ED MORRISSEY:
“…It’s quite a stretch to compare McConnell’s potential action here to what happened in 1998. In the Clinton impeachment, there was an actual statutory crime established in fact (perjury) that came out of a special-prosecutor investigation by Ken Starr. The investigation was highly controversial, but the House Republican majority used existing precedent to debate and vote on impeachment, with far more deference to the White House than is currently on display by Adam Schiff. The decision to impeach was still a mistake, as it became clear that no consensus for removal was to be found in either Congress or the electorate.
House Democrats have upped the partisan ante even further in this case, pursuing an impeachment without a statutory crime and basing it on hearsay without any sort of direct evidence. McConnell’s warning Schumer that either Democrats had better apply the sauce-for-the-gander rule when it comes to majoritarian rule or prepare to get steamrolled as McConnell’s House colleagues have been.
Of course, this only works if McConnell can get to 51 votes for whatever rules the Republicans plan to implement. He can only afford to lose two, and at least three would probably be in play: Susan Collins, who’s up for re-election, Lisa Murkowski, and Pierre Delecto — er, Mitt Romney. Even a go-it-alone package would have to offer some due process to the minority for McConnell to get one of those three on board, so McConnell’s not likely to go Full Schiff. But McConnell knows he can do plenty of damage with a Half Schiff — and so does Chuck Schumer. Don’t think for a moment McConnell’s main counterpart doesn’t understand what’s at stake here…”