Three Questions for Mitch
1. Are you aware that the US Constitution states, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments”? This means it is the Senate’s decision alone, and there is no way a federal court would try to overturn their ruling, no more than a court would try to determine other Senate procedures. Yes, courts interpret the meaning of the Constitution, but in this case of “sole Power,” all procedures and issues are theirs alone to determine. Your Senate resolved it on the first day with a vote of 56–44, whether you like it or not. Once resolved, it was your duty to be a faithful juror — rather than dispute the ruling so you could have it both ways by acquitting Trump and then condemning him after the trial.
2. Regarding your post-trial speech, if you really believe that Trump is “reckless,” “disgraceful,” “unconscionable,” and “morally responsible” for what you previously called “an insurrection” then why did you not immediately move to try President Trump after he was impeached January 13? It could have happened immediately if you had got behind the effort, rather than claim that we would be best served focusing on the transfer of power. But now you say the “question is moot” because he is no longer president. Ah, but there was no time for a trial? You all said the first impeachment trial took too long. And then the second one was too rushed!
3. Excuse me for not sympathizing with you about how you found this trial politically inconvenient. What did you do during Trump’s last week that was so much more important than convicting the most reckless, disgraceful, unconscionable, and immoral president in US history? What was more vital to the future of our republic than standing up for the Constitution that you now say was the subject of your “intense reflection”?
Thanks Mitch; you’re a real profile in courage and consistency. Oh wait — one more question! How are you going to find a way to avoid allowing Merrick Garland a hearing for his Attorney General appointment?
