Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

Lots of good commentary in the Washington Post on Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s apparent preference for a sham trial of Donald Trump on his abuse of office by extorting Ukraine for personal political help. No witnesses, speedy acquittal.

Greg Sargent notes some Republicans might not go along, opening the door to a deal in which, if Trump gets to present witnesses about Hunter Biden, Democrats would get to go after all those people Trump has prevented from providing testimony. Might be a touch uncomfortable.

Jennifer Rubin says a no-evidence trial would be proof of Trump’s guilt. (Not to mention a commentary on how much integrity the Republican Party has given up, presuming it had any, to win tax cuts for the rich and pack the federal judiciary with fringe ideologues, many without legal qualifications.)

Dana Milbank’s headline for the Trump defense: “My total lack of evidence proves my case.”


I’m where I was all along. Trump has committed an impeachable offense by using Congressionally approved foreign aid as a bludgeon to get a foreign country to trash his political opponent Joe Biden. But ….. bending over backward, I can see where someone could argue that, however distasteful, the unified executive power theory allows Trump to do whatever he wants without consequence. If only a few  Republicans would concede at least that much. But it would also mean conceding rank hypocrisy in the eight years of moaning about Obama executive overreach.

I think I favor the quick trashing of the impeachment articles. The outcome is the same either way. And I think it would demonstrate, as the Post writers said, that Trump has no defense. He did what’s alleged. Then I can dream that this might bother a few swing voters in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.


Note that Arkansans in Congress are unified: Whatever Trump does is fine by them. Extortion. Bribery. Slaughter of military allies. Children in cages. Violence against women. Weapons of mass killing. High drug prices. Vote suppression. Unqualified judges. French Hill, Tom Cotton and them are good to go. (And, yes, I know that most Arkansas voters are with them. So far, the rest of us are still allowed to say otherwise.)