The Smell of Pork Roasting

The editors of the Wall Street Journal urge Sen. McConnell to conduct a trial on the impeachment charges approved by the House with all due haste:

Mr. McConnell could tell Mrs. Pelosi to nominate managers by a certain date or he will appoint lawyers to make the case for the House. Or he could announce the start of the trial by a certain date, and proceed without the House managers if they fail to show up. The President’s lawyers could make their case, and then the Senate could vote.

This carries some political risk, but faced with such a choice Mrs. Pelosi is likely to appoint House managers in the end. Political risks also exist if Mr. McConnell continues with his current posture of refusing to hold a trial if Mrs. Pelosi doesn’t appoint managers. She and the Democrats will claim from here to November that Republicans were afraid to hold a trial because they know Mr. Trump is guilty.

For Senate Republicans, their constitutional duty here is also the best politics. Don’t join Nancy Pelosi in defining impeachment down. Honor the Constitution by holding a trial.

I certainly agree that the Senate should proceed with the trial but I would not be a bit surprised if the House were reluctant for the trial to proceed. Present Senate rules require that the Senate wait until it has “received notice from the House” that impeachment manager, effectively prosecutors, have been appointed. That isn’t much of an impediment. The Senate can change those rule or impose completely new ones by a simple majority. In practice that means that four Republicans would need to be persuaded to oppose a rule change. I don’t foresee that happening. How many Republicans can Minority Leader Schumer expect to take his side and who are they?

In addition the Senate can impose rules on the fly, again by simple majority. The Senate has no more power to compel the president than the House does although both the House and Senate acting in concert might have more influence on the “presiding officer” than the House alone would on the courts.

There is an old story about a famous Japanese judge, Ooka. When a poor man is brought before him, accused by a restaurateur of stealing smells, the judge issued his verdict: the poor man was guilty and should make recompense to the restaurateur in the form of the sound of coins jingling.

Based solely on the case presented to date by the House, what should the Senate’s verdict be?