Commentary: Will Mitch McConnell actually let the Senate sink its teeth into Trump's impeachment?

Commentary: Will Mitch McConnell actually let the Senate sink its teeth into Trump's impeachment?

  • 2

After weeks of dithering over process, the Senate will begin to play its role in the impeachment of President Trump. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that the chamber would begin trying Trump next week, starting with a debate over the trial's rules. That means we will soon see lawmakers actually confront the question that's at the heart of the issue: Were the president's actions in regard to Ukraine so bad that he should be removed from office?

There are two elements to this question, each of which is important. Although the House impeached Trump, that's the congressional equivalent of a grand jury bringing an indictment. The Senate plays the role of the jury, with House members presenting the case against Trump as well as his defense. As a result, the first answer the Senate must deliver is whether Trump did what the House accused him of doing.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a boss-level political tactician, wants you to think of the House as if it were a criminal prosecutor and Trump as if he were a defendant. He has resisted the idea of the Senate conducting its own fact-finding, arguing that the burden of proof rests entirely on the House.

As McConnell put it Tuesday morning, "If the existing case is strong, there's no need for the judge and the jury to reopen the investigation. If the existing case is weak, House Democrats should not have impeached in the first place."

That conveniently ignores the second article of impeachment, which accuses Trump of obstructing the impeachment inquiry by instructing federal agencies not to turn over documents and administration officials (even former ones) not to testify. If the Senate embraces McConnell's logic, any president accused of impeachable offenses in the latter part of the term can simply do as Trump did: Deny, deny, deny and hope the clock runs out before the courts force the administration to comply with congressional subpoenas.

But even if Republicans block every attempt to call witnesses who had a front-row seat on the Ukraine imbroglio, there's enough evidence already in the record to establish the central facts of the case. It's undisputed that Trump asked Ukraine's new president to investigate a top Democratic presidential contender, former Vice President Joe Biden, and to help with a second investigation aimed at denying Russia's role in hacking Democratic National Committee computers in 2016. There's also a mountain of testimony about efforts by Trump appointees and his personal lawyer, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, to pressure Ukraine to announce those investigations publicly. And there are the letters and statements from administration officials declaring that they would not cooperate with the impeachment inquiry because they consider it improper.

So again, the threshold question raised by the first article of impeachment is this: Is it an abuse of power to use the presidency to try to persuade a foreign government to help win reelection? The witnesses Senate Democrats want to call could strengthen the argument that Trump held up the security aid Ukraine badly needed to put more pressure on that country to conduct the investigations he sought. But House Republicans contended that there was no abuse of power because Ukraine didn't deliver the favors requested, and Trump ultimately released the security aid. In other words, whatever Trump did, it didn't work. That's a way to excuse bad actions simply because they're poorly executed.

Similarly, the threshold question raised by the second article is whether an administration can flatly defy subpoenas issued in an impeachment inquiry. House Republicans argued that the subpoenas raised questions of executive privilege, and Democrats should have tried to address those concerns through negotiations. But the White House didn't offer to negotiate; White House Counsel Pat Cipollone's letter in response to the subpoenas simply declares there will be no cooperation unless Democrats agreed to play by the rules he lays out. This is as pure a power struggle as you'll see in Washington.

Only after you get past those threshold questions do you get to the second element here, which is whether what Trump did warrants his exile from the White House and a permanent ban on him holding office. Some Senate Republicans who've expressed misgivings about Trump seeking a Ukrainian investigation into Biden (a former senator who's well liked in that chamber) have also suggested that, as presidential offenses go, Trump's wasn't that serious. Would they still make that argument, though, if former National Security Advisor John Bolton or acting White House chief of staff testified that the president tried to use U.S. military aid as leverage to help him in the 2020 election?

Convicting Trump will take a two-thirds vote of the Senate, which means that even if all Democrats and independents vote to remove the president, he'll remain in office unless at least 20 Republicans turn against him. Those are long odds, and if McConnell has his way on witnesses, they'll stay long.



Jon Healey is the Los Angeles Times' deputy editorial page editor.

Visit the Los Angeles Times at


Be the first to know

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

What's revealing about so many self-described nationalists is their contempt for the nation they claim to love. When President Trump talks about America, he talks about how people who don't love it should leave it - and then he talks about how awful it is and how much he doesn't love it. Here is America's president commenting on America's most populous city and fourth most populous state: "So ...

Most black men rarely get to experience, even vicariously, what it's like to be a white man in this country. I've been alive awhile now, but only truly understood the white male mindset once. It was 2006; Matt Lauer, the former NBC Today show host, was prepping for a television interview. He was bent over a coffee table, deep in concentration, reading a stack of papers as people around him set ...

As a nation, we have a duty to end the lasting legacy of discrimination in housing and mortgage finance that lies at the core of the staggering and enduring wealth gap between whites and Americans of color. The Community Reinvestment Act, a historic civil rights law enacted in 1977 to stop banks from discriminatory lending practices, is one of our nation's most important tools for fighting ...

Reporters who cover Congress are rightly protesting restrictions on press coverage of President Trump's Senate impeachment trial. In a letter to Senate leaders, my Los Angeles Times colleague Sarah D. Wire, who chairs the Standing Committee of Correspondents, objected among other things to a proposal that reporters be confined to "pens" preventing them from "freely accessing senators as they ...

Every January, synagogues across the country hold a special service or ceremony in memory of Martin Luther King Jr. They do this to honor the great man who inspired America to be better, and to honor the special black-Jewish bond so significant to the civil rights era. Reason No. 1 is more than appropriate; reason No. 2 is a bit complicated. Many American Jews romanticize what "we" did for ...

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court took up a case that is poised to have far-reaching effects on religious liberty. At issue are the state laws known as Blaine Amendments, which prohibit the use of government funding to benefit religious schools and other organizations. These laws have pernicious anti-immigrant origins. The "brown" people targeted in the 1800s were Catholics, Jews, Mormons ...

New federal regulations on how to handle sexual misconduct on campuses will soon be issued by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. While some provisions are good, many will create greater confusion without improving the system. The Obama administration was focused on the rights of victims of sexual misconduct under Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in ...

  • Updated

Here are three things that happened on Thursday, Jan. 23, 2020. On Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., an impeachment trial was going on. It was aimed at determining whether the president of the United States is guilty of abusing the power of his office and obstructing a congressional investigation. A short walk away from the impeachment fight, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists staged a news ...

We the people of the United States of America are deeply invested in the impeachment trial now underway in the U.S. Senate, prompted by two articles of impeachment brought by the House of Representatives. But the House, we should remember, omitted several other potential grounds for impeachment, including racism, sexism and what the Dalai Lama aptly called the president's "lack of moral ...

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.


News Alert

Breaking News