President Trump was impeached for corruption in office. The House of Representatives accused him of withholding military aid that Congress had voted to a friendly and needy nation. The motive was to force the government of Ukraine into smearing his potential opponent in the November election, Joe Biden. The word for that is extortion.
So what if Trump did do it? Amid mounting evidence, "so what?" seems to be the lame defense for most of those who represent the Republican Party and President Trump in the United States Senate. Whether they also represent the American people and their Constitution is the question that will be answered by their votes on acquitting or removing him from office.
Some of these same people tried mightily to remove President Bill Clinton in 1999 for lying under oath about extramarital sex. Clinton's second and last allowable term was expiring; he hoped to conceal the transgression from his wife. That was the extent of it. Trump's offense is many times more consequential.
So the Senate itself is on trial along with Trump. That includes Florida Sens. Marco Rubio and Rick Scott. To whom _ or what _ is their loyalty? To the Constitution they pledged to protect, or to themselves and their party?
That's the underlying issue, one which could haunt our nation long after the participants have turned to dust.
The Constitution leaves it to Congress to say what is an impermissible abuse of power on the part of a president. If the Senate excuses Trump's flagrant conduct, it will be saying that there are no limits that a president is bound to respect.
The Senate majority was set from the beginning to acquit him, leaving in doubt only whether there would be the pretense of giving the House, and the American people, a fair trial. A proceeding without witnesses is not a trial. It is a sham.
A secret vote would unquestionably remove Trump, but the vote will be in public, as it should be, which seems to call for more courage than some senators can find in themselves.
Not without reason, they fear the wrath of those voters who have turned their once-proud party into Trump's personality cult.
Yes, it would take courage for our senators to vote against Trump. But cowardice does not excuse dishonor. These are people who send Americans to risk their lives in combat. Rubio and Scott have nothing at stake but their offices and the perks of power.
The first moment of truth will arrive, by Friday if not sooner, with a motion to call for testimony from John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser, and perhaps other witnesses who were unavailable to the House because the president had ordered them to disobey subpoenas.
Any possible pretext to not hear from Bolton _ or acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, for that matter _ was blown away like straw in the wind by the news of what's in Bolton's forthcoming book. It puts to rest any imaginable question of what the president knew _ or intended _ and when he knew it.
According to what has been reported about the unpublished manuscript, Trump told Bolton directly that he wanted to continue withholding $391 million in aid to Ukraine until its officials agreed to help him smear Biden.
Bolton's account reportedly covers several months and reflects poorly on other officials, as well as on Trump's personal lawyer and fixer, Rudy Giuliani.
The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency, has declared that once Congress voted the money, it was illegal for Trump to withhold it for any reason.
Beyond that, it was seriously subversive of our national interest in supporting Ukraine, a small and weak nation that is on the front line against ruthless Russian aggression. Ukrainian soldiers were dying while Trump held back the military aid. He released it only after a whistleblower's shocking complaint forced his hand.
If Trump can get away with that, how else might he abuse his office for personal benefit?
One way would be to withhold disaster aid from a state until its governor agrees to endorse his reelection. Another would be to coerce a pliable attorney general to suppress a criminal investigation of one or more of his contributors. The possibilities are limitless. The line against such corruption must be clear, and it should be drawn now.
As of Tuesday, with Senate Republicans caucusing on what to do next _ imagine only half a jury meeting privately to discuss a case _ only two Republicans, Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine, had said Bolton's manuscript strengthened the need for witnesses. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee are also considered possible yes votes. Those could make the difference, but there ought to be many more, Rubio and Scott among them.
Even Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, until now a dependable Trump apologist, acknowledged that Bolton might be "relevant" and said he might subpoena a copy of the Bolton manuscript. But that would be only a half-step. Bolton himself is the best evidence.
Scott has four years left in his term. Rubio has two, still time enough for intraparty passions to subside and for all citizens to appreciate what is presently at stake: the integrity of the presidency, the honor of the Senate and the future of our constitutional democracy.
To borrow some of Abraham Lincoln's immortal words, the trial through which they are passing will light them down, "in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation."
