Do it properly and thoroughly, or don’t do it at all.
A few news writers are noticing that if Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate is abbreviated and doesn’t cover every detail of every aspect of the president’s actions, it will be because Senate Democrats want it that way.
Politico’s Playbook newsletter reports, “Several of the House impeachment managers wanted firsthand testimony to help prove their case that Trump incited the Jan. 6 riot, our sources tell us. But Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Biden administration officials have been eager for the process to move quickly, we’re told.”
Tim O’Brien, writing over at Bloomberg Opinion: “It would be a shame if, in the interests of ‘unity’ or an unproven assumption that Biden’s ability to govern would be curtailed, Democrats don’t stay the course and see to it that a transparent and muscular trial is given the time it needs to serve its full purpose. They should also avoid former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s mistake during the Trump-Russia probe and subpoena Trump to testify if he continues to refuse to do so.”
The comparison to the Mueller investigation is a useful one. After Mueller completed his investigation and testified on Capitol Hill and disappointed Democrats, some one-time allies of Mueller attempted a ludicrous and implausible about-face, insisting that he had done a rushed, slipshod job that ignored important avenues of investigation.
If Mueller didn’t find it or bring charges over something after 22 months, with 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff at his disposal, after interviewing 500 witnesses, issuing 2,800 subpoenas, 230 orders for communication records, 13 requests to foreign governments, and nearly 500 search warrants, it doesn’t exist. No one can argue that the investigation was rushed, undermanned, under-funded, restricted, or somehow unfairly limited.
On July 24, 2019, Mueller testified before Congress, and Representative Doug Collins of Georgia asked him, “At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?” Mueller answered, “No.” He’s under oath at that moment!
And yet . . . now that the investigation has disappointed critics of the administration, members of Mueller’s own team are arguing that the former FBI Director was intimidated by the president and failed to do his duties. “In an explosive tell-all that offers the most detailed account yet of what happened behind the scenes during Mueller’s two-year investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Andrew Weissmann writes of his frustration that the special counsel failed to subpoena the president and otherwise pulled punches for fear of incurring Trump’s wrath.”
Back in September, I wrote, “You don’t get to spend two years telling the world to trust Mueller and then, once he gives an answer you don’t like, to conclude that Mueller isn’t trustworthy. You don’t get to spend all that time building him up to the point where his face is on prayer candles and ‘In Mueller We Trust’ merchandise is for sale, only to suddenly change your mind and conclude he’s a bumbling, hapless Keystone Cop when he says the evidence isn’t there.”
If House managers think they have evidence that would sway the “jury” of senators, they ought to present it. If you’re going to have an impeachment trial, have an impeachment trial, and give the Trump legal team plenty of time for cross-examination. Do it properly and thoroughly, or don’t do it at all. No one should be able to argue afterward that the impeachment was rushed or ignored key aspects or failed to consider relevant evidence. As with the Mueller investigation, there are no do-overs, take-backs, or second bites of the apple.
The Senate can hold a fast trial, or a thorough trial. But it can’t do both.