Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJennifer Rubin: The media must expose bad-faith arguments on impeachment
Last edited Mon Jan 20, 2020, 10:23 AM - Edit history (1)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/20/medias-obligation-expose-bad-faith-arguments/
By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
Jan. 20, 2020 at 7:45 a.m. EST
<snip>
We have reached the point at which Republicans have failed to discredit any essential piece of evidence Democrats have presented. Arguing that the House wanted to impeach Trump from Day One or that impeachment is unconstitutional (an impossibility because the Constitution provides for impeachment under whatever rules the House sets forth), Republicans use retorts that are nonresponsive and incoherent. In sum, after arguing for months that all these people were lying, the White House cannot produce a single witness or document to disprove the central allegations. The lies that Trump told (e.g., no quid pro quo, he wanted to root out corruption) were part of a coverup. The media are obligated to point this out.
The next category of bad-faith arguments concerns the Senates apparent refusal to call available witnesses and documents. Here again, the media should point out: Witnesses appeared in every Senate impeachment trial, and the oath senators take is to provide a fair trial. To the extent Republicans complain about the lack of firsthand evidence, they are obligated to allow the House to call acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Robert Blair, Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey and Giuliani associate Lev Parnas.
The arguments against calling witnesses are as inconsistent as they are unconvincing, as Trump sycophantic Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) revealed on Sunday:
Again, the medias obligation is to point out that the Republicans arguments are inconsistent with precedent, with basic notions of justice and with the oath they took to hold a fair trial. Simply saying Democrats want witnesses, Republicans do not is to give Republicans arguments credence they do not warrant. This is accurate: Democrats want witnesses, as has been the case in every impeachment; Republicans want to prevent firsthand testimony of critical events for fear of further incriminating Trump.
</snip>
By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
Jan. 20, 2020 at 7:45 a.m. EST
<snip>
We have reached the point at which Republicans have failed to discredit any essential piece of evidence Democrats have presented. Arguing that the House wanted to impeach Trump from Day One or that impeachment is unconstitutional (an impossibility because the Constitution provides for impeachment under whatever rules the House sets forth), Republicans use retorts that are nonresponsive and incoherent. In sum, after arguing for months that all these people were lying, the White House cannot produce a single witness or document to disprove the central allegations. The lies that Trump told (e.g., no quid pro quo, he wanted to root out corruption) were part of a coverup. The media are obligated to point this out.
The next category of bad-faith arguments concerns the Senates apparent refusal to call available witnesses and documents. Here again, the media should point out: Witnesses appeared in every Senate impeachment trial, and the oath senators take is to provide a fair trial. To the extent Republicans complain about the lack of firsthand evidence, they are obligated to allow the House to call acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Robert Blair, Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey and Giuliani associate Lev Parnas.
The arguments against calling witnesses are as inconsistent as they are unconvincing, as Trump sycophantic Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) revealed on Sunday:
Link to tweet
Again, the medias obligation is to point out that the Republicans arguments are inconsistent with precedent, with basic notions of justice and with the oath they took to hold a fair trial. Simply saying Democrats want witnesses, Republicans do not is to give Republicans arguments credence they do not warrant. This is accurate: Democrats want witnesses, as has been the case in every impeachment; Republicans want to prevent firsthand testimony of critical events for fear of further incriminating Trump.
</snip>
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 845 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (27)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jennifer Rubin: The media must expose bad-faith arguments on impeachment (Original Post)
Dennis Donovan
Jan 2020
OP
Pacifist Patriot
(24,652 posts)1. One would think this an essential function of their job.
So depressing it even needs to be said!
Wounded Bear
(58,601 posts)2. They are too worried about "access" to liars and dissemblers...
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)3. K&R
Rhiannon12866
(204,779 posts)4. Twitter reply:
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,254 posts)5. the public needs to get mad ...
Every Republican Senator should be hearing angry calls. Moscow Mitch should be made afraid of losing his majority chair.
Rhiannon12866
(204,779 posts)6. Absolutely!
Supporting the rule of law should not be a partisan issue...
Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)7. I love Mazie - she's a worthy successor to Sen Inouye