The impeachment trial of President Trump is underway. Democrats have the rest of this week to establish their arguments for Trump’s removal from office. But the Democrats’ case thus far has focused less on the charges against Trump and more on the witnesses who could justify them.
Senate Democrats want to subpoena several White House witnesses the House didn’t feel it had to hear from, including former national security adviser John Bolton and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will not hold a vote on whether to call these witnesses until after both parties have presented their opening statements. In response, the Democrats have accused McConnell of staging a “cover-up.”
This is ridiculous. House Democrats could have gone to court to subpoena Bolton and Mulvaney and contest Trump’s executive privilege. Adam Schiff, one of the appointed impeachment managers, argued that the House did all it could. “If you argue that, well, the House needed to go through endless months or even years of litigation before bringing about an impeachment, you effectively nullify the impeachment clause,” he said last week.
The nature of Trump’s presidential abuse necessitated an immediate impeachment, Schiff claimed, so the House did not have time to waste. But if that’s the case, why did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delay sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a month?
The House’s responsibility was to make a strong and complete case against the president so the Senate could weigh the charges. The Democrats clearly believe Bolton’s testimony could make their case stronger. Indeed, the lengths to which Democratic leadership has gone to put pressure on moderate Senate Republicans suggest Bolton’s testimony could make or break the entire trial. So wouldn’t it have been worthwhile to go to court, secure Bolton’s testimony, and then approach the Senate with a more compelling case?
The Democrats did just that when they initially sued to compel former Bolton deputy Charles Kupperman to testify. But then, they abandoned the litigation at the last minute, declaring that the evidence they had gathered against the president was already “overwhelming.” If that were true, they wouldn’t be talking about Bolton now.
The evidence Democrats have presented is far from overwhelming, and now, they’re trying to make up for it. As House intelligence chairman, Schiff failed to make a legal case against the president. He first accused the president of engaging in a “quid pro quo.” Then, Schiff said Trump had committed acts of “bribery” and then later “extortion.” And after failing to prove that either accusation had legal merit, the House settled for two charges against the president, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, that don’t actually have anything to do with Schiff’s original allegations.
Senate Democrats have another motive too. They know that even if Bolton were to drop a bombshell, the result of the impeachment trial would likely still be an acquittal. But by drawing attention to Bolton and the other potential witnesses, Democrats want to be able to smear Senate Republicans as bad faith actors who are trying to hide the truth. This might not change the trial, but it could help Democrats in 2020, which is the point of the trial and the impeachment in the first place.
The fight for trial witnesses is just another political maneuver the Democrats intend to use to win back the Senate in November. They don’t care about the truth. Schiff and Pelosi had made up their minds about Trump’s guilt long before Schiff called the first witness. Bolton’s testimony, or the lack thereof, is just another tool that Democrats would use to seal the GOP’s coffin. Let’s hope the American public sees through it.
