The Morning After

For all the correct reasons analysts gave to Mitt Romney's vote to convict on Article I – and I agree with the contention that his religion was among those reasons, living up to swearing an oath to God – I was surprised not to hear anyone say what was foremost on my own mind.  That as much as Trump never seems to regret any of his actions, I wonder if even he is able to regret how he publicly humiliated Romney when supposedly fake-interviewing him for Secretary of State.  I don’t think that that necessarily affected how Romney voted, but I have to believe it helped make the decision easier.

And as much proper praise that was given to Romney for his courage, I was glad to hear Claire McCaskill point out that also courageous were the votes by Doug Jones, Joe Manchin, and Kyrsten Sinema and also Jon Tester, who put their careers on the line, most especially the first three who are up for re-election in 10 months.

Further, I liked the question from Chuck Todd who wondered if Romney’s vote will end up giving cover to the at-risk Democrats, and the rest of the MSNBC panel all thought that it would.

There was another matter on my mind at the center of the impeachment that has been discussed a great deal over the past few months, but reached a peak the last couple of weeks.

Throughout the House impeachment hearings and even more during the Senate trial we've repeatedly heard the call that Republicans are setting a new benchmark on how future presidents will be free to act and not be held accountable.  I completely understand the concern, and it's not only valid to address, but important to.  However, I don't think it's correct.

I don't believe this is "the new benchmark." I think everything that has happened with Trump and Republicans serving in Congress -- from not allowing evidence to be admitted to not letting witnesses testify to overlooking that a president "broke the law" (according to the non-partisan GAO) to permitting a president to extort a foreign nation for personal benefit against a political opponent -- will be remembered instead as the benchmark that Republicans set specifically and solely for Donald John Trump because they were too craven to act. This will be tied to Republicans and Trump. Not as a standard others will follow.

Could it happen again like this?  Absolutely.  But I don't think it will happen because it's the New Benchmark, and all presidents will now act this way, and all members of his party will act this way, as well.  It has long been established that what Trump is doing "is not normal."  So, none of these actions should been taken as normal.  

I think that as self-protective as people are, most people are not sociopathic white supremacist, infantile name-calling, pathological liars who have no sense of empathy and no ability to see any of their actions as ever wrong.  Yes, there are others.  I'm saying that this is not the norm.  Not only not the norm, but rare.  Trumps of the world exist, and most be protected against, but they are aberrations.  Most people, as self-protective as they are, have a sense of right and wrong.  And that holds too for senators and congressmen of such a president's party who likely won't be as frightened to cowardly inaction because less maniacal vengeance pressure will be put on them.

Imagine, too, if the next time the party in the House and Senate majority is not the same as the president being impeached.  Does anybody think they will let that president off simply because of the Trump benchmark?  No way on earth.

Yes, It can happen again.  But It is not the norm.  It is not the new benchmark.  It is not the new standard.  This is solely and specifically the Trump and Republican Party standard.

And this isn't even about Trump, we know who he is.  This is about the elected members of the Republican Party, because they enabled him and are complicit.