Like an alcoholic who was left locked up overnight in a liquor store, last night’s Democratic Party Liberty and Justice Dinner was a binge. Feeding on the collective electric energy of the press box, we watched thirteen presidential candidates deliver their best 10-minute pitch to a crowd of 12,000 on a stage where Barak Obama first made his mark twelve years ago and boosted his candidacy to the eventual nomination. Humbled by the presence and proximity of legendary journalists that I’ve admired for years, tweeting and reading each other’s tweets, keeping score, comparing notes, I was getting what I had come to Des Moines for, a B-12 shot of politics.
My expectation was to sleep on it last night and write about the experience today. But last night’s binge only yielded a terrible hangover this morning that was triggered by a piece in the Washington Post: “Growing number of GOP senators consider acknowledging Trump’s quid pro quo on Ukraine.” The piece continues: “… these Republicans are insisting that the president’s action was not illegal and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
So, it is now a near certainty that the House will Impeach the President. It is also a near certainty that there are not 20 Senators who will vote to convict. This means the very morning after the Senate vote, the precedent will have been set and carved in marble. Going forward, any president — especially this one — will be able to use the resources of his office and the treasure of the United States to conspire with or pressure any foreign government into digging up dirt, and potentially prosecute his political opponents, and he will be able to do it secretly and with impunity.
I drag myself out of bed, grab some breakfast and coffee and head out to a taping of a town hall meeting with Senator Michael Bennet.
Bennet is very good in a retail setting, much more effective than last night’s flat wholesale performance at the dinner. Thoughtful, well spoken, well prepared for a wide variety of questions coming from an impressively well informed crowd, he responds to each question as if he has been studying the issue in depth all along, (Much like Mayor Pete Buttigieg, I’m thinking.) No sidestepping, no dancing around the issues, no political slight of tongue trickery. So I’m hoping he will address my question unambiguously:
— “Senator, it is now a near certainty that there are not 20 Senators who will vote to convict the President. This means going forward, any president will be able to conspire with or pressure any foreign government into digging up dirt on his his political opponents, secretly and with impunity. Are we losing our republic as we know it?”
— “I hope not”
— “He will certainly be acquitted, where is the optimism?”
— “I am always optimistic”
Well, so much for my optimism about getting a straight answer!
My head hurts.
