While the entire nation hems and haws and Republicans pretend suddenly to have Great Patriotic Convictions again that just happen to demand everybody else do exactly what they say, let's not forget the elephant in the room: The current United States president is being investigated for conspiring with a foreign power to undermine a U.S. election. And that investigation is not only ongoing, but has ensnared, in one way or another, nearly every major figure in his presidential campaign.
His son and son-in-law have been identified as key figures in a 2016 meeting with figures sent from the Russian government—and who were identified as being sent by the Russian government in the emails to the campaign setting up the meeting—during a major espionage effort by that government against the United States. They are being investigated because those that sought the meeting promised materials that would assist Trump in his election bid, and because none of the top campaign figures informed U.S. authorities of the Russian proposal. Others in his campaign are under indictment for lying to federal investigators about their contacts with Russian officials and for efforts to launder money gained from efforts to assist Russian interests.
Donald Trump is currently under investigation for attempting to cover up that fateful campaign meeting by issuing false statements about it—on Air Force One, after a one-on-one meeting with the Russian president, no less. He is under investigation for multiple other acts which appear to investigators to be evidence of an attempt to undermine the investigation into Russian acts. We are currently awaiting word from a special team of prosecutors as to whether the sitting president, either in office or while campaigning for that office, has committed acts of treason.
That's where the evidence is as of this moment. It may, and almost certainly will, given other evidence that has continued to come to light, get worse.
There may be some debate over how punctual the Senate needs to be in presidential advice and consent. There may be furious debate over the newly-invented rule that presidents may not make certain appointments during election years because reasons. But it should be a fairly standard-issue bit of bipartisan common sense that, say, presidents who are under active investigation for acts of potential treason should not be granted unilateral power to make lifetime federal appointments—not until they are cleared of wrongdoing.
Surely, even the most partisan hacks should be able to agree to that one. It is true that we are in, we hope, a unique situation. It has been some time since any president was investigated for conspiring with a foreign power to manipulate a U.S. election. It has been a while since an administration has been charged with a widespread attempt to obstruct justice. And so we are in a hell of a place right now, and nearly every one of this era's past conservative stalwarts of punditry have been pointing out that we are in a uniquely crooked place, and an intolerable one.
Surely, anyone and everyone should be able to agree on the rather bland notion, now made urgent by the raving insanity of the times, that presidents under investigation for treason against their nation should maybe have their ability to make lifetime appointments to the federal bench be delayed until they are cleared of wrongdoing? It would be a hell of a thing for a criminal figure to use the power of his office to appoint the judges responsible for determining the standards by which those around them will face, or evade, justice. A mob boss turned officeholder should not be able to stack the courts with allies even if he wins an election, right?
Right?
This seems a rather uncontroversial notion. It would be, if you asked anyone this question during any year prior to Trump's arrival (with the possible exception of certain Nixon diehards and those that gave them their own talk shows afterward), absolutely uncontroversial. No, a president under investigation for conspiracy against the nation doesn't get to appoint judges interpreting the very laws he sought to undermine until and unless he is cleared; far better that than a battle to impeach all those judges alongside him, if he is not cleared.
This feels like a Bill Kristol or Jennifer Rubin moment. Anyone truly concerned about the web of corruption surrounding Trump and his staffers ought to be able to sign onto the notion of temporarily curtailing a suspected criminal's power to immunize himself against those crimes, even (or especially) if that person is a president.
There's nothing partisan about that one. One would think.