Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

One vote both squandered and sullied the ultimate congressional check on a president

Opinion

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell said DonaldTrump was responsible for what happened Jan. 6, but voted to acquit the former president.

congress.gov via Getty Images

Marcuss is a retired partner at the law firm Bryan Cave and on the steering committee of Lawyers Defending American Democracy.


Donald Trump tried to steal the election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power. And 43 Republican senators said that's OK when they voted to acquit him in the impeachment trial. It was time to "stop the steal," as the former president's allies so often shout. But it was the Senate that refused.

Trump's militias attacked the Capitol, tried to stop Congress from counting the electoral votes that confirmed his defeat, called for hanging the vice president and threatened to assassinate the speaker of the House. And 43 Republican senators said that's OK.

The melee created by Trump's militias led to the deaths of at least five people, including a Capitol Police officer, and more than 100 of his colleagues were injured. Now the Capitol is an armed camp, surrounded by barbed wire and thousands from the National Guard. And 43 Republican senators said that's OK.

Americans might be forgiven for thinking the impeachment process is what protects the country from leaders like Trump, bent on destroying American democracy and the rule of law. Saturday's acquittal vote has proved this view to be dangerously wrong.

The Constitution provides that a president who commits "high crimes and misdemeanors" may be removed and disqualified from holding elective office. A president who incites a mob to seek to prevent Congress from certifying the results of an election he lost has unquestionably committed a high crime and misdemeanor.

Senators take an oath to "do impartial justice" before sitting in an impeachment trial. It was clear from the outset, however, that most GOP senators decided to ignore evidence of Trump's guilt even before the trial began. It's fiction that there was ever a chance for a real trial and the impartial administration of justice.

The undisputed evidence presented to the Senate demonstrated beyond a doubt that Trump started his effort to invalidate the 2020 election long before the first votes were cast, spreading the fiction that the only way he could lose was if the vote was rigged. After he actually lost, he kept spreading the lie that he'd been denied a second term by election thieves. Sixty or so courts across the land, including the Supreme Court, roundly disagreed.

In rally after rally, Trump nonetheless encouraged followers to believe his lies and urged them to come to Washington on Jan 6. Trump promised the day would be "wild."

And then, just before the start of the Electoral College tabulation ceremony, Trump repeated his Big Lie once more. He told a raucous rally that Joe Biden's victory "could not stand" and that Vice President Mike Pence had a duty to overturn the election. The mob then marched on the Capitol, ransacked the building, hunted for Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and stopped the certification process for several hours. Trump, meanwhile, remained ensconced in the White House, did nothing to protect the Capitol, declared that his vice president had failed in his duty and embraced the mob.

"We love you; you're very special," he said as their insurrection continued, urging them once it was over to "Remember this day forever."

None of this was disputed. Even GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell said afterward that Trump was responsible for what happened and intended by his actions "to torch our institutions on the way out."

Yet, minutes earlier, McConnell and 42 other Republicans effectively did no more than shrug and say, "So what?"

McConnell shamelessly cloaked his vote with a laughable argument, that a former president was not constitutionally subject to an impeachment trial. But it was McConnell himself who prevented the trial from starting while Trump was still in office.

Nothing explains the acquittal, and McConnell's cynical contortions, except a craven surrender to political self-interest. A violent threat to our country be damned, said those who found Trump guiltless; for them, impartial justice meant nothing more than indifference to justice.

Impeachment is intended to protect the country from presidents who threaten the country's most sacred institutions, including the peaceful transfer of power. The process is meaningful, however, only if senators obey their oath to do "impartial justice." The Senate minority leader, and the other 42 Republicans who voted "not guilty," refused to do so despite knowing the charges were true.

The impeachment process can never be stripped entirely of political considerations. A politician not affected by politics, after all, is a dead politician. Senators are not like jurors in a regular court. They are not disqualified from voting because they know a lot about the case before the trial begins, or even if they have opinions about the merits of the case before seeing the evidence.

Like most things in life, however, conflicting pressures and obligations have to be balanced. There is an obvious conflict between the duty of impartiality, on the one hand, and the impossibility of expunging acquired biases and insulating politicians from political realities, on the other. Reconciling the two is not easy. What is inexcusable, however, is not even to try.

Those who voted not guilty did not try. They entered the Senate chamber determined to acquit and refused to be deterred. Some even openly collaborated with Trump's lawyers as the trial proceeded.

Those 43 senators have impeached the impeachment process. They have stolen from the Constitution a bulwark against tyranny and impeached themselves in the process.

But the other seven Republicans, and the 50 Democrats, knew the difference between commitment and capitulation on Saturday. They acquitted themselves by discharging their duty to act on the difference. Voters should remember this day forever.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less