“Hey, Voters, Send Us Your Political Mail”:MoJo reporter Tim Murphy is investigating what politicians say in mailers that they don’t say in public, and he’s asking readers to send in pictures of your mail.
“Hey, Voters, Send Us Your Political Mail”:MoJo reporter Tim Murphy is investigating what politicians say in mailers that they don’t say in public, and he’s asking readers to send in pictures of your mail.
Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz speaks at the Senate impeachment trial.Senate Television via AP
President Donald Trump’s lawyers spent most of Monday avoiding the topic of John Bolton’s leaked manuscript, which reportedly alleges Trump’s direct involvement in improperly holding up aid to Ukraine to pressure that country’s leaders into digging up dirt on Joe Biden. Alan Dershowitz, the celebrity lawyer who recently joined the president’s defense team, changed that this evening with one definitive statement on the floor of the Senate.
“Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense,” Dershowitz said.
Alan Dershowitz: "Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense. That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution." pic.twitter.com/clD3nsCaeb
The Bolton revelations strike at the heart of Trump’s impeachment defense. For months, Trump’s allies have maintained that his focus on corruption in Ukraine was genuine. Bolton’s book apparently undercuts that premise. In a conversation described in the manuscript, Trump told Bolton that “he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens,” the New York Times reported.
Trump dismissed Bolton’s account as “false” on Monday, but Dershowitz insisted hours later that Trump should be in the clear even if the version of events in the manuscript is accurate. That’s because Dershowitz believes “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” the two articles of impeachment approved by House Democrats against Trrump, do not rise to the level of impeachable conduct under the Constitution because only criminal offenses merit removal form office. Most historians and legal experts disagree with Dershowitz’s view. Even Jonathan Turley, the law professor called by House Republicans as their witness before the House Judiciary Committee, said he “seriously” disagreed with Dershowitz’s view.
My friend Alan Dershowitz is doing an outstanding job in presentation, but I must again seriously disagree with his portrayal of both the Johnson trial and specifically the argument of Justice Curtis. https://t.co/FKPmZt7bQ9
The remark did not even cohere with Dershowitz’s previous statements about presidential impeachments. In 1998, Dershowitz said, “If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.”
That apparent contradiction did not seem to unsettle Dershowitz, who wrapped up his remarks by noting that his views on impeachment may not be widely shared.
“I do my own thinking,” he said. “I have never bowed to the majority.”
For hours upon hours on Monday, Donald Trump’s lawyers presented their case against removing the president from office over the Ukraine scandal. In doing so, they have danced around a major new revelation—that, in a draft of a forthcoming book, former national security adviser John Bolton reportedly wrote that Trump told him he wanted to withhold vital military aid from Ukraine until that country helped investigate Trump’s political rivals, including the Bidens.
But over at Fox, host Lou Dobbs was more blunt. He explained to his audience how Bolton—yes, that John Bolton—had become a “tool for the Left.”
As my colleague Dan Friedman pointed out, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow noted during his arguments before the Senate that “not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance.” That’s a central part of Trump’s defense, and it looks like it might collapse entirely if Bolton is subpoenaed to testify. No wonder Dobbs is upset.
Leaked details from John Bolton’s unpublished manuscript have sent President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense into chaos—and at least one Bolton’s acolyte is not happy about that at all.
“It was crushing to read weekend press reports that my friend and former boss John Bolton plans to publish a tell-all book on his time as President Trump’s National Security Adviser,” Fred Fleitz, who served as Bolton’s chief of staff on the National Security Council, wrote in a Fox News opinion piece Monday. “Given the importance of protecting a president’s confidential discussions with his senior advisers, I strongly disagree with Bolton’s decision to release the book before the November presidential election and call on him to withdraw it from the publisher immediately.”
Bolton’s forthcoming book, The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, is scheduled to be released by Simon & Schuster in March. The New York Times reported last night that the book includes “dozens of pages” about the Ukraine scandal, including details from a private conversation in August, in which Trump told Bolton that “he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens.”
The eleventh-hour revelation has renewed calls from Democrats for Bolton to testify before the Senate. He declined to participate in the House’s investigation, citing the White House directive barring testimony from senior officials, but he said earlier this month that he would testify in the Senate impeachment trial if subpoenaed. Republicans blocked Democratic efforts to issue such a subpoena last week, but some Republicans have suggested they may vote to approve a subpoena later in the trial.
Trump has said Bolton should not testify due to national security concerns. In his piece, Fleitz echoed that argument, but seemed more concerned with the effect Bolton’s book could have on Trump’s reelection chances. “If a manuscript of this sensitivity was to be published at all, this should happen after the election, not in the spring of 2020,” Fleitz wrote. “I don’t understand the need for a former National Security Adviser to publish a tell-all book critical of a president he served, especially during a presidential reelection campaign that will determine the fate of the country. There will be a time for Bolton to speak out without appearing to try to tip a presidential election.”
A longtime Bolton associate who has defended Trump frequently on Fox News programs, Fleitz said on Twitter that he wrote the piece criticizing his boss “with a very heavy heart.”
President Donald Trump took his war on Rep. Adam Schiff to new heights Sunday morning, tweeting that the Democrats’ lead impeachment manager had not “paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!”
Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!
Trump’s tweet drew immediate outrage, with many suggesting it might incite violence against Schiff. “What do you say to somebody who says, ‘President Trump is saying that Adam Schiff needs to pay a price—this is in the midst of Adam Schiff getting death threats,'” asked CNN’s Jake Tapper during an interview with GOP Sen. James Lankford (Okla.).
“I just don’t think it’s a death threat,” Lankford responded. “I don’t think he’s encouraging a death threat.”
“People who are supporters of the president have heard his rhetoric and then actually tried to bomb and kill politicians and the media,” Tapper shot back—a reference to Cesar Sayoc, a Trump supporter who last year pleaded guilty to mailing pipe bombs to prominent Democrats and CNN in 2018.
There’s little question that Trump’s past rhetoric has inspired death threats against his enemies. But Lankford is probably correct that the president’s purpose in sending Sunday’s tweet wasn’t to provoke violence. Rather, Trump’s intention was likely to do something that is horrifying in a different way—he was trying to build the case that Schiff should be prosecuted for daring to oppose him.
Look again at that tweet. Trump called Schiff a “CORRUPT POLITICIAN.” He didn’t mean this in a broad, figurative sense—my enemies are part of a corrupt Washington culture. No, he meant this literally. (And seriously.)
For months, Trump has been arguing that Schiff somehow broke the law when, during a congressional hearing, Schiff loosely paraphrased “the essence” of Trump’s words from the infamous July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president. (Republicans claimed that Schiff had intentionally misled viewers by deviating from Trump’s precise wording. Schiff countered that “everyone understood” that he was merely “mocking the president’s conduct.”) At the time, Trump claimed that Schiff “fraudulently and illegally inserted his made up & twisted words into my call.”
….fraudulently and illegally inserted his made up & twisted words into my call with the Ukrainian President to make it look like I did something very wrong. He then boldly read those words to Congress and millions of people, defaming & libeling me. He must resign from Congress!
In October, Trump tweeted that his attorneys “should sue the Democrats and Shifty Adam Schiff for fraud.” The following month, Trump took the matter further, making clear that he had more than just a civil lawsuit in mind. He tweeted that Schiff—along with the Ukraine whistleblower and the whistleblower’s lawyer—”should be investigared [sic] for fraud!” Investigated by whom? He didn’t say. But as I wrote at the time, Trump has a long history of demanding that the FBI, the DOJ, and even foreign governments open investigations into his political foes—everyone from Hillary Clinton, to Joe Biden, to James Comey.
Which brings us back to today. Trump didn’t just call Schiff “corrupt.” He called him a “conman” who made a “fraudulent statement to Congress.” And Trump once again accused Schiff of “illegally making up my phone call.”
The Impeachment Hoax is a massive election interference the likes of which has never been seen before. In just two hours the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats have seen their phony case absolutely shredded. Shifty is now exposed for illegally making up my phone call, & more!
Trump’s accusations are entirely meritless. Even if they weren’t, it’s incredibly unlikely that he’d succeed in suing, let along criminally prosecuting, Schiff—members of Congress enjoy broad legal immunity for what they say in committee hearings. But that doesn’t mean Trump won’t try. And that’s terrifying.
On Friday, ABC reported that a recording by Lev Parnas from April 2018 captured President Donald Trump telling associates that he wanted to “get rid” of the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. On Saturday, a lawyer for Parnas released the full video.
The video, which according to BuzzFeed was released by Joseph Bondy, a lawyer for Parnas, is over an hour long.
(The video is not actually in the tweet below. It’s a still with a play button added to it. The full video is at the bottom of this post.)
In its report about the video, PBS describes one of the key moments:
About 42 minutes into the video, Parnas appears to say, “The biggest problem there, I think where we need to start, is we gotta get rid of the ambassador. She’s still left over from the Clinton administration.”
Trump then appears to say, “Where? The ambassador to Ukraine?”
Parnas replies, “Yes. She’s basically walking around telling everybody ‘Wait, he’s gonna get impeached, just wait.’”
A few seconds later, Trump appears to say, “Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it.”
Bondy said Parnas attended the dinner along with Igor Fruman, another of Giuliani’s business associates. Both Parnas and Fruman have been indicted on federal charges, including violating campaign finance laws.
When ABC News first reported the news on Friday, Dan Friedman described the same exchange:
“[A]n intimate April 2018 dinner at Trump’s Washington hotel that included, among others, the president and Lev Parnas, the since-indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani. According to the news outlet, a voice that sounds like Trump states during the recording: “Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it.” Trump said this, according to ABC, after Parnas told him that Yovanovitch was a “problem” and was “basically walking around telling everybody, ‘Wait, he’s gonna get impeached. Just wait.’” It’s not clear exactly who Trump was instructing to “get rid of her.”
Watching the impeachment trial today, I was struck by how old the arguments Trump’s defense put forward were. It was the same nonsense we’ve been hearing for months. Literally. And there’s a very good reason for that: All of these arguments have indeed been on Fox for months.
They noted that “security assistance flowed” to Ukraine in September without Zelensky announcing the investigations Trump wanted. The release of the aid, of course, only came after a whistleblower complaint drew intense media scrutiny. As House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), one of Democrats’ impeachment managers, memorably put it: The Trump administration released the aid because “they got caught.” Trump’s lawyers simply pretended the release of the aid came without public pressure. Purpura also argued that Trump had increased lethal US support for Ukraine, an argument that overlooks the president’s alleged subverting of that very policy to benefit his presidential campaign.
All of these arguments made the rounds in conservative media for months. I suppose it shouldn’t be a surprise that the messaging aligns, since the White House sent out talking points to right wingers in September, mere weeks after the scandal erupted, which were subsequently (no surprise here) parroted throughout the echo chamber.
In November, Trump himself delivered the talking points in A Very Special Episode of Fox & Friends. In December, House Republicans released a 123-page “report” on the impeachment investigation that Media Matters described as just a “recitation of Fox talking points.”
These cats have had months to come up with something—anything—that might constitute a remotely credible, even reasonable, defense. And they failed. The defense strategy at this trial was never to convince Senators that Trump didn’t do anything wrong. It was and is to convince them that the waters are sufficiently muddy they can get away with exonerating the president of any wrongdoing.
On The Practice and other courtroom shows, there’s an episode once or twice a season when the defense attorneys decide they can’t win on the merits, and then someone, struck with a moment of brilliance, says, “What if we go for jury nullification?” And then someone else responds, “That never works. But dammit, it’s our only shot.” The only difference between that scene in The Practice and the impeachment trial is that in the Senate, there was no doubt it would work. Because even though the jury in a fictional courtroom drama might surprise during sweeps, Republican lawmakers in the Trump era never do.
“He asked if I could find Ukraine on a map. I said yes, and he called out for aides to bring us a map of the world with no writing,” she said. “I pointed to Ukraine. He put the map away. He said, ‘People will hear about this.'”
I have some questions about this: How long did it take the aides to find a map of the world with no words on it? Did they print it out? Do they have it handy? Is this a quick quiz Pompeo often imposes on visitors? Separately, and most importantly, does Trump’s Secretary of State think this is appropriate behavior?
On Saturday, Pompeo released a statement that didn’t explain the provenance of the wordless map but does shed light on his views about professionalism. It…isn’t good.
Secretary of State Pompeo responds to NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly recounting him cursing at her and berating her for asking about Ukraine with this statement. It’s something else: pic.twitter.com/C9AWuxa4qi
A bunch of Trumpian nonsense about the media being the real villain is not surprising with this administration, but the last line is what makes this really blow my mind.
“It is worth noting that Bangladesh is NOT Ukraine.”
Pompeo is saying that Mary Louise Kelly, who graduated from Harvard with degrees in French and European Studies, has a masters from Cambridge in European Studies, and served as NPR national security correspondent for years, didn’t know where Ukraine was. He’s also saying she lied in her statement yesterday. There is no reason on earth to believe Mary Louise Kelly does not know where Ukraine is. It’s even more preposterous that she confused it with Bangladesh! There is also no reason to doubt her account of the event. But these details naturally do not impede Pompeo from doubling down and attacking her.
A man after Trump’s heart!
Here is the interview that set Pompeo off. The least he deserves is that you give it a listen.
A Friday interview between NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took a contentious turn when Kelly, who anchors the All Things Considered afternoon news show, moved from questions on Iran to some harder queries on Ukraine. After the interview wrapped up, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cursed at her and asked the reporter to identify on an unmarked map the location of Ukraine. She did.
NPR's Mary Louise Kelly says the following happened after the interview in which she asked some tough questions to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. pic.twitter.com/cRTb71fZvX
As always, I am happy to help: Did you hear? Secretary of State Mike Pompeo got fussy about being asked about reports his department failed to offer protection to Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. He was sensitive when Kelly asked about the advisor who resigned from the State Department because it didn’t “offer support to Foreign Service employees caught up in the impeachment inquiry on Ukraine.” He was mad because he thought they were there to only talk about Iran.
His request for Kelly to place a finger on the map did not go well. I wonder why?
It’s the corruption, stupid. According to a new report, President Donald Trump said nearly two years ago that he wanted Marie Yovanovitch, the former US Ambassador to Ukraine, removed from her post.
ABC News reported Friday that it had obtained an audio recording of an “intimate” April 2018 dinner at Trump’s Washington hotel that included, among others, the president and Lev Parnas, the since-indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani. According to the news outlet, a voice that sounds like Trump states during the recording: “Get rid of her! Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it.” Trump said this, according to ABC, after Parnas told him that Yovanovitch was a “problem” and was “basically walking around telling everybody, ‘Wait, he’s gonna get impeached. Just wait.’” It’s not clear exactly who Trump was instructing to “get rid of her.”
Efforts by Giuliani, assisted by Parnas, to remove Yovanovitch are a key part of the scheme that has resulted in Trump’s impeachment and his ongoing trial in the Senate. Giuliani hassaid he wanted Yovanovitch out because she was an obstacle to his effort to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce investigations that would help Trump politically.
The ABC report further belies Trump’s never-credible claim that he does not know Parnas. It also suggests that efforts to force out Yovanovitch were underway more than a year before her eventual removal from her post and before Zelensky’s May 2019 election.
But it also highlights something simpler: the extraordinaryaccess and apparent influence on US policy Parnas and other big political donors have enjoyed under Trump. Parnas contributed about $100,000 to Trump’s presidential campaign and the GOP in late October 2016, the first of a series of major contributions that won him access to Trump and a slew of top Republicans.
The dinner at which Trump reportedly asked for Yovanovitch’s removal came 18 days before the recorded date of a $325,000 donation that Parnas and his partner, Igor Fruman, gave to a pro-Trump SuperPAC, America First Action. They made the contribution through a Delaware shell company, a step that drew federal scrutiny and resulted in the October 2019 indictment of Parnas and Fruman on campaign finance violations.
There is no dispute that Parnas’ campaign donations were the reason he was able to make his case personally to Trump. And while the precise motives behind Parnas’ desire to oust Yovanovitch remain unclear, it is striking that his campaign contributions enabled him to badmouth a US ambassador directly to the president and influence US policy toward Ukraine.
That this occurred in the for-profit hotel Trump continues to operate, in what critics charge is open defiance of the Constitution, makes it all the more striking—an especially pungent example of the stink with which the Trump presidency has infused Washington.
A Republican prop during a House Judiciary Committee hearingJonathan Ernst/AP
The impeachment trial of President Donald Trump is a test of our nation’s institutions and traditions. And that has meant, for many of us, learning about them.
During the trial, a new set of rules are imposed. Senators become jurors. Aides are restricted to sitting in the back of the chambers—if they get in at all. Cellphones must be left outside in a special cubby made by Capitol Hill carpenters specifically for this event.
The leader of all these logistics is the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms and doorkeeper. (Yes, that’s the full title.) Originally, it was just doorkeeper—a position created in 1789 because of the “single-most-pressing problem confronting the Senate at its birth,” according to the Senate’s website: “its inability to keep a majority of members in the Capitol long enough to organize and begin the business of government.” Over time, the role became multifaceted. James Ziglar, sergeant-at-arms during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, sums it up as a combination of chief operating officer, chief enforcement officer, and chief protocol officer. “You know, following the protocol rules when a king or somebody comes to the Capital, [making sure] they’re treated the way they’re supposed to be—blah, blah, blah,” he explained. It’s “unusual” for all the roles to come into play at once, he says, “but all of [them] do show up when you’re having an impeachment trial.”
As the long days of argumentation and deliberation continue—senators have been stuck in chambers late every night of the hearings so far—some are starting to test the anachronistic rules. At least four have brought milk in with them (aside from water, milk is the only drink allowed). Another weird rule: There is no food allowed on the floor—except for the candy stocked in a special desk occupied, since 2015, by Sen. Patrick Toomey and by Sen. Rick Santorum during the impeachment of Bill Clinton. (I think it’s healthy and good to imagine our leaders deciding things on a steady diet of lactose and high-fructose corn syrup.)
To understand why such rules are important and all the other quirks that come with this particular event, we asked Ziglar, now a senior counsel at Van Ness Feldman, an environmental law firm, about studying Andrew Johnson’s trial, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s love of desserts, and the importance of arcana.
Howdid you prepare for impeachment? It was only the second one at that point, the first modern one.
When I took the sergeant-at-arms job in November 1998, it was only a month and a few days before they actually impeached President Clinton. It was pretty clear to me right away when I got there that I needed to be boning up on impeachment and how it occurs in the Senate.
The way I went about it was: One, just spending all kinds of time studying the Andrew Johnson trial. I read Bill Rehnquist’s book. I spent a lot of time with the Senate historian and parliamentarian. They were all scrambling, too, to understand, to go back and review all the records from that trial.
I then assembled a committee of people. It was about half Democrats and Republicans. We worked together to survey all the things we could come up with that might happen in a trial. We figured it out.
Why did you choose to keep certain traditions? For example, I read that the current Senate sergeant-at-arms reportedly has to announce at the start of each session that everyone must be quiet “on pain of imprisonment.” Did you have to do that?
That originated in the Andrew Johnson trial. Remember, the senators—when they are sworn in and they go into so-called “impeachment trial mode”—they are sitting there as triers of the impeachment articles. They are in many ways jurors. They are required to remain silent and pay attention.
And the proclamation that you make—that I made at the beginning of every trial session just like the sergeant-at-arms is doing now, just like the sergeant-at-arms did in the Andrew Johnson trial—is reminding them that they’re to remain silent and that there’s a punishment.
Were there other things you updated? Or kept from Johnson?
Well, there was a lot. I remember that there was printing the impeachmenttickets. We had a long discussion about how the tickets ought to look and what they ought to say. We went back and got the impeachment tickets from Andrew Johnson. And if you notice, there’s a striking similarity between thetwo.
How about the modern problems: iPads and laptops and cellphones? A carpenter made a cabinet with cubbyholes for folks to place their electronics for this impeachment. Was there an equivalent during your time?
We didn’t have cellphones and iPads and stuff like that. I mean, there were cellphones around, of course, but they weren’t ubiquitous.
We did have to have tables that fit in the well of the Senate. In fact, if you watch what’s going on—right as we speak—those tables that the House managers are sitting at and the president’s council is sitting at, they’re the tables that were actually made for the Clinton trial. We put them into government storage, never thinking they’d have to use them again. But here we are.
Another example that I think I saw on the floor: They have a little step, a stool-like thing. We had some senators who were quite short, like [former] Sen. Barbara Boxer [from California] and Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski from Maryland. We had to give them something so they could stand up a little higher to see over the lectern.
And in our particular case, Chuck Ruff, the president’s council, was in a wheelchair. So we had to create a table for him to be able to make his presentations.
For the trial you organized, was there—as today—haggling over how many cameras should be in the chamber?
That wasn’t a big discussion. I believe C-SPAN and some others wanted more TV cameras in the chamber. We almost let them do it. But Sen. [Robert] Byrd objected to it at the last minute. So we used the existing technology for that.
We’ve been wondering about how aides work in all of this too. They’re locked out basically. It’s different from normal, right?
Very different. Non-senators aren’t allowed to be on the floor or to be standing in the back, period. They could sit in the seats that were provided around the edge of the chamber. In fact, the only person that was really allowed to stand at the back was me.
Yes, because my job was to make sure everything was going okay. While I sat in my chair most of the time, I did from time to time go back and I’d stand on the Democratic side for a while, stand on the Republican side for an equal amount of time—so that I wasn’t showing favoritism.
But a lot of people didn’t like [the fact that aides weren’t allowed]. You have to sit down. You can’t talk. You can’t jump up and give your senator a message or anything like that.
I’m going to change gears a bit. I want to know what it was like during the trial. I read that Chief Justice Rehnquist was grumpy and so you got him dessertduring the breaks. Is that true?
Yes. Well, I knew Rehnquist well. He and I worked together at the Justice Department. I was on his Senate confirmation team, and I was a law clerk myself at the Supreme Court when Rehnquist was a justice. So, we had a long history together.
Well, he was grumpy not about having to be presiding. He was grumpy about the constant breaks they were taking and how much time was wasted. His time was being wasted waiting for the Senate to come back.
So he was a little grumpy about it. He had a lot of other things to do.
I had lunch with him one day. I said, “Okay, chief, you’ve been real grumpy lately,” and “What can I do to make you happier?”
He got a little smile. He said, “Yeah, I guess I have.” And he said, “Well, I like cookies-and-cream ice cream and chocolate chip cookies. And we’ve got these long breaks. If you could arrange to have ice cream and a chocolate chip, that’d make me a lot happier.”
I said, “You’ve got a deal.”
From then on, when we had a long break, I always made sure my staff went down to the Senate dining kitchen—we kept ice cream and cookies down there—and bring it up.
Guess what? He was a much happier guy.
The other thing I read was that you busted him gambling with nickels and dimes.
I walked in and he was playing cards with two of his clerks and his executive assistant. And there were nickels and dimes on the table. I think they were playing poker. I said to him, “Chief, I don’t know if you know this, but I’m chief law enforcement officer in the Senate also, and gambling’s not allowed. And I’m sure you’re not gambling in here, but I got to run out for a second for a quick meeting.”
So I just walked outside the door, closed it, and waited for about five minutes, and then walked back in. Of course, all the money was gone, but there were little pieces of paper, with one, five, and 10 written on them. They were spread all around the table.
There’s a tendency to assume traditions like the Senate’s are all ridiculous or arcane. But can they be a good thing in time of impeachment?
What I learned in the Senate—and I worked in the Senate back in the ’60s and ’70s—is that precedents are important. The Senate is a place where people tend to be institutionalists. They tend to follow procedures. And ceremonial things from the outside can look kind of silly, but they’re not actually. Things we did in Clinton’s impeachment tried to emphasize to these folks—the senators—the historical importance of what they were doing, and it made them think back to the founders and framers, and what they were thinking about.
These arcane things, as we call them, and some of this pomp and circumstance, I think they’re very important, frankly.