JUST CALL ME CLEOPATRA, 'CAUSE I'M THE QUEEN OF
JUST CALL ME CLEOPATRA, ‘CAUSE I’M THE QUEEN OF: Perhaps you’ve noticed that Republicans are going through various stages of denial about Russia’s successful attempt to elect Donald Trump President. Just as there are said to be five stages of grief, we have now reached five stages of denial about Trump’s complicity in the Russian election hack.
If you’re keeping score at home, here are stages one through four.
1. There was no Russian interference in the election.
2. OK, it’s possible that Russia interfered in the election, but there was no connection between the Russians and the Trump campaign itself.
3. OK, maybe minor campaign figures colluded with Russia, but no one close to Trump was involved.
4. OK, maybe people close to Trump colluded with Russia, but Trump himself was not involved in this collusion.
Late last week, the usual suspects began floating their latest trial balloon on behalf of the Dear Leader. The fifth stage of denial amounts to “Yeah, he did it. So what?” Here are some excerpts from the choir, practicing their harmonies.
Fox’s Brit Hume: “Collusion, while it would be obviously alarming and highly inappropriate for the Trump campaign, of which there is no evidence by the way, of colluding with the Russians. It's not a crime.”
Fox’s Sean Hannity: “What was the collusion? That maybe somebody in the Trump campaign talked to somebody in Russia … Is that a crime, to say ‘release it?’”
Newt Gingrich: “Technically, the President of the United States cannot obstruct justice.” In case you’ve forgotten, Newt voted to impeach Bill Clinton for obstruction of justice back in 1998. Perhaps what he meant to say was “Technically, a Republican President of the United States cannot obstruct justice.” Newt is harkening back to Richard Nixon’s post-resignation claim that “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
We’re approaching the anniversary of the day the Supreme Court called bullshit on Nixon’s claim that a president is above the law. On July 24, 1974, the Court unanimously rejected Nixon's assertion that he had an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."
Last week, the last surviving member of the Senate Watergate Committee, Connecticut Republican Lowell Weicker, Jr., published an op-ed in the New York Times. Weicker said, “The Constitution was framed to protect us from criminality and abuse of power by government officials, but it requires men and women with grit and ability to withstand political and personal vilification. There are no guarantees. At the outset of the Watergate hearings, there was a strong measure of bipartisan commitment to the truth in Congress. When I listen to tapes of our sessions, I am struck by how difficult it can be to distinguish between a Republican and a Democratic questioner. But our Constitution is only as powerful as the will of our people to enforce it.”
You don’t have any trouble distinguishing between Republican and Democratic questioners in either the House or Senate hearings now.
Weicker was talking about Congress, but his point applies to the Supreme Court as well. Before this is over, Trump’s attorneys are likely to ask the Court to reconsider the “Nixon defense” – if the president does it, it’s not illegal. We’ll see whether today’s justices have the grit and the ability to withstand political and personal vilification that the Burger Court had 43 years ago.