Impeachment Preview
For only the fourth time in American history (and for the second time in approximately one year), the Senate will convene an impeachment trial tomorrow, to consider the charges against Donald Trump. Even at this late date, however, there are many unanswered questions about what exactly is going to take place this week, so I thought I'd review where things stand as of now (some of these issues may actually be resolved by the time I write, edit, format, and post this article, I should mention in advance).
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have still not agreed upon the basic framework for the trial. McConnell is often likened to a turtle for the way he looks, but he really deserves the comparison for his ability to slow everything down to a crawl. So even with fewer than 24 hours until the trial starts, there is still no formal agreement on how it will proceed.
What is expected is that the trial will take place in the afternoons. I've heard it will start at 1:00 P.M. every day (Eastern Time), but even that could still change. At least portions of the trial will be televised on many cable news channels. On broadcast television, my guess is that PBS will cover the whole thing gavel-to-gavel every day, while the other networks may only partially air it. But that's just a guess -- we'll have to wait and see.
Tomorrow may feature opening arguments summing up both the House managers' prosecutorial case and then Trump's lawyers' defense. But then it is looking like the entire rest of the day is going to be a complete waste of time. Politico is reporting what is apparently being planned for Tuesday:
The procedures being worked out between Senate leaders would also allow for up to four hours of debate on Tuesday about the constitutionality of putting a former president on trial. The Senate would then vote on whether the trial is constitutional.
Since they have already done so (technically, they voted previously on "a motion declaring that the Senate has no constitutional jurisdiction over an ex-president"), this is almost certainly going to result in the exact same 55-45 vote (in favor of the trial being constitutional). Which is why I say the entire day may wind up being no more than a repetitious waste of time. Call it "Groundhog Day came late to the Senate this year," I suppose.
Then on Wednesday, the real trial will get underway:
Beginning on Wednesday, each side will have up to 16 hours to lay out their case. The tentative agreement also allows for the House managers to ask for a debate and subsequent vote on whether to call witnesses.
Even if they pushed it and gave each side two days (eight hours each day), this would mean four days for presenting the case from both sides. If the Senate does not adjourn for the weekend, this would take from Wednesday through Saturday, but one of Trump's lawyers is an observant Jew who will not work on the Sabbath (from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday), so Schumer and McConnell have reportedly agreed to skip Saturday and continue on Sunday instead. Their goal appears to be to wrap the whole trial up inside a week, which would mean Monday would be closing arguments and a final vote on whether to convict or not.
This schedule may or may not even be possible, however. The House managers have so far played their cards very close to the vest, and have not publicly stated whether they are going to ask the Senate for the ability to call witnesses or not. There were no witnesses in Trump's first impeachment because Republicans held the Senate and voted the idea down. This time, however, Democrats are in control, so it's an open question whether witnesses will be called or not. If the impeachment managers ask for witnesses, it will be very hard for Senate Democrats to deny them the opportunity, since they were so adamantly for having witnesses last year. But having witnesses would extend the trial by (at the least) several days -- meaning the one-week target would not be possible (unless witnesses are allowed but must appear within the 16 hours each side gets to present their case). So this could be the biggest news that comes out of the proceedings tomorrow -- whether we're going to hear from witnesses or not.
The root of this question is whether witnesses are even necessary to make a solid case for impeachment. Sure, the Democrats could call people like Capitol police officers (to give first-hand accounts of what went on during the attempted insurrection), or even White House aides who could testify as to exactly what Trump was doing (or, more to the point, not doing) while the siege was underway. Trump's lawyers may use the opportunity to present legal experts who agree with them on the constitutional issues, to bolster their case. The one thing that appears certain, at this point, is that Donald Trump himself will not be testifying. He was already given the invitation to do so by the House managers, but his lawyers turned the idea down.
What is known about the Democratic legal strategy is that they are largely going to make their case with videos. Not only will every senator in the room have witnessed firsthand what happened during the riot, but there is a ton of video evidence to remind both them and the entire public of how horrendous this event was. The House managers are going to make a simple case -- Donald Trump essentially had a temper tantrum when he lost the election, he started promoting the Big Lie that the election had somehow been "stolen" from him, he tried to pervert and subvert the course of counting and registering the votes at every turn, and then when all of this failed, he called upon his rabid followers to come to Washington the day that Congress would seal his fate. He then gave an incendiary and inciteful speech to them (in person) and directed them to storm the Capitol. When they did so, he watched on television with glee and refused to take anyone's call -- even from Mike Pence, his own vice president, whom Trump had thrown under the bus while the rioters were still in the Capitol chanting "Hang Mike Pence!" It's a pretty easy case to make, and this case can adequately be made solely through videos of all of these events. A Capitol police officer personally testifying would add to this case, but may not in the end be necessary. A White House aide would also clarify exactly what happened at the White House that day, but again this may not be necessary, since we already have Trump's tweets and record of complete and utter inaction during the riots.
Trump's lawyers are going to argue two basic concepts. The first is that the impeachment itself is somehow unconstitutional. The Senate has already voted this idea down, and will likely do so again tomorrow. But it won't stop Trump's lawyers from laying out their idea in detail. The other main thing they'll be arguing is that Trump: (1) didn't knowingly lie, because he truly believed the false conspiracy theories, and (2) was protected by the First Amendment anyway. This last one will likely dive down into what, precisely, the courts have determined qualifies as "incitement" to commit violent crimes.
What Trump's lawyers are reportedly not going to do is to argue the actual facts of the case. It's pretty hard to do so when we've got video evidence of the entire day, really. Trump did say those things and do those things (and not do what he should have), and to deny any of it is really to deny reality. Trump's lawyers will almost certainly not try to argue the Trumpian conspiracy theories are somehow valid and real, because they just aren't (and the lawyers know this full well).
So if everything moves as quickly as the rest of this impeachment, we could be looking at next Monday or possibly Tuesday for the whole thing to be over. I will end here on a personal program note for readers -- because of the importance of this trial, I am pre-empting everything else and will be covering it each day until it is over. This will mean no "Friday Talking Points" column this week, among other things. Each day, I will watch from start to finish, and then I will sit down and write my impressions of what just happened. So the schedule for when columns will appear will be entirely dependent on when the Senate finishes up each day. Look for a column a few hours afterwards.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Political theatre at its dumbest level.
This will mean no "Friday Talking Points" column this week, among other things.
:-(
Trump's lawyers are arguing something else, too.
They say that FBI documents show that the riot was planned days in advance and therefore Trump couldn't have encouraged it.
@cw,
If they hold hearings on Sunday will you write a column then add well? No judgment either way, just curious.
JL
As for the Democratic legal strategy, I hope the House managers plan to present everything that happened leading up to the paramililitary assault on the Capitol, starting from the day Trump said that if he loses the election it will be because it was rigged.
Trump's encouragement went on for months. It's just too bad that he didn't at some point repeat his old campaign refrain from four years ago when he told his rowdy crowd that he'd pay for their lawyers if they felt the need to punch somebody in the face.
As well, not add well. Dang nab autocorrect.
You want a column on Sunday (night)!? Say it ain't so.
It's so.
I'm not really surprised.
If Congress can do it, so can we
Indeed.
But, I really need music this week.
I've no concern if the trial takes two or three weeks. The Senate can work on confirmations and Covid relief in the mornings and hold the GQP's feet to the fire in the afternoons.
I strongly believe that Capitol Police and a judiciously selected few other witnesses (the Sick Nick family) should appear in person. On it's own video-o-rama is not quite visceral enough. Close with a legal expert to shoot down Trump's lawyers and maybe, say, George W. Bush himself to explain how his fellow Repugs would Convict Obama in a heartbeat for what Trump did.
Democrats should publically tell Trump that it's not too late to testify and that the Repugs back him and want him to defend himself against these silly, politically motivated proceedings.
Again, I've yet to find anything that would stop some (at least 25) Repug Senators from simply abstaining come time to vote.
Naw, Trump getting Impeached again is a fair trade for an FTP. Two, even. And hell yeah, I'd like a political column Sunday. We'll just mix some tunes in amongst the politics and no one will gripe, right, Board Mother?
Twenty five Repugs abstain or go with a secret ballot. Either way Trump is out of everybody's hair, the Repugs are safe and it's not like most of Trump's base isn't going to vote for them come 2022. Sure, some would stay home but where else would the rest go?
[13]
Ya see, Trump be missing the spotlight and his ego might make him have to simply walk over his lawyer's dead bodies to go show those Dimocrats! On deck: implosion.
...and batting Third: a GQP too embarrassed to not/i> acquit? One can hope.
Elizabeth here's highlights of Joe's Executive Orders from the Guardian.
Vast Covid related actions including the Federal response, workplace protections and money. This mo'fo is ON IT.
Undoing most of Trump's Immigration travesties including DACA.
Equally heavy lifting in the Environment (Paris) and Civil Liberties categories.
And much much more. Girl you outta be proud of your boy Joe!
CW: Since they have already done so (technically, they voted previously on "a motion declaring that the Senate has no constitutional jurisdiction over an ex-president")...
The Constitution seems infinitely clear on this issue in terms that aren't confusing:
*
The GOP keeps whining incessantly (looking at you, Rand Paul) that the Senate cannot impeach a former president. He's technically correct since the House has the sole power to impeach an official... and they did that already when Trump was still president. If Rand Paul or anyone else wants to explain how Donald Trump's impeachment by the House isn't included in the term "all impeachments," I'm open to being convinced that the Senate has no jurisdiction. *good luck with that*
If the Senate were to forego the trial of the already impeached President and then the Department of Justice were to take up the issue via a criminal indictment, you just know that the "now citizen" would be arguing that his judgment was under the sole power of the Senate to try since he was impeached while still president.
This ain't rocket science!
If those GOP Senators had some balls and/or spinal columns (not looking at you, Mitt Romney), the House wouldn't have to keep taking out their trash, and since the majority (as far as I know) claim profusely and repeatedly their belief in God... they can therefore burn in Hell for ignoring their Oaths to the Constitution that they swore to Him.
Here's hoping their eternal damnation in hellfire in their next life turns out to be a fair trade for the lying cheating con artist who wouldn't spit on a single one of them to put them out if they were on fire in this one.
I really must stop hiding my feelings and just tell everyone how I feel about things. :)
CW: The other main thing they'll be arguing is that Trump: (1) didn't knowingly lie, because he truly believed the false conspiracy theories,
It's an impeachment trial wherein Trump is being accused of being unfit for office (again), and his lawyers are going to help prove it by claiming he's too ignorant to separate fiction from fact? Awesome.
... and (2) was protected by the First Amendment anyway.
Trump's lawyers are going to argue that the First Amendment protects him from lying for months and months about a "rigged election" and that he has the right to request a group of people go down to the capital on the particular day of January 6 in order to cause a delay in the mandated constitutional duty of Congress to count the electors certified by the States according to constitutional mandate?
Like Impeachment 1.0, the Senators are again going to have to ignore the facts and their sworn oaths to God and the United States of America to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, in order to acquit.
They say they believe in God... so I hope they enjoy Hell.
CW: So the schedule for when columns will appear will be entirely dependent on when the Senate finishes up each day. Look for a column a few hours afterwards.
Thank you. We're not worthy. Okay, I lied... some of us are. ;)
So, a party every night, then!
Kick [21]
Exactly what I was thinking. Neither defense works in the context of an impeachment trial of a president.
But as the defense has already argued, this trial is 'political theater', even if they try to pretend that the theatrical part is limited to the Democrats' response to Trump's attempted coup and seizure of a presidency-for-life. No one's political career has lived and died more by the standards of political theater than Trump's.
I don't suppose this will end in a conviction, except by the history books. But after the trial I would guess that the Dems in Congress will disqualify the ex-president from future public office, one way or another.
It would be nice if the video evidence submitted by the House managers included a crafty montage of all the Republicans who repeated the president's lies, and and who echoed his encouragement of armed assaults on politicians and the political process. A really effective viral video from the trial might even help reinforce public opinion that the 45th president - oops, sorry, the ex-president* - was guilty as charged and deserves conviction.
*I read a snarky article last week pointing out that a Trump press release defending his latest indefensible etc. used the phrase "45th president" five times in four paragraphs to refer to the hero-in-exile. It was merely pathetic, until I read a follow-up comment by another writer who figured out that this will be Trump's way of denying for the foreseeable future that he is an ex-president or a former president or that there even is a 46th president. Those useful terms will simply not be allowed in the 45th president's entourage.
A follow-up on my [27]
Ha! Great minds think alike. I just found that the commentators on ElectoralVote.com have posted their thoughts on the House managers' best prosecution presentation, and it duplicates my idea above about a short, viral-primed video for national circulation. Forgive, and then enjoy, this extended quote from their piece:
"The impeachment managers have, for some reason, neglected to ask our advice for how they should conduct the trial. If they had asked, however, our suggestion would be to put together a video of no more than 10 minutes. And 5 minutes would be even better, while 3 would be even better than that. The video should show three things, in this order: (1) incendiary remarks from Trump on the day of the insurrection, (2) footage of people storming the Capitol, and (3) clips of insurrectionists explaining that they did it because Trump told them to (these clips are already easily found on YouTube, since these folks are now busily trying to save their own necks by shifting blame to the former president).
"Anyhow, if it were up to us, that 10-minute or 5-minute or 3-minute video would be the entire prosecution case. This approach would have three benefits:
"It would make a statement that the case against Trump is so clear and so simple that it does not require hours (or days) to lay out.
"It would be an effective defense for the Internet Age. In the end, the whole trial—barring the unexpected—is just going to be a giant PR exercise in anticipation of the 2022 midterms and the 2024 presidential election. The Democrats want to paint the Republicans as a party that now tolerates sedition and treason, and the Republicans want to sustain as little damage to their brand as is possible. A brief video, also posted to YouTube, Facebook, etc., would be watched by millions of people (and rebroadcast by most news stations). The impeachment managers could expose a vast number of people to the meatiest meat of their case. By contrast, a 16-hour prosecution will be distilled down to sound bites for various websites and news broadcasts. Those sound bites might not be the most politically advantageous sound bites, and they are not likely to reach anyone other than politics junkies.
"It would leave plenty of low-hanging fruit for future prosecutors. Trump is at serious risk of criminal prosecution here, even if (when) he's acquitted by the Senate. If the Democrats play too many cards here, it will take some of the oomph out of a future criminal case. If the Democrats keep it short and sweet, on the other hand, they'll leave lots of goodies behind for the next group of attorneys to take a crack at the Trump piñata.
"Of course, the impeachment managers are both attorneys and politicians, putting them into two different groups of people who love to bloviate. So, they will undoubtedly go in a very different direction than the one we propose, and will use most or all of their 16 hours." - from ElectoralVote.com, Feb. 9, 2021, "Deja Vu All OVer Again" article.
John M
27
Exactly what I was thinking. Neither defense works in the context of an impeachment trial of a president.
Yep. Impeachment by the Senate doesn't require that a president be given due process or any other legal standard his lawyers will try to use as a defense. Bottom line is: Donald Trump (and other government officials) can be impeached and removed from office for speech that isn't necessarily criminal, and the First Amendment protects the right of private citizens against either criminal or civil sanctions for their speech.
When Donald Trump took a sworn oath to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States" and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," that meant what it said. Spending a shit-ton of time and taxpayers' dollars denying you lost an election and additionally phoning officials in Georgia to find you a certain number of votes and then lobbying your Vice President (who took a similar oath) to unilaterally ignore the certified results of an election and declare themselves the winners isn't exactly what's outlined in that Constitution they both swore to God to uphold. Pence knew this and had already refused to do it. Trump knew Pence had already refused. Sending a mob to the Capitol to delay the constitutionally mandated job of Congress isn't upholding the Constitution. If the object of the exercise is to have your Vice President declare yourselves the victors or to send a mob to force Congress to delay doing their jobs as mandated by the Constitution, then it matters not whether you've broken any criminal law because you've broken your oath to the People, your Country, your God, and the Constitution.
But as the defense has already argued, this trial is 'political theater', even if they try to pretend that the theatrical part is limited to the Democrats' response to Trump's attempted coup and seizure of a presidency-for-life. No one's political career has lived and died more by the standards of political theater than Trump's.
That Trump speech at the Ellipse and the subsequent insurrection and attempted hijacking of Congress was indeed "political theater." Let's hope the public gets to see a lot of the recorded footage.
https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/
I don't suppose this will end in a conviction, except by the history books. But after the trial I would guess that the Dems in Congress will disqualify the ex-president from future public office, one way or another.
Trump has clearly disqualified himself, and if the GOP won't take out their trash, somebody has to do it. This president has lied to the People on multiple occasions, and thousands of Americans have paid with their lives.
I have heard the House managers have "as yet unseen" footage. Great... let it roll.
... this will be Trump's way of denying for the foreseeable future that he is an ex-president or a former president or that there even is a 46th president. Those useful terms will simply not be allowed in the 45th president's entourage.
If the "45th President" insists he's still POTUS, then that clearly removes his lawyers' arguments for claiming the Senate has no jurisdiction over his highness's second impeachment trial. We will be happy to entertain your client's insistence that he's still the president if you will stop insisting he's a citizen for the purposes of his second Senate impeachment trial. Not that it matters, however, since the United States Constitution makes it very clear that the Senate has the "sole power" to try "all impeachments," and he holds the record for being the peachiest of all those thusly impeached.
Don Harris
25
Regardless of whether you're making light of a thing like that or making a comparison of CW's FTPs to it, this is wholly indicative of your total lack of any intellect... not that you haven't freely volunteered a mountain of such evidence already.
I won't call you a troll because you are fathoms below that station, you creepy little expletive.
[20]
Here's the secret: the rich know something the rest of us don't. You can take it with you! So whoever dies with the most money wins. It's the only explanation for why, say, the Koch brothers need many many billions on top of the first one each made.
geez
Caddy [38]
Are you advocating that when the highly productive get rich they should instantly, retire, go out of business, etc.? If that seems like a good idea to you, meaning a way to make the world a better place, then the sensible thing to do would be to pass a law that people have to quit working whenever they reach some arbitrary level of wealth.
That represents the belief of the economics ignoramuses, that the rich only get rich by stealing from the poor. Doesn't work that way.
Oops, make my last reference read [32], not [38]
nypoet22 [4] -
I might. Haven't decided. Depends a lot on how exhausted I am by then, really...
John M from Ct. [28] -
Boy, they nailed it. It was 13 minutes, but it was like a punch to the gut. That opening video was just brutal...
And you're right, this truly is their entire case. Because it really is all they need to show.
-CW
C. R. Stucki
34
Of course, MCad didn't say any of that. He was responding to a post of mine, and I understood exactly what he meant.
Are you advocating that when the highly productive get rich they should instantly, retire, go out of business, etc.?
If the Koch brothers retired when they got rich, they would have popped out of the womb with nothing to do for the rest of their lives. Do you not know that?
If that seems like a good idea to you, meaning a way to make the world a better place, then the sensible thing to do would be to pass a law that people have to quit working whenever they reach some arbitrary level of wealth.
How about a law that people who are confused have to quit posting whenever they reach some arbitrary level of nonproductivity?
That represents the belief of the economics ignoramuses, that the rich only get rich by stealing from the poor. Doesn't work that way.
Especially when you're born that way because your daddy was a Texan blacklisted in his home state who built a refinery at the request of Adolph Hitler that served the Third Reich... but of course not before your daddy had built more than a dozen oil refineries in the Soviet Union at the request of Joseph Stalin.
Need more help with your obvious confusion? Just ask. :)
hark! Methinks I hear expulsion of internet flatulence!
@CRS,
there are many ways to get rich, some involving hard work and real productivity, others involving no work and fictional productivity. likewise, some people are poor because they don't want to work or don't have drive or talent, while others are poor in spite of copious hard work, drive and talent. any insinuation that all the rich or all the poor fit in one category or the other is mere fiction.
ideally, the tax structure can reward real productivity on all levels of the economic scale while still treating people humanely who aren't as driven or as lucky. right now the scales are tipped so far in favor of the hyper-rich and against semiskilled laborers that there's really nowhere else to go.
JL
nypoet22
39
Yes, sir. That's exactly what I was getting at with my post, but you said it better. :)
C. R. Stucki
38
hark! Methinks I hear expulsion of internet flatulence!
If it's audible, then it has to be coming from your end. Diapers might help you... Depends. Heh.
You're inventing commentary that MtnCaddy never said and then insulting him for saying something you pulled straight out of your backside. Bad form. :)