Here's an interesting theory.

"Maybe stronger leadership would have left the Kremlin less emboldened. Maybe tampering with our democracy wouldn't have seemed so very tempting. Instead the previous administration sent the Kremlin the signal they could get away with almost anything...so is it surprising that we got the brazen interference detailed in special counsel Mueller's report?"

That was Mitch McConnell, on the floor of the United States Senate, blaming Barack Obama for the Russian ratfcking that helped install an international bunco ring in the White House. In the annals of pure Senate audacity, I don't know if that can be topped. Now, one can argue, and I might, that the Obama administration's reluctance to make full public use of what it knew about the ratfcking was a political and security disaster of the first order. From the Washington Post:

They also worried that any action they took would be perceived as political interference in an already volatile campaign. By August, Trump was predicting that the election would be rigged. Obama officials feared providing fuel to such claims, playing into Russia’s efforts to discredit the outcome and potentially contaminating the expected Clinton triumph...Brian Kemp, the Republican secretary of state of Georgia, used the call to denounce (Homeland Security Secretary Jeh) Johnson’s proposal as an assault on state rights. “I think it was a politically calculated move by the previous administration,” Kemp said in a recent interview, adding that he remains unconvinced that Russia waged a campaign to disrupt the 2016 race. “I don’t necessarily believe that,” he said...

In early September, Johnson, [James] Comey, and [HSA adviser Lisa] Monaco arrived on Capitol Hill in a caravan of black SUVs for a meeting with 12 key members of Congress, including the leadership of both parties. The meeting devolved into a partisan squabble. “The Dems were, ‘Hey, we have to tell the public,’ ” recalled one participant. But Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public that the election was under attack would further Russia’s aim of sapping confidence in the system. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House’s claims. Through a spokeswoman, McConnell declined to comment, citing the secrecy of that meeting. Key Democrats were stunned by the GOP response and exasperated that the White House seemed willing to let Republican opposition block any pre-election move.

And here, alas, is where the Democratic administration choked. Not choked, exactly, but fell victim to the essential flaw of the entire Obama presidency: the steadfast belief that, ultimately, good faith bargaining with the other side would prevail. Here, though, apparently, McConnell as much as said what he would do if the administration went public, so maybe the Obama people choked after all. We'll never know. But what was obvious on Tuesday was that Mitch McConnell is not inclined to act in good faith even when the security of the country is at stake. He won't even take responsibility for his own acts of bad faith. Moreover, he gave the Democrats and the media "credit" for "finally waking up" to the ratfcking, which comes dangerously close to the law-school definition of "chutzpah."

Mitch McConnell is relentlessly shameless. Pete Marovich Getty Images

And, as she reported on the electric Twitter machine, NBC's Leigh Ann Caldwell asked McConnell later, in the context of his earlier remarks, what he thought of the 90-minute, unrecorded phone call between the president* and Vladimir Putin the other day. She got no answer. Neither, apparently, will we.

Not long afterwards, however, Senator Professor Warren took the floor and read, at length, some of the most damning parts of the Mueller Report regarding the obvious obstructions of justice committed by the president*. She went on for a while; somebody had to. And, at the end, she called again for the president*'s impeachment, and reminded her colleagues of the very real stakes in the current contest.

For us, for Congress, to back up from that fight and to say that protecting the president is more important than protecting the Constitution, is not only wrong, it is a violation of our oath of office...This is not the fight I wanted, but this is the fight in front of us now. This is not about politics. This is about the Constitution of the United States of America. We took an oath, not to try and protect Donald Trump, we took an oath to protect and serve the Constitution of the United States of America and the way we do that is we begin impeachment proceedings now against this president.

When she was done, of course, the state of play was the same. The attorney general and the Secretary of the Treasury were standing in defiance of custom and statute. The White House had spooked the president's former counsel, Don McGahn, into ignoring a House subpoena, and it was fighting like the very devil to keep Robert Mueller out of the hearing rooms as well. Those oaths previously mentioned?

Ash in the wind.

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page here.

Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io