Word and rules are important

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (who some of us refer to as #MoscowMitch) said that he will be, "...in total coordination with the White House Counsel..." regarding the impending impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

Senator Lindsay Graham, who will vote on that impeachment said, "This thing will come to the Senate and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly."

Two of Trump's staunchest supporters expressing their commitment to defend him once the Articles of Impeachment reach the Senate.  Is that a problem?  Shouldn't this be an impartial, non-partisan process?  The Senate's rules for impeachment contain an oath that the members of the Senate will take prior to the "trial" saying it should be.

"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constution and laws:  So help me God."

It was all about independence when it came to selecting the Senate as the body to handle impeachment trials, according to Alexander Hamilton.  He wrote, in Federalist Paper 65:

"Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?"

People can and will make up their minds about a trial before it begins.  I have served on several juries in criminal trials and it was easy to see that some minds were made up before deliberations began.  But for members of the Senate to make it clear they are working in concert with the White House to ensure a verdict that will exnorate Trump is not right.  These senators should recuse themselves.  Or perhaps the Impeachment Manager should make a motion to the Chief Justice at the outset of the trial that Senators Graham and McConnell should be removed from the trial for announcing in advance that they will violate the aforementioned oath.

That a Senate vote will fall along party lines is expected, but history tells us it doesn't always work that way.  54 Senators voted on the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, 45 Republicansand 9 Democrats.  10 Republicans joined the 9 Democrats in voting to acquit, saving President Johnson from impeachment by one vote.  When Bill Clinton was impeached in the Senate, its composition was 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats.  The votes to acquit President Clinton were 50-50 and 55-45.

I do not envision enough Republican senators crossing the partisan divide and voting to impeach Donald Trump.  I believe he is guilty of the two articles of impeachment and other crimes.  Why he is not being charged with violating the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is a question no one has been able to properly answer.

How can someone swear (or affirm) an oath to be impartial when they clearly are not?

A paucity of diversity

Kamala Harris is a former California Attorney General.  A sitting United States Senator.  And as of this past Tuesday (12/3/2019), a former candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for next year's presidential election.  Senator Cory Booker and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro have spoken out about how her departure from the nomination campaign is problematic.  Castro wrote, "...there are currently no candidates of color who have met the DNC's requirements for the next debate.  This process needs to be fixed."

The campaigns of Booker and Castro had large upticks in campaign contributions on the day after Harris dropped out of the race.  In the primary campaign, money matters a lot.  Anyone living in the Los Angeles area is being bombarded by Bloomberg campaign commercials.  Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg doesn't need to worry about raising money, although that is an issue to qualify for the DNC's debates.

So far only six candidates have met the requirements to take to the debate stage this month.  To get there they had to reach 4% or higher in four different DNC designated polls, or hit 6% in two of their approved polls in the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.  Those are "early" primary states.  They must also have received donations from at least 200,000 unique donors, which must include at least 800 unique donations from 20 different states, territories or the District of Columbia.  In nationwide polls from the week prior to her dropping from the race, Senator Harris polled as low as 2% and as high as 5%.  Senator Booker polled at 1% or 2%.  Secretary Castro polled at 1% or 2% in those polls, and at 0% in a New Hampshire primary poll.

The question becomes, has the DNC leadership set up the qualifying requirements for the debates with a mind to exclude candidates of color?  There is no doubt that these requirements, in least in part, are designed to winnow the field to slowly limit the debate process to those candidates who have the highest levels of support.  But is part of their process excluding candidates of color?  I can't defend the process from that allegation.

* * *

Tom Steyer has qualified for the December debates.  His support in the polls is low, ranging from 1% to 3%.  He has spent strategically, pumping money into New Hampshire and Iowa, to get on the debate stage. He also made a very smart move, buying the URL for Trump's campaign slogan, "Keep America Great."  See what he did with it here.  An article in The L.A. Times reports that Mr. Steyer spent $47.6 million of his own money during his first three months on the campaign trail.

But Michael Bloomberg makes Mr. Steyer look like a piker when it comes to spending their own money.  Mr. Bloomberg spent over $57 million between November 24th and December 3rd, according to CNBC.

Money can buy a place on the stage, up to a point.  Viability is a definite consideration.  People are supporting that candidate who aligns with their beliefs, colored by their own perception of that candidate's ability to defeat Trump in 2020.

As Democrats we need to make our party and our processes inclusive.  I don't disagree with Senator Booker and Secretary Castro that an all-white field of candidates is not the best.  In the wake of how the Clinton campaign allegedly manipulated the process in 2016, we need to make sure it is fair to all candidates.

The question is how?