a key role in his raping of the environment, either to curry favor with big business and special interests for money or because of his obsession with undoing everything his hated nemesis Barack Obama did. But whatever his personal reasons, Trump’s turning back the environmental clock will have a devastating effect on our personal interests and our lives.
A Times analysis, based on research from Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School and other sources, counts more than 80 environmental rules and regulations on the way out under the Trump administration.
The details of these 85 rollbacks can be accessed by hitting the download button below. Read and weep.
When I visited Ljubljana earlier this year I asked our Slovenian tour guide whether Slovenia would take Melania back. “Only if she doesn’t bring her husband,” he answered. Sounds like he and Melania are of like mind.
I know your big question over the last week or so was undoubtably, “Where in the world is “Around the Block?” The fact is, I’ve been traveling in Japan. And while it’s easy to keep up with the news from back home in Japan, my schedule has been such that commenting on that news has been difficult. So today I’d like thank Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times for bailing me out as I take advantage of his November 16 column and borrow liberally from him.
A while back MSNBC had a terrific tag line: “We watch Fox News, so you don’t have to.” Before that Jon Stewart’s Daily Show provided plenty of insight (and ridiclule) into how Fox was covering their version of the “news.” And, back in 2004, when Fox News’ own tagline was “Fair and Balanced,” the documentary Outfoxed showed how the “news” channel’s purpose, despite its tagline, was the promotion of right-wing views. As Outfoxed’s filmmaker, Robert Greenwald, said at the time, “What we set out to do was to show that, in fact, the entire Fox News was not a news organization. The goal was not just to change that narrative but to change the impact that Fox News often had on legitimate journalists.”
And, it’s only gotten worse since then.
Nicholas Kristof, in commenting about impeachment in the Times, writes, “When President Richard Nixon’s Watergate misconduct was being dissected before congressional committees in 1973 and 1974, Republican support for him collapsed because most Americans shared news sources and inhabited a similar political reality. In short, facts mattered.”
And as others, including Dan Rather, who covered the Nixon impeachment for CBS said, “Back then, there were only three networks. And all of us had the same facts. With Fox and right-wing radio, that’s not true today. Today, there are two sets of ‘facts.’”
Because I don’t watch Fox, because MSNBC abandoned their tag line and because Jon Stewart abandoned us, I’ll rely on Kristof to do the Fox watching for me.
But first, for Kristof, the numbers: “Fox was the most popular television network for watching the first day of impeachment hearings this week, with 2.9 million viewers (57 percent more than CNN had).”
Think about that, you MSNBC devotees; you’re being overwhelmed by people actually watching “fake news;” by viewers who encounter a very different hearing than viewers of other channels.
Two specific examples from Kristof’s (probably painful) watching:
“With Rep. Adam Schiff on the screen, Fox News’s graphic declared in all caps: ‘TRUMP HAS REPEATEDLY IMPLIED THAT SCHIFF HAS COMMITTED TREASON.’ At a different moment, the screen warned: ‘9/26: SCHIFF PUBLICLY EXAGGERATED SUBSTANCE OF TRUMP-ZELENSKY CALL*.'”
“Fox downplayed the news and undermined the witnesses. While Ambassador William Taylor was shown testifying, the Fox News screen graphic declared: ‘OCT 23: PRESIDENT TRUMP DISMISSED TAYLOR AS A “NEVER TRUMPER.’ It also suggested his comments were, ‘TRIPLE HEARSAY.’”
I didn’t see it, but I can imagine what Fox’s screen graphics said during the Marie Yovanovitch’s testimony on Friday. How about this? “President called Yovanovitch ‘Bad News.’” “Trump says, ‘Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad.” “She started off in Somalia, how did that go?”
Take that to the polling booth Fox viewers.
And, amazingly, after Trump’s malicious tweet about her AS SHE WAS TESTIFYING, the blind-sided GOP rabid mad dogs on the Committee went out of their way to heap praise on Yovanovitch; so much so, you’ve got to wonder, why did Trump fire her? Wonder of wonders.
But, does this kind of editorializing the “news” work?
Kristof:
A 2012 study by Fairleigh Dickinson University reported that watching Fox News had “a negative impact on people’s current events knowledge.” The study found that those who regularly watched Fox News actually knew less about both domestic and international issues than those who watched no news at all. N.P.R. listeners were particularly well-informed, the study found, but even people who got their news from a comedy program like “The Daily Show” — or who had no news source whatsoever — knew more about current events than Fox viewers.
This right-wing cocoon is a disservice to its own true believers — because it feeds them misinformation.
In the Iraq War, when Fox News anticipated that troops would be welcomed with flowers and that the war would pay for itself, troops I accompanied in 2003 watched a feed of Fox News with me — and our jaws dropped as commentators ridiculed critics of the invasion and blithely insisted that Iraqis were welcoming us as heroes. The troops and I looked at each other in astonishment.
During the 2009-10 swine flu epidemic, Democrats and Republicans initially expressed roughly equal concern. But then conservative commentators denounced the Obama administration’s calls for vaccination as a nefarious plot. Glenn Beck, then of Fox News, warned that he would do “the exact opposite” of what the administration recommended. As a result, Democrats in the end were 50 percent more likely to seek vaccination than Republicans, according to the Journal of Health, Politics and Law. Some 18,000 people died in that flu epidemic, so it seems logical that some died because they believed Fox News.
Kristof concludes his column with this:
“I wonder if Fox viewers are again being misled when they watch Sean Hannity celebrate the opening of the impeachment hearings as a victory for Trump and as “a lousy day for the corrupt, do-nothing- for-three-years radical extreme socialist Democrats.” That is, shall we say, a quixotic interpretation.
“In the meantime, Fox News is aggressively defending Trump, joining in smears of public servants and playing a role in history that embarrasses many of us in journalism.”
Let me close with a reprise: “People who regularly watched Fox News actually knew less about both domestic and international issues than those who watched no news at all.” And, “…the right-wing cocoon is a disservice to its own true believers — because it feeds them misinformation.
How does that make you non-Fox believers feel about how the impeachment process is going to turn out?
(*Note: In the only mistake Schiff has made in this impeachment process, his “parody” of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian president Zelinsky at one of the early public hearings, was unfortunate. As I commented at the time, “Congressman, leave the satire to the professionals; you’re a Congressman and a former prosecutor; they (Fox and your Republican Congressional “colleagues”) will never forget and will call you out on it at every opportunity)
I went to see a performance of “The Simon and Garfunkel Story” the other night.
The show traces the history of the duo back to their friendship as school mates in Queens, their first foray into rock and roll using the names, “Tom & Jerry,” their incredible successes as Simon & Garfunkel and their sad, but inevitable breakup. The two performers who portrayed Paul and Art were outstanding, mirroring their sound and their look with amazing accuracy.
As many of you know, I went to Queens College, Paul’s alma mater (Art went to Columbia). In 1963, just as the duo was beginning to become known, Paul was the featured performer at my Queens College freshman orientation — he was a senior at the time. Later on in my college career, I joined the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity, Paul’s fraternity, where two of my brothers were Paul and Art’s younger “real” brothers, Eddie Simon and Jerry Garfunkel. Because of these connections, Simon & Garfunkel were always special for me, particularly Paul. While Art was a great singer who could make songs soar (“Bridge Over Troubled Water” might not have been the astounding success without Art’s solos), Paul was my first introduction to Queens College and Paul’s AEPi was my AEPi. Little did I know that he would become the genius who wrote both the music and the lyrics for, what many people consider, the greatest folk/rock group in history and who would then go on to a legendary, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, solo career.
Given my “connection” with Paul Simon, my awe and admiration of his extraordinary talent, and reminded by the show I just saw about their music and their partnership, I thought I’d re-post an Around the Block column from 2016 about the Democratic presidential campaign and Simon’s song, “America.”
As widely reported, the Bernie Sanders campaign is using the 47-year old Simon and Garfunkel anthem, “America,” in a poignant and well-received TV commercial.
The big question for many is, are Simon and Garfunkel for Bernie?
Well, the answer is “yes” Art, maybe Paul. In an interview with CNN, Mr. Garfunkel pledged his allegiance to the candidate, saying, “I like Bernie. I like his fight. I like his dignity and his stance. I like this song.”
Alluding to the famous split and ensuing animosity with Simon, Garfunkel went on to say that while “Paul and I might not agree on everything “(or, according to sources, anything for that matter) they are both “liberals in our inclination.”
Mr. Garfunkel said the idea to use the song came from the campaign, “I just acquiesced and let Bernie use my song that I’m so proud of.”
According to sources, Mr. Simon did not agree with Mr. Garfunkel, not regarding his “liberal inclination” but about Mr. Garfunkel’s characterization that the song, America, was his. The song, written by Simon in 1968, concerns young lovers hitchhiking their way across the United States, in search of “America.” It was inspired by Simon’s 1964 road trip with his girlfriend Kathy Chitty, who also was the subject of Simon’s earlier work, “Kathy’s Song”.
Regarding the controversy, the feelings of fans everywhere can be summed up in the words of David “Davy Boy” Dubenstein, 69, of Bayside Queens who said, “Who’s that old, bald guy with glasses on TV talking about Simon and Garfunkel?”
If it’s a trial, shouldn’t it be conducted like a trial?
I’ve learned, like many people who are interested in the potential impeachment of Donald Trump, that impeachment, although a political process, is handled like a legal procedure: The House of Representatives gathers the evidence, summoning witnesses and taking depositions, to determine if the case should go to trial. This part is the actual impeachment and is decided by a simple majority vote in the House.
If the House votes for impeachment, the process moves to a trial in the Senate. This is conducted like an actual trial, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serving as judge and the 100 senators serving as the jury. Unlike an actual criminal trial, a unanimous decision is not required for conviction, or, in this case removal from office, but by a 2/3 vote or 67 senators.
I’m not one of the 1.3 million lawyers(!) in the U.S., but I’ve watched enough TV legal dramas to know something about how jury trials are supposed to work. And that one of the most critical aspects of a jury trial is the jury selection itself.
In a process called voir dire, prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury. You’ve all seen voir dire in action on TV and in movies. There’s the peremptory challenge where attorneys reject jurors without stating a reason. And there’s the challenge for cause where a juror might be rejected if the challenging attorney provides a good reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict. In this latter scenario, the challenge is considered by the presiding judge who may deny it.
Given that, I found it interesting that Senate Majority Leader Mitch “Moscow Mitch” McConnell said yesterday that if the impeachment trial were held today, the Senate would acquit President Donald Trump.
“I will say I’m pretty sure how it’s likely to end,” McConnell said to reporters. “If it were today, I don’t think there’s any question — it would not lead to removal.”
So that leads to the obvious question: If the Senate trial is really a trial, wouldn’t McConnell be challenged for cause as he’s actually gone on the record, publicly, that he is sure how the trial will end…in an acquittal. Doesn’t that sound like a juror who “is unable to reach a fair verdict?” And if the argument is, well what he “thinks” is not necessarily how he will “vote,” McConnell (and probably almost all the Republican “jurors” who’ve made public statements regarding the “sham” impeachment – are you listening Lindsey Graham?) should be subject to preemptory challenges.
Wait, what? A Senate impeachment trial only requires a quorum for a vote? And that a quorum is 50+1 or 51 senators? And 2/3 of 51 is 34?.
Around the Block 