Two People with Power. Two People Who Wield It. Two Injustices.

I wonder what he could have been thinking. Or maybe it was a she.

I'm referring to the member of the Baseball Writers Association of America, who have the duty of voting in, or not voting in, baseball players to the Hall of Fame. This one sticks out like toilet paper hanging from 45's shoe.

One of the players eligible this season was Derek Jeter, the great shortstop of the New York Yankees and Yankee team captain on many of its most successful teams. He played on more than one World Series champion. He had more than 3400 base hits, putting him in the top ten all-time. And from watching him off-and-on throughout his career, when he had the chance to get his team started or to continue a rally, he almost always succeeded in some way: He drew a walk, he stole a base, he got a hit, he moved a runner up a base, he did something. If he didn't reach base, some guy had to make a good play.

I rarely saw him fail. His 3,000th hit was a homer. The last hit of his career won a game in the bottom of the ninth. He exuded leadership by doing, not talking, in a city where leaders don't usually last long.

He was more than a shoo-in. His long-time teammate, Mariano Rivera, became the first unanimous Hall of Fame admittee last year. He was a terrific relief pitcher and another anchor of several championship Yankee teams. He deserved it.

So did Jeter who, like Rivera, stood for election for the first time. But out of 397 votes, Jeter got 396. Someone held out. Someone left him off the top of the ballot. If a brilliant pitcher deserves unanimity, then an everyday position player deserves it as much if not more.

What happened? What could this writer have had against him? Was it simply that he wanted Rivera to own that notoriety for as long as he could vote, so absolutely nobody else will ever be elected unanimously no matter what his clear and unarguable qualifications (like, maybe, Mike Trout someday)? Or did he have something against Jeter, who has to the best of my knowledge been associated with exactly no scandals or smudges against him in his entire, 20+ year career? If so, would it merely be his less-than-sterling record as a Miami franchise co-owner? Really? Or did the writer think that once unanimity had been achieved by someone, then future designations might be carted around willy-nilly, throwing out first-ballot selections like candy for the kids at parades?

Point taken, but think a minute. Here are other players who made the Hall of Fame, but didn't get voted in unanimously on their first ballots, either: Babe Ruth. Lou Gehrig. Hank Aaron. Ted Williams. Cy Young. Christy Mathewson. Ty Cobb. Rogers Hornsby. Stan Musial. Mickey Mantle. Willie Mays. Who could have had anything against them--as player, at least, which is the standard I thought was utilized to judge their fitness of designation--to have kept them off their first ballots the first time each of them stood for election? But someone did each and every time.

Whatever it is, it has to be a leader in high-ranked pettiness. It has to be someone wielding the power he (she) has just to throw it around, justice being completely irrelevant, I guess.

It doesn't say much about the Baseball Writers Association of America. But some groups maintain a kind of grudging just to make a point--that for some reason, even when things seem obvious, they don't want to be known as someone's pushovers. So they make up reasons and go with them. Instead of demonstrating institutional norms, though, they sometimes run the risk of looking pretty ridiculous, filled with pompous, token posturing instead of bathed in meaning. This would be another one of those times. Though comparatively speaking, the slight is indeed slight, the previous bar raised led to the ultimate comparison. Too bad.

That reminds me of someone else, in a much more important position, with much more at stake. That would be Mitch McConnell, who is also hiding behind a conjured sense of institutional norms to firewall the impeachment trial of 45 and, from this point on--as Jerry Nadler said last night, and he is spot on--has become the impeachment trial cover-up, and should be addressed as such from this day forward.

McConnell is running his contrived, greatly adjusted (for the situation) idea of institutional norms past the Senators. It's now become quite evident that McConnell and the Republican Senators had no intent on making the impeachment trial an actual trial--that is, with witnesses and documents subpoenaed from 45's White House. As an institution, the Senate power brokers can create their own ways of defining limitations that it need not have but which are conveniently created to avoid the advance toward a fair and just judgment.

To wit: McConnell's position on the House managers asking for the subpoenas is haughty. It presupposes that the whole exercise has taken place far too quickly, and that the Senate is being asked to do the House's job for it. That, on all levels, is preposterous, knowing what has transpired--that 45 has blocked all relevant information that the White House has compiled, including demanding that important people not give testimony--Mulvaney, Perry, Giuliani, and the like--and refusing to hand over any documents that might shed light on exactly what 45 did and why he did it. It kind of goes like this:

McConnell, et al: You went too fast. Your information is too limited. We can't tell anything. Nobody thinks you have a case.

House managers: We have plenty to prove guilt based on what we have, but it would sure work better if we knew more. The president knows more. You won't let us get at it.

McConnell: Why should we do your job for you?

House managers: You aren't. You're letting us do our jobs better. Who knows? The substance of acquittal might be in those documents or within someone's testimony. What would be wrong with that?

And there the conversation ends, because you-know-who is watching their every move and hearing every statement to tweet it into irrelevancy or the danger zone of non-support. So they walk through the motions of appearing to accept the House managers' clear and convincing evidence, keep saying that they don't have enough when everyone knows exactly why, and await the end of the next two days when they're in the clear and don't have to listen anymore.

Waiting for them is the vote on whether to admit witnesses or new documents. As long as they ride out the clock, as long as they can avoid or deflect reporters, as long as they don't get caught falling asleep on the Senate floor, they can then cast their token votes for blockage.

Then they get to say: The Senate did what it was supposed to do. It was asked to hear the charges. It did. Next.

They will be using that institution to get in the way of what should be taking place: A real trial, with the additional evidence and witnesses that everybody knows should be presented. Not only a disgusting sham, but now aiding and abetting a cover-up. Mitch McConnell coordinates it all.

There's always somebody, you know? Kind of like the way figure skating and gymnastics used to be judged in the Olympics, where nobody ever got a perfect score because nobody judging could ever possibly imagine a performance without a pinky out of place.

The ones giving the worse scores were always from one country, too: Russia.

Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.


Mister Mark