A Boston College law professor who was born in Kentucky has accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) of signaling a willingness to violate several oaths of office with his comments about the manner in which he will approach a Senate impeachment trial, The Hill reported.
McConnell has said that he will “coordinate” with the White House on a trial and that he does not view himself as an “impartial juror.”
Kent Greenfield said that such an approach would violate McConnell’s oath as a Senator to uphold the Constitution as well as an additional affirmation that is required when Senators conduct an impeachment trial.
Law professor: McConnell violating oaths
“We Kentuckians know that our word is our bond. Oaths are the most solemn of promises, and their breach results in serious reputational — and sometimes legal — consequences,” Greenfield wrote in a Courier Journal op-ed.
“President Donald Trump will soon be on trial in the Senate on grounds that he breached one oath,” Greenfield wrote. “Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is about to breach two.”
While Greenfield has been quick to point out McConnell’s supposed breaches, he has said nothing about the unfair and unprecedented manner in which leaders in the House conducted impeachment hearings, or suggested any possible breaches of their constitutional duties.
Greenfield also didn’t comment on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) breach of her constitutional duty in refusing to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate or her attempts to interfere in a process that the Constitution givers the the upper chamber the sole right to oversee.
Instead, he praised Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for his attempts to force the Senate to call more witnesses, even though that body is not charged with performing the investigatory function in the impeachment process. McConnell has said that he will rely on the record compiled by the House in order to reach its conclusions, and there is nothing constitutionally impermissible with doing so.
More liberal hackery
It’s always suspicious when a so-called expert only picks on one side of a situation and completely ignores conduct from the other side that is just as bad, if not worse. Greenfield is exposing himself as a left-wing hack by his refusal to look at both sides of this issue and denounce them equally.
Whether Greenfield is a liberal or not, he’s certainly acting like one. When he says, “History is watching,” he is right.
The judgment of history, however, may be far different from what Greenfield assumes it will be.
At some point, it seems likely that the hindsight of history will be freed from the left-wing bias that currently has so much of the media and academia in its grip and that it will look most unkindly upon this era of naked partisanship and the attempted coup against a duly elected president.