Licks like peas. With a bullpistle.
Were I a judge in their case, that is the sentence I would pass on the 50-odd Elsies in the Senate who last week voted against hearing witnesses in the continuing impeachment trial of Donald J Trump.
Did Trump ask Ukraine for a quid pro quo or not? Not!
Does Trump’s conduct rise to the level of impeachment or not? Not!
Do we want John Bolton to testify or not? Not!
Do we want Mick Mulvaney to testify or not? Not!
Do we want more witnesses or not? Not!
Do we want to subpoena the documents Trump is hiding or not? Not!
Do we want the chief justice to decide on admissibility or not? Not!
Is Trump guilty or not? Not! Not! Not! Not! Not! Not! Not! Not!
By the way, if you want to know why I call the Republicans LCs, it’s easy; have Google translate lèche-cul (French) or lame-culos (Spanish) for you and you’ll get the picture. Like so much of what we have seen in this travesty of a trial, it isn’t pretty so be sure there are no children around.
With the children safely out of the way, perhaps we can begin with Alan Dershowitz, unrepentant defender of abuser/paedophile/rapist Jeffrey Epstein. Among serious constitutional scholars, many agree, Dershowitz is likely to constitute a minority of one.
“The only thing that would make a quid pro quo,” argued the octogenarian member of the president’s defence team, reckless of contortion-induced cramp, “is if the quo were in some way illegal. […] And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
“So,” as CNN’s John King put it pithily, “as president, you cannot be wrong if you think you are right.”
Absurd! Disgraceful even. But many senators grabbed Dershowitz’s fig leaf in a vain attempt to cover their shame.
“I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate,” explains known black-jacket, white-jacket Lisa Murkowski on whom Democrats and democrats alike were counting to buck the ass-licking trend. “So,” she went on illogically, “I shall not be voting in favour of hearing additional witnesses.”
“The Senate is drowning,” a CNN commentator accurately translated her reasoning, “and I’m holding its head under water.”
Lamar Alexander, who is 79 and not running for re-election in Tennessee, also let the Democratic side down with his puzzling stance.
“There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven,” he correctly reasoned. “If you are persuaded that he did it, why do you need more witnesses?”
I am not aware that anyone responded with the obvious answer: “So that everyone has the opportunity to be, like you and Senators Marco Rubio, Rob Portman and Patrick Toomey, Mitt Romney and Susan Collins, persuaded that Trump’s conduct was inappropriate—and eventually decide on guilt or innocence on the basis of the whole truth, which is what trials are about?”
On CNN, a visibly upset Chris Cuomo argued that voting nay on conviction is okay but voting nay on witnesses is indefensible.
Washington Post columnist Max Boot, who registered as an independent literally the day after Trump’s election, deems the refusal to call witnesses in the Senate as ‘the GOP’s moral failure’.
“Senators who shirk their constitutional duties,” he says, “are cowards who disgrace their oaths of office and betray the Constitution.”
The Constitution? In Law & Crime, Jerry Lambe tells us what a respected ethics lawyer thinks is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s attitude to that ubiquitously cited beast.
“Urinating on the Constitution is fun,” he quotes Republican-turned-Democrat Richard Painter as saying, “when you can get away with it.”
Indeed, McConnell is unapologetic and unabashed and has no shame for which he needs to use Dershowitz’s fig leaf as cover. One commentator suggests, however, that he may need not to show his face.
The Guardian’s Rowan Moore says that McConnell “has the strangely amazed look of a southern gentleman who has just caught his wife in flagrante with the stable hand.” Perhaps. But I’d add that said gentleman probably also has an ED and a chronic constipation problem, both of which, under the glare of the spotlight, he can’t get off his mind.
Moore adds that McConnell’s ‘aim is to serve the interests of the Republican Party in the Senate. Everything else—the interests of the US, the constitution, truth, justice, even Republicans not in the Senate—is subservient.’
How true! But the second last word goes to MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, who thinks he understands why today’s Senate has let the Republic down. According to him, the Founding Fathers tried their darnedest to indemnify senators against the taint of politics and would clearly have preferred that senators not have to be elected.
Time—and Trump—have brought their efforts to nought.
And in north Trinidad is where I want to end. On the airwaves today, there was news of Independent Senator Subhas Ramkhelawan and of UNC Political Leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar.
The report on the former Trinidad and Tobago Stock Exchange chairman dealt with the settlement of the matter spawned by a less-than-transparent 2014 FCB IPO deal, which led to his resignation.
The report on the former prime minister dealt with her sanctimonious declaration that she had learned her lessons from the last time and would be trying to do better should her UNC, well, the UNC, once more get their hands on the Treasury, oops, on government in the next election.
My response? Yuh know what North have fuh you and Elsies like Rodney Charles, Tim Gopeesingh and Wade Mark and senators, new or old, like Gerald Ramdeen, Saddam Hosein and Ramkhelawan next election?
Licks like peas. With a bullpistle!