Whether as purely calculating politicians or for reasons of idealism and integrity, plenty of Republican senators ought to defy Majority Leader Mitch McConnell by insisting on a thorough, unabbreviated impeachment trial, with all relevant witnesses called to testify.
The calculating, even cynical, reason is that, as Shakespeare wrote, eventually the “truth will out.” One way or another, whether in the trial or later, national security adviser John Bolton and others will tell the public what they witnessed in the Trump White House. If senators follow McConnell’s lead by quashing their testimony during the trial, they will look terrible, as if they deliberately abetted a tawdry cover-up, if a month before November’s election, Bolton testifies before a House committee and says something that makes President Trump appear venal or otherwise guilty.
Such testimony from Bolton, or even a media interview by him to the same effect, would absolutely torpedo their chances of reelection. It would be far better for them to hear the truth now, whatever it is, and respond accordingly. That is the only way they can control the fallout from Bolton’s observations and do it with plenty of time before the election, rather than put themselves at the mercy of events too close before the election for them to recover.
Setting political calculations aside, though, the more important considerations involve fealty to the constitutional design and transparency for the public weal. Those two concepts together, along with the basic common sense that a trial can’t find truth if first-hand witnesses are excluded, combine to make the question of witnesses and evidence a matter of bedrock integrity.
According to the draft trial rules promulgated on Monday by McConnell, not even the House’s own record will be accepted as evidence without a further vote. This is even more outrageous, indeed borderline-insane in an Alice in Wonderland sort of way, than a trial that doesn’t allow first-hand witnesses. Yes, this is not exactly the same thing as a criminal trial, but it is highly analogous to one, and basic procedural comparisons are entirely valid. No trial in the United States could ever take place while refusing to hear the elements of the indictment.
Every senator knows these things. They are very simple apperceptions.
Basic sense and constitutional design both demand that the Senate give due respect to an impeachment case presented by the House. If the case is wanting, a fair trial will demonstrate that far better than a truncated dismissal that keeps the public in the dark. Either way, integrity demands a thorough examination of the facts.
Immediate political considerations, not least of which are the fear of retribution from McConnell or the White House, may make senators fear to act with the integrity described above. In answer, consider two quotations. The first is again from Shakespeare, urging idealism amid the fray: “What stronger breastplate than a heart undaunted?” it asks. “Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just.”
Then, from Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s The Princess, senators should show “some sense of duty, something of a faith, some reverence for the laws ourselves have made … some civic manhood firm against the crowd.”
Republican senators have a duty to get this right. Their duty is not to McConnell or to Trump, but to history, to the Constitution, and to truth. It is perfectly fine if, having heard all the testimony, they decide Trump did not commit a removable offense. It is not fine if they allow the testimony to go unheard. To do so would be to abandon duty and civic faith, to their own everlasting discredit.
