On the noontime show “Outnumbered,” co-host Melissa Francis on Tuesday said pretty much the same thing: “Mainly what Democrats are doing is they’re complaining about the process. They’re saying it’s in the dead of night, it’s not a fair trial. It’s what the Republicans were doing on the other side. And Democrats were saying when you don’t like the facts, you talk about the process.”

And in a Fox News hit on Tuesday, former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer took both-sides processism for a test ride. “I have a hard time seeing a principle anywhere in sight. What’s happened here is the two parties have switched roles,” Fleischer said. “When the impeachment was before the House, House Republicans complained bitterly about the process. I think the only thing that really matters is getting beyond this because it’s a complete waste of time. And there’s a remedy in our constitutional system when people feel this deeply about something, and it’s called an election.”

Yes, there have been a good number of process complaints in the past few months. During House depositions, such concerns were commonplace: “Republicans frequently complained about the handling of the probe and argued that the president was being denied his right to due process, the transcripts show. They also frequently criticized Schiff, accusing the majority of keeping them out of the loop on witness schedules, copies of subpoenas or opening statements,” noted The Post in its coverage of the dispute. Republicans also wanted to hear from a number of witnesses — including the whistleblower who kicked off the entire scandal — and who didn’t appear to provide testimony.

AD

AD

Now that impeachment has landed in the Senate, Democrats are complaining about process. The main target is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his proposed structure for the trial. It’s a substantive tiff about whether the House evidence against Trump would be automatically entered into the record and whether there’ll be witnesses in a trial.

Complaint equivalencies aren’t particularly compelling.

As The Post explained in this December editorial, Republican gripes about process on the House side were in large part “spurious," not to mention piddly — as GOP lawmakers attempted without success and with pettiness to cite sundry parliamentary objections as the hearings bumped along. Eclipsing those complaints was a truckload of nonsense. From the Post editorial:

AD

Some served up gross distortions and falsehoods. Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), among Mr. Trump’s most ardent supporters, repeated what they described as four key points, all of which are starkly at odds with sworn testimony and documents. They said there was no quid pro quo mentioned in a July 25 phone call between Mr. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky; but the documented contacts between U.S. and Ukrainian officials before the call make clear that when Mr. Zelensky promised to conduct the investigations Mr. Trump wanted, and Mr. Trump answered by offering him a White House visit, they were confirming a precooked deal. The Republicans said the Ukrainians never felt pressured by Mr. Trump, relying on a polite comment Mr. Zelensky made while sitting next to Mr. Trump and disregarding the testimony of U.S. diplomats in Kyiv, who described the Ukrainian president and his aides as “desperate.” Republicans said the Ukrainians did not know that Mr. Trump had withheld military aid, even though a Pentagon official testified the Ukrainians first asked about the hold the same day the two presidents spoke. Finally, Mr. Jordan and Mr. Gaetz pointed to the fact that Ukrainians received military aid without announcing the investigations. But Mr. Trump released the aid two days after the announcement of a congressional investigation of his extortion attempt — and Mr. Zelensky still has not been invited to the White House.

The White House, furthermore, made no secret of its strategy of stonewalling the House impeachment proceedings, withholding the cooperation of witnesses and declining to send documents. Speaking at a news conference in Davos on Wednesday morning, Trump appeared to confirm the strategy: ″We’re doing very well. I got to watch enough. I thought our team did a very good job, but honestly, we have all the material. They don’t have the material."

AD

Proof of the dangers in drawing false complaint equivalency emerged in Tuesday’s proceedings. In one of his statements, White House counsel Cipollone made an observation about how Schiff handled access to the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) containing impeachment information. "Not even Schiff’s Republican colleagues were allowed into the SCIF,” said Cipollone.

So not true.

All Trump-related distortions look moderate when lined up alongside the commentary of Fox News host Sean Hannity, who on Tuesday night preempted the ongoing proceedings in the Senate chamber in favor of his own blather. “If we look, there’s really no new facts here,” said Hannity in a chat with Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). Nothing to see!

AD

As to the Democrats’ concerns about trial structure, Hannity ripped, “It’s an amazing thing — no due process. I watched the whining today and I’m like: Guys, you gave no due process to the president.” Unless, of course, you count the fact that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) invited the White House to participate. Cipollone declined.

AD

The Democratic complaints about process weren’t exclusively Democratic, as it turns out. Pressure from moderate Senate Republicans forced McConnell to relent on a couple of planks in his initial trial plan — namely, a window of two 12-hour days for opening arguments and a provision that “would have refused to admit the findings of the House impeachment inquiry into evidence without a separate vote later in the trial.”

Democrats, however, failed to secure sufficient Republican defections to secure subpoenas for documents and testimony from top officials. Meaning, there’ll be more Democratic complaints and false-equivalency punditry in our collective near future.