CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
December 16, 2019 12:06 PM UTC

Gardner On Trial: "Total Coordination," Et Tu?

  • by: Colorado Pols
President Trump and Sen. Cory Gardner.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s interview last Thursday in the friendly confines of the Sean Hannity Show offered a definitive preview of what we can expect in the in-all-probability imminent trial of President Donald Trump on articles of impeachment making their way through the U.S. House now–and surprising nobody except for with his frankness, as USA TODAY reports, there will not even be any pretense of impartiality in this proceeding:

Democratic lawmakers slammed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s intention to be in “total coordination” with the White House on impeachment strategy as Congress prepares for a historic vote to impeach President Donald Trump next week.

In a Thursday evening interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, described his planning with the White House.

“We’ll be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office and the people who are representing the president as well as the Senate,” McConnell said. [Pols emphasis]

Speaking in Qatar this past weekend, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina went even further, saying flat-out that no trial is even needed:

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Saturday that he’s made up his mind that President Trump should be acquitted, dismissed the notion that he has to be a “fair juror” and said he doesn’t see the need for a formal trial in the Senate.

Under the rules of the Senate governing impeachment as specified in 1868 for the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, Senators are required to recite an oath before the beginning of the trial to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.” In the case of Richard Nixon faced with impeachment in 1974, it was the intervention of his fellow Republicans to make it clear Nixon’s position was no longer tenable that left him with no choice but to resign. Based on everything we’re seeing only two days before the House likely passes articles of impeachment, there will be no moment of conscience for Republicans this time around.

Politically, short-circuiting the Senate impeachment trial will have varied effects on responsible Senators based on the politics of the state they represent. Lindsey Graham represents a state that may tolerate a wholesale disregard of such a solemn responsibility, but the vulnerable incumbent Republicans who will also be sworn in to “do impartial justice”–Martha McSally in Arizona, Thom Tillis in North Carolina, Susan Collins in Maine, and especially Cory Gardner in Trump-hostile Colorado–could do real harm to themselves depending on how they proceed. That’s why Rep. Ken Buck is lauding Gardner for holding on to the pretense of impartiality while assuring the GOP base on talk radio that Gardner is in lockstep, or if you will, “total coordination” with Trump.

For Cory Gardner, representing a state that has soured dramatically on the Republican brand since his own and then Trump’s election, the all-but-decided outcome of the Senate impeachment trial is arguably not what matters most. The voters of Colorado are watching to see what Gardner does, no less than the President himself–and that means Cory Gardner is also on trial.


14 thoughts on “Gardner On Trial: “Total Coordination,” Et Tu?

  1. I attended Jason Crow's town hall meeting yesterday mostly because I was told there might be a large Pro-Trump attendance.  In fact, there were zero Pro-Trump questions to Jason.  And, it was very cathartic to give Jason a standing ovation when he said he would vote for impeachment.  I mean, I had a real, positive, physical reaction to standing up and cheering for someone we helped get into office and hear him deliver on so many issues, including impeachment. 

    Elections matter (except for Supreme Court nominations).

  2. Mitch McConnell paid no price and was in fact most certainly rewarded for refusing to take up the nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016. For him and Trump, playing to their base and disregarding precedent, fairness, and anything resembling bipartisanship, was a successful strategy. 

    We will see if history will repeat itself. If McConnell conducts a sham impeachment trial (e.g. no witnesses, summary dismissal after grandstanding floor speeches, etc.), either the American people will react and install a democratic president, house, and senate . . .  or not.

    I am still shellshocked from the 2016 election, but I am also an optimist that believes that truth and justice resonate. I think that Gardner is going to lose badly.  Lindsey Graham who "represents a state that may tolerate a wholesale disregard of such a solemn responsibility," is in a statistical tie with his Democratic opponent based on a recent poll. I don't think he is going to lose, but I think the Republicans will be running scared. 

    1. McConnell was rewarded and that is because the hard right and the hard left see the Supreme Court differently.

      The hard left wants someone who will lift and inspire them. If they are not energized about their party's candidate, they won't move heaven and earth to get him (or her) elected. And that means no judgeships for progressive appellate judges and law school professors.

      The hard right sees the prize and the candidate is simply a means to an end – whether that be electing Trump as president or Mitch McConnell as majority leader. They know that if they can pack the courts with young, right-wing zealots, the left could elect all the inspirational leaders promising and enacting all sorts of great things but all of which will be struck down in court.

      Although I disagree with about 99% of what they stand for, I have to admire the GOP's single-mindedness when it comes to voting.

      1. Hmm, your article is from 2 weeks ago.  Did you turn off the tube and run screaming into the bathroom when Fox showed the latest results?


      2. Which Earth is this?  The one where Cynthia Coffman is your Governor and the Washington Examiner isn't a Right-wing rag?  

        BTW, what did you think of that American Conservative article calling for Trump’s impeachment?

      3. You're referencing the Washington Examiner? Seriously? JFC, pick a better source than a right wing rag owned by "Clarity Media Group" aka Philip Anschutz…


Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

65 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!