| Get Jonathan Bernstein's newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Even before the full House votes this week on whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the Senate is wrangling over what its subsequent trial will look like. Democrats are pushing for a relatively robust procedure, which would include calling relevant witnesses and demanding that the Trump administration produce key documents. The White House wants to call Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Hunter Biden — in other words, to put the Democrats on trial. As for Mitch McConnell? He wants to get done with this as quickly as possible, with no witnesses at all. A Senate majority of some kind will determine who gets their way. If 51 of the 53 Republicans stay united, they can control what happens; if four Republicans vote with united Democrats (the latter being no sure thing), then that majority will be able to take charge. No one knows yet where the votes will lie. But it's a good bet that if the Republicans aren't united, McConnell will seek some sort of deal that minimizes tough votes, especially for those in his party who are facing competitive re-election races in 2020. McConnell has drawn plenty of criticism for his pledge to coordinate with the White House on procedure. But that doesn't mean he's wrong. As the political scientist Matt Glassman points out, impeachment and the Senate trial are necessarily political procedures. We shouldn't expect senators to act like jurors in a criminal case. If the Framers had wanted the president's fate to depend on politically neutral actors, then United States senators are the very last people they would've given the responsibility to. The idea that any Republican who has already called for Trump's acquittal should recuse himself and not vote is silly. That said, McConnell's pledge to coordinate with the White House could prove politically awkward. And that's not the only reason that a "political" trial could end up hurting the White House. Because this isn't a criminal proceeding and senators aren't impartial jurors, they don't have to confine themselves to the specific charges that the House has drawn up. They're free to take electoral politics into consideration, for instance, or to consider the broader questions of whether the president is fit for office or represents a danger to the Constitution. In fact, I'd argue that they have an obligation to do so. All this makes a Senate impeachment trial a strange animal. It has the trappings of a criminal trial but isn't one. It has no fixed procedures but will follow whatever course 51 senators choose, even if they make it up as they go along. And it doesn't have to be "fair" — except to the extent that senators want it to seem to be fair. Which is reasonably likely. 1. Sarah Burns at the Monkey Cage looks at the articles of impeachment. 2. Perry Bacon Jr. talks with Daniel Nichanian about restoring voting rights to ex-felons in Kentucky. 3. Heather Hurlburt on Trump's trade deals. 4. Aaron Blake looks closely at the "Nunes memo" after the inspector general's report. 5. Very strong piece by my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Ramesh Ponnuru knocking down Republican arguments against impeachment. My feeling: Anyone who is still claiming, contrary to all the evidence, that Joe Biden did something wrong when he executed U.S. policy by pressuring Ukraine to fire a disreputable prosecutor isn't acting in good faith. 6. And Matthew Green at Mischiefs of Faction on "Star Wars" and politics back here on Earth. Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You'll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close. | 
Post a Comment