The Republican-led senate listened to Mitch McConnell and his plan for their salvation but one day after their historic no witnesses vote, they’re already sensing that what they just did was transform the caucus into a herd of lemmings leaping off a cliff. Lisa Murkowski declared that she was “angry at all sides,” well good, because we’re not too thrilled with her either. And even Marco Rubio started squirming and feeling that he had to defend his vote. He went to the length of writing an explanatory essay on Medium:

Why does impeachment exist?

As Manager Jerry Nadler (D-NY) reminded us Wednesday night, removal is not a punishment for a crime. Nor is removal supposed to be a way to hold Presidents accountable; that is what elections are for.

The sole purpose of this extraordinary power to remove the one person entrusted with all of the powers of an entire branch of government is to provide a last-resort remedy to protect the country. That is why Hamilton wrote that in these trials our decisions should be pursuing “the public good.”

That is why six weeks ago I announced that, for me, the question would not just be whether the President’s actions were wrong, but ultimately whether what he did was removable.

The two are not the same. Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.

Isn’t the last sentence incredible? Rubio comes right out and says that Trump’s actions “meet a standard of impeachment” but why follow the rules, and remove somebody from office when that standard is met? This is mind bogglingly stupid.

Here’s another jewel.

Determining which outcome is in the best interests requires a political judgment — one that takes into account both the severity of the wrongdoing alleged but also the impact removal would have on the nation.

Whut? Of course it requires a political judgement. And you are a politician, eh what? Are you not elected to make political decisions which impact the nation, collectively with the other members of Congress? If you’re not there to do this, then what?

I disagree with the House Managers’ argument that, if we find the allegations they have made are true, failing to remove the President leaves us with no remedy to constrain this or future Presidents. Congress and the courts have multiple ways by which to constrain the power of the executive. And ultimately, voters themselves can hold the President accountable in an election, including the one just nine months from now.

There you have it, the Republican bottom line: Voters, you do our jobs because we have utterly no intention of doing them. We’re here for the money, which is great when you work as little as we do, and to get whatever else we can. We’re not here to follow the mandates of the Constitution.

Now here’s where we get to intellectual dishonesty of the sublime variety:

Can anyone doubt that at least half of the country would view his removal as illegitimate — as nothing short of a coup d’état? It is difficult to conceive of any scheme Putin could undertake that would undermine confidence in our democracy more than removal would.

I also reject the argument that unless we call new witnesses this is not a fair trial. They cannot argue that fairness demands we seek witnesses they did little to pursue.

Nevertheless, new witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true.

Look at what Rubio is saying here. “All the allegations made are true,” we know he’s guilty as hell, but it would be a coup d’etat to remove him??? I hope your head doesn’t explode reading this.

Here’s another gem, it is Rubio’s penultimate paragraph.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the President Pro Tempore Emeritus, once warned, “[A] partisan impeachment cannot command the respect of the American people. It is no more valid than a stolen election.”

If this is a partisan impeachment, it is only because numerous Republicans, who freely now admit that Trump was guilty, refused to act accordingly and pursue the dictates of the Constitution, preferring to leave the job up to the electorate.

Ben Sasse also went on record saying “Let me be clear; Lamar speaks for lots and lots of us,” to CNN’s Manu Raju. So, you’ve got Alexander, Sasse, Rubio and who knows how many others, all preferring to attempt to defend their indefensible actions with this level of sophistry. Fine. It is what it is.

The framers of the Constitution put together an efficient remedy for getting rid of a crook in office, but they did not foresee the impediment of a complicit and equally crooked partisan party. They weren’t able to draft a contingency for a time in our history when the real issue would be elected officials coming to work with shattered moral compasses and walking through the motions of impeachment, while intending that the most corrupt president* in history be kept in power for their own partisan purposes, the facts be damned.

Liked it? Take a second to support Ursula Faw and PolitiZoom on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

24 Comments on "Marco Rubio Feels Guilty About Vote and Inadvertently Cops To Trump’s Guilt"

avatar
newest oldest most voted
Tin woman1
Guest

Yes, it’s a sham.

Concinnity
Guest

And when we get back in, we must fix it so that it can’t happen again.

CAZ
Guest

I have never worried about our country because of ‘checks and balances’. The combination of the senate abdicating it’s role and the ignorant executive’s collusion with dictators who have anything but our interests in mind have me extremely agitated. I am conflicted about The Lincoln Project. The enemy of my enemy…

Bareshark
Guest

When this is over, the folks behind the Lincoln Project will go back to being our mortal enemies. Right now, we have aligned interests. So let us take full advantage.

Miranda
Member

That guy is as corrupt as the president and the majority leader of the Senate.

Slats
Guest
This is something that I , like Patrick Philbin ,beli~eve , sup~pose , and/ or ass~u~me , Trump taught the GOP , that on the one side ‘ I voted for acquital’ , and make no mistake the hard core red coats , and party managers are glad he did. but, on the other , ‘Trump was as guilty as the house managers demonstrated’ , goes out to moderate Rethugs , who risk , like Bolton , getting labled ‘Liberal Tool’ , in their own congragation . Remeber ? 1- ‘There are a lot of good people on the alt-right’… Read more »
Bareshark
Guest

A bit from Sondheim’s Phantom Of The Opera: “Pity comes too late/Turn around and face your fate/An eternity of THIS!/ Before your eyes…”

Joseph
Guest

Sondheim had a version of “Phantom of the Opera?” I believe you meant to credit Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Darrel
Member

A.L.W. wrote the female lead part for his wife’s beautiful voice. range and timbre …. his music style has made him a rich man, but the impact of hearing his music in full acoustic theater productions, full orchestra and all leaves an impression not soon forgotten, and like the music from Cats, the “Memories”, is a piece that sounds like something you’ve heard before, and it is because it sticks to your memory like glue the Phantom music was so well done but it tries the performer’s ability to do it well and when they do it is awesome ….

Darrel
Member

I don’t know if this link will work from here, but it includes the original performers from the “Phantom” ….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2AzkeaCrw

This IS A.L.W.’s wife and Mr. Crawford try copy/paste of above for some beautiful sounds ….

Bareshark
Guest

That was it, Joseph…just remembered the music and confused Webber with Sondheim.

Denis Elliott
Member
I’ll be the first to agree there is real genius in much of what the founder’s set forth in the Constitution. As great a document as it is however it is not perfect, nor was the founder’s vision or their hopes. Their are flaws in both. In fact, on various matters of the day they “punted” and some of the compromises in the language to get enough votes for passage in Philadelphia & subsequent ratification by the States left bruises with the delegates both during debate and after passage as well as the ensuing years & even decades. Some of… Read more »
p j evans
Member

Foresight is rarely even 20/100.

Rita
Member

So let me see, the Repubs impeached Bill Clinton for messing around with some woman, then lied about it, which is what any man would do, not a security risk, definitely should have been between him & his wife. While trump is destroying our country & Democracy, but that’s ok ? He’s good to go …. I hope & Pray we never have another Republican President in office again, they are all crooks.

anastasjoy
Member

This is why I will accept no Republicans’ statement as anything less than evidence of total corrupting hypocrisy unless prefaced with “It’s important to note that we Republicans made the same mistake in the travesty of impeaching Bill Clinton.”

nan
Guest

You know what I grateful for is this would be a bigger cover up I we hadn’t won the house can now promise ourselves to win the senate or at least make mitch a minority so he feels the pain he’s put on our country till he quits and we begin to clean up his mess

anastasjoy
Member

Marco Rubio has succeeded in stumbling over his feet over and over and trying to get up and stumbling again. He’s really made a mess of his political career, trying to pander to whatever he thinks he ought to be pandering to at a certain time, exposing that he has no central core of belief whatsoever.

Darrel
Member

Marco is a neat guy, great haircut, ties his tie well. good posture ….
Then he opens his mouth and all kinds of things tumble out, sometimes in no particular order, and it is like Trump leaving a page of his prompter text and struggling to find his way back, then the bizarre stuff comes to roost, many times revealing a lot of who he really is … I have absolutely no respect for Rubio ….

anastasjoy
Member

Captures him perfectly!

dana fairfield
Member
At that point in his essay, Rubio did not come right out and says that Trump’s actions “meet a standard of impeachment.” He is still speaking generally and defining his terms. It is a logical mistake assume that an “just because” clause is an admission of the contents of the clause. However, his essay has a number of disturbing problems. https://medium.com/@SenatorMarcoRubio/my-statement-on-the-presidents-impeachment-trial-9669e82ccb43 First, he betrays he does not understand the Constitutional difference between the House and the Senate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fnOOAuGjiI Second, he ignores the grounds of the impeachment to assert that the Democrats in the House only wanted to forever stain Trump’s… Read more »