As expected, the Senate's attempt at a show trial has turned into a low kind of political farce, but even at that it's a failure. There's no drama and no humor, so what's the point? There's not even any real interest for armchair legal analysts. The only question that offers something remotely like suspense is whether Schumer will be able to hold the Dems together in a block. Lindsey Graham says the whole thing is an insult and that any movement is in favor of Trump.
Improbable as this may seem, it really does appear that the Dems, in their Ahab like obsession to cancel "Moby" Trump thought keeping Trump before the public eye by making fools of themselves was somehow a good idea. Mark Levin captures the spectacle exactly:
“First of all, we are watching one of the stupidest events by some of the stupidest people in American history, ...”
That seems pretty inarguable. And Levin sums up by explaining why this non-event is so lacking in interest:
“You cannot impeach a private citizen. You cannot have a trial of a private citizen. You don’t have the power to prohibit a private citizen, a former public official from running again.
“We have a rogue impeachment, a rogue House, a rogue Senate, a rogue trial, and we have an innocent man at Mar-a-Largo who deserves a hell of a lot better than this. This is a disgrace. A disgrace. That’s it.”
Where these buffoons got the notion that the great unwashed actually cares about such transparent political theater is anyone's guess. Jamie Raskin? Eric Swalwell? Get serious! Maybe they could get some interest if they brought Fang Fang on in some role.
Now, a little over a week ago Jonathan Turley--who always likes to play the straight man in these public travesties--wrote an article that's worth revisiting. Suppose that the Dems, realizing that "impeachment" is flopping, try to switch to Plan B and pull the despicable Tim Kaine's rabbit out of the un-constitutional hat: Censure and banning under the 14th Amendment.
Turley warns the Dems that this could be--try to wrap your head around this--an even bigger mistake than faux impeachment. Here's Turley's one sentence summary of the danger--which, naturally, is an opportunity for Trump:
The suggested use of the 14th Amendment raises serious constitutional concerns and could present a compelling basis for a court challenge if actually passed. Indeed, Trump could prevail in court shortly before the 2024 presidential race.
Read the whole thing if you're interested in Turley's reasoning--as usual it's pretty sound. But the real point is this: Imagine the spectacle of Trump emerging from a SCOTUS triumph that overturns such an obviously unconstitutional ploy as attempting to ban him from public life? The publicity Trump would garner would be nothing short of phenomenal.
Now, Turley, warning the Dems to steer clear of this, suggests an alternative--a simple censure vote. There are two problems with this, in my view:
1. Nobody would care.
2. By staging the offensive faux impeachment with a cast of totally deplorable persecutors, the Dems have given the GOP an opportunity to regroup and find some high ground. The result would be a predictably partisan censure, which leads back to #1.
This whole thing is just the Dems once again shooting themselves in the foot.
In the meantime the good news for the country is that Trump remains before the public eye, before the eyes of his supporters. Trump gains sympathy for this obviously fraudulent attempt at banning, conducted in a city under military occupation. This will end, and Trump will emerge--with plenty to say.