Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been pretty clear about his disdain for the idea of facilitating a fair impeachment trial in the Senate. After pledging his loyalty to Trump several weeks ago, McConnell announced Tuesday that he had enough Republican votes to move forward with the trial without a specific deal on bringing witnesses.
The media will likely declare this a victory for McConnell, putting the ball back in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's court to finally transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate. But that declaration is eminently short-sighted. Even if Senate Republicans manage to proceed to the trial without the promise of witnesses and even if they manage to acquit Trump without hearing a word of testimony, Pelosi and House Democrats will be in a plum position to exact pain on Senate Republicans for that decision.
What we know from several polls is that some 70% of voters (including those in critical swing states) want a fair Senate trial that includes both witnesses and a review of relevant documents. Clearly, the most relevant and potentially damaging witness to emerge during the time that Pelosi delayed transmission of the articles is former national security adviser John Bolton, who said Monday that he would comply with a Senate subpoena. In fact, Trump is so desperate to block Bolton's testimony, he assured reporters Tuesday that Bolton would "know nothing" about the Ukraine affair. Okay, fine, respond Senate Democrats. "We say, witnesses and documents, fair trial," Minority Leader Chuck Schumer explained. "No witnesses and no documents, cover up. That simple sentence describes it all."
This isn't complicated, folks. Voters are clamoring for testimony. If Bolton indeed knows nothing that could hurt Trump, let him testify. The American people are well aware that fair trials include witnesses and documents. Depriving the public of a full airing of the facts would be such an obvious dereliction of duty that it would give Pelosi a huge opening to pull the trigger on subpoenaing Bolton in the House. Bolton might simply agree to testify before the House, thereby quickly exposing that Senate trial as a sham. Bolton also might refuse to comply, in which case the matter would go to the courts. No problem—the courts might finally compel Bolton's testimony by summer or fall, at which point his testimony could absolutely blow up in the faces of Republicans. Imagine Bolton simply confirming that Trump ordered the hold on Ukraine security assistance or that he really did call Trump's Ukraine gambit a "drug deal." Or even better, what if in, say, August or September, Bolton revealed some new piece of tantalizing evidence against Trump?
Such testimony would immediately knock both Trump and Senate Republicans back on their heels. Trump's malfeasance would once again dominate the headlines and vulnerable GOP senators would be at pains to explain why they presided over a cover-up trial for Trump.
Indeed, House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff told MSNBC Tuesday that subpoenaing Bolton isn't "off the table."
"I'm not foreclosing anything," Schiff said, though he added that it would "make the most sense" for Bolton to testify before the Senate.
Absolutely true, it would make the most sense. So why not give Senate Republicans a crack at doing the right thing and then call them on the carpet when they don't by subpoenaing Bolton in the House? That may be exactly what Pelosi is doing.