Reports are already flooding in about the aftershocks of this morning’s NYT report concerning Ukraine and the infighting that permeated the White House, the witnesses involved, and the clarity of the issue over the summer, all of which I have already covered in this morning’s column. The NYT story so clearly shows why these insider witnesses are needed, that serious pressure – pressure not previously applied – will increasingly put McConnell in a much more difficult position. The WaPo is already reporting about the consequences: The Kentucky Republican is hoping to make the trial as swift and painless as possible for Trump and Republicans, and but new evidence uncovered by the New York Times could complicate his efforts — or potentially doom the GOP if he pulls off the sham trial, reported the Washington Post. You can be sure that “the GOP” is on notice that their entire legitimacy is riding on whether the sham trial plays out well. Senators that previously were wholly on board with following McConnell’s “get out of jail free card” for Trump might now reconsider whether they can survive supporting that effort. Some of them might also consider whether doing the right thing matters. Please note that Greg Sargent of the WaPo is saying the exact same things that I analyzed earlier: “What makes all this new information really damning, however, is that many of these officials who were directly involved with Trump’s freezing of aid are the same ones Trump blocked from appearing before the House impeachment inquiry,” wrote the Post‘s Greg Sargent. Yeah, that looks bad, and how something “looks” really matters when the entire nation knows what happened and who was involved. Previously, when the infighting had been kept from the public, and the identity of the most important witnesses had been kept from the public, it was much easier for McConnell to go along with the “no witnesses” plan. It is much harder now, and that’s a problem. Sargent does note something that I had not covered this morning, and that’s the likelihood of ever-more bad evidence emerging after a potential sham trial in which it was all covered-up. “That could come after Senate Republicans ran a sham trial and acquitted Trump,” Sargent wrote. “Do they really want to be on the hook for having suppressed such evidence, even in the face of a whole new round of deeply incriminating revelations?” Such worries do not seem to have bothered Republicans to this point. But the stakes haven’t been this high before. It really does change the entire dynamic for McConnell. As I have said before, in the end, McConnell’s decision might come down to the fact that he would vastly prefer to be the majority leader under a new Democratic president, over the minority leader in a Trump second term. McConnell is going to err on the side of protecting his majority, not Trump, if it gets right down to a choice. For now, at least since this morning, McConnell is still betting on a sham trial. McConnell has succeeded in ramming through transparently partisan and illegal bullshit in the past. But he has never had to do so with stakes this high, where there might be some evidence that McConnell himself has a few Russian connections, where McConnell’s perfect plan […]
Sometimes people in Washington get it plain wrong!
If conservatives support police killing citizens without justification, climate denial, fact denial, science denial, racist and misogynistic behavior, or a litany of other absurd points of view about numerous important issues, we call them out.