Sorry, Mitch. Impeachment Didn’t Cause the Bungled Coronavirus Response.

ZUMA

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

As the coronavirus crisis deepens in the United States, experts have pointed to a series of disastrous missteps that helped lay the groundwork for shortages in testing and medical equipment around the country. Even some Republicans have started to concede that the federal government may have been too slow in confronting the pandemic.

But that admission, if that’s what it is, has been paired with a false new accusation: that it was Donald Trump’s impeachment trial that prevented the president, along with Congress, from mounting a forceful response to the public health crisis in January and early February.

“[Coronavirus] came up while we were tied down in the impeachment trial,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said during an appearance on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show on Tuesday. “I think it diverted the attention of the government because everything, every day was all about impeachment.” McConnell then praised Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) for being the first to raise an alarm about coronavirus—a rather generous way to portray Cotton’s role in promoting fringe conspiracy theories about the virus’ origins.

The remarks from the top Senate Republican echoed similar narratives about impeachment percolating on the right.

But the claim—which dovetails with Trump’s ongoing efforts to blame his political opponents for his much-maligned response to the crisis—ignores reality on multiple counts. First, there’s the fact that senior administration officials, according to the Washington Post, spent weeks in January warning Trump about the virus’ potential for disaster in the United States. “Donald Trump may not have been expecting this, but a lot of other people in the government were—they just couldn’t get him to do anything about it,” one official told the Post. “The system was blinking red.”

While Trump ignored those national security warnings, he played a lot of golf, hitting the links at least five times from mid-January through early March. Did impeachment cause that? The president also found time to sign a major trade deal, the USMCA, during the trial—an action that had nothing to do with the looming crisis ahead.

McConnell’s insistence that the Senate was distracted by impeachment is similarly baseless.

The trial didn’t stop the Senate’s health committee from receiving a briefing about the virus from US public health officials on January 24. That day, Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) and her husband began dumping between $1.28 and $3.1 million in stock. Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr (R-N.C.) didn’t miss a February 4 briefing on coronavirus, even though it, too, was in the midst of the impeachment trial. Days later, he sold up to $1.7 million in stock, ProPublica reported. The FBI is reportedly investigating the sale by Burr, who claims he did not consider the briefing when he made the sale.

If impeachment really had prevented McConnell from taking action on coronavirus, one would have expected him to deal with the issue immediately after the trial concluded on February 5. He did not.

The first thing senators did after acquitting Trump was take a five-day weekend. Upon their return, the Senate did not turn to pandemic preparation measures. Instead, they voted on a procedural motion to confirm a federal district court judge, one of five judges they confirmed over the next few days.

But timeline aside, conservatives now blaming impeachment for the current crisis may want to rethink that strategy. Trump, remember, was impeached for withholding military aid from Ukraine in an effort to force that country’s president into opening investigations that would help him politically—actions that Stanford Law professor Pamela Karlan warned might be repeated during a natural disaster if Trump was not removed from office. Now, take a look at Trump’s explanation for why he isn’t calling back Democratic governors he believes have been too critical of his coronavirus response:

“I say: ‘Mike [Pence], don’t call the governor of Washington…Don’t call the woman in Michigan…If they don’t treat you right, I don’t call.”

Given these parallels, the Senate’s problem might not be that it paid too much attention to impeachment, but too little.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate