Trump's Second Impeachment Trial (Day 1)
The second impeachment trial of former president Donald Trump began today in the United States Senate. Today was largely a procedural day, which began with an initial vote to adopt the impeachment rules that Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell worked out yesterday. This was followed by an extended argument from both the House impeachment managers and Trump's lawyers about whether even holding this trial was constitutional or not. At the end, the Senate voted to affirm that the trial is indeed constitutional, by a vote of 56 to 44. The trial then adjourned until noon tomorrow.
Before I get to my impressions about the presentations made, a word about that vote tally. The Senate has already essentially voted on this question, but this was the official vote within the confines of the actual impeachment trial. However, the previous vote was only 55-45. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana seems to have changed his mind, which came as a total surprise (since he's not exactly seen as a never-Trumper or any kind of moderate).
Cassidy explained his vote by saying: "If anyone disagrees with my vote and would like an explanation, I ask them to listen to the arguments presented by the House managers and former President Trump's lawyers. The House managers had much stronger constitutional arguments. The president's team did not." He added: "President Trump's team was disorganized.... If I'm an impartial juror and one side is doing a great job and the other side is doing a terrible job on the issue at hand, I'm going to vote for the side that did the good job."
Taken at his word, this is somewhat astonishing. A Republican senator actually treating his jury duty seriously? Actually being unbiased before the trial begins? These are the concepts which, theoretically, every senator should believe, but few of them truly do. Which is why it was so astonishing to see.
In any case, Cassidy is right. The Democrats made a much more compelling argument and had a much better presentation of their argument. This isn't all that surprising, since the case against Trump is a fairly simple one to make, and his actions are all but indefensible. But this trial is more show business and public relations than an actual trial, and sometimes politicians and lawyers choke on the big stage. But more on that in a moment.
The prosecution
Three House managers spoke today, Representatives Jamie Raskin, Joe Neguse, and David Cicilline. They each did a fairly good job, but Raskin was the obvious standout. Raskin opened the Democrats' case and then returned to close it, as well.
Raskin began the day by very briefly dismissing the argument that somehow if the House and Senate don't have the time to conduct an impeachment while a president is still in office, that they somehow become powerless to do so once he leaves office. This is the heart of the Trump defense, and the reason for the presentations and vote today. Raskin slapped a label on the loophole this would essentially leave in the Constitution: a "January exception." Sitting presidents, during their last month in office, would essentially be immune from impeachment and therefore could do anything they wished while knowing they wouldn't pay a price from Congress for it.
But the real star of the show wasn't even Raskin, it was the 13-minute video that he presented next. This video is the core of the case against Donald Trump, and if you didn't watch it live I would strongly urge you to watch it now. It really is the prosecution's entire case, in one very brutal-to-watch and unbowdlerized package.
The Democrats had made no secret of their legal strategy. They are going to show America in scathing detail -- much more detail than anyone saw live on the day of the insurrection attempt -- exactly what Donald Trump said and did, and exactly what happened as a direct result. They're going to rely heavily on video throughout their entire case, so this 13-minute mashup should be seen as just the movie trailer of what is to come, starting tomorrow.
Because the basic facts are not in question at all. They've been recorded from hundreds of different angles. This could be the most-videoed major event in American history (up until this point -- in the future technology will doubtlessly surpass even what we've got now). There simply is no need for written proof or other dry documentation exhibits, because it's all right there on the videos. Which the Democrats will be presenting, for 16 hours, starting tomorrow.
In other words, it's going to be a very long week.
The rest of the Democrats' case today could be summed up as: "Of course we can still try Donald Trump, what he got impeached for happened while he was president and the House impeached him while he was still president. The Constitution has been followed already, and the only reason this trial didn't take place while Donald Trump was still president is that Mitch McConnell refused to let it happen for partisan reasons. Do you really think the Founding Fathers would think this was in any way acceptable? Seriously?"
Raskin made this point explicitly: "President Trump may not know a lot about the framers [of the Constitution], but they sure knew a lot about him." So did Neguse: "What you experienced that day, what we experienced that day, what our country experienced that day, is the framers' worst nightmare come to life. Presidents can't inflame insurrection in their final weeks and then walk away like nothing happened."
Democrats brought up historical examples of officials being impeached while already out of office, including a blockbuster case that was happening in Britain while the U.S. Constitution was being written and debated (the impeachment of Warren Hastings). All of American law is based on British law, giving this relevance. The other historical example used was the impeachment of American Secretary of War William Belknap, in the 1800s. You can read about his case on the Senate's own website. Belknap tried to do a constitutional end-run around impeachment by resigning -- mere minutes before the House impeached him. The Senate voted that this was unacceptable, and went on with their trial anyway. Just like the Senate voted today, in other words.
Raskin returned to deliver closing remarks, and this was the most powerful and emotional display of the day. His own son had just committed suicide, and the day after he buried him he brought his daughter to the Capitol. She was just as much in danger as Raskin was, and he recounted the fear of that day in a way that struck home -- since every single one of those senators also has personal memories of that day as well.
This is the heart of the argument, and Raskin personally made it in incredibly effective fashion. Five people died in the United States Capitol. One was a federal officer -- a Capitol Police officer. He was murdered by a mob, plain and simple. More than 140 other such officers were injured. One had a heart attack after being assaulted with a stun gun, one lost a finger. Many were hospitalized due to their injuries. One suffered brain damage. That is what happened a little over a month ago. And as bad as it was, it could have been a whole lot worse if the representatives and senators and vice president hadn't been evacuated in time. What do you really think that mob would have done with Mike Pence if they had found him? We must never forget the events of that dark day. And we must hold Donald Trump accountable, period.
The defense
Two lawyers rose to speak on Trump's behalf. One at least did so competently, but for some bizarre reason they decided to lead with the worst legal presentation most Americans have seen since the movie My Cousin Vinny was released. It really was that bad.
The first defense lawyer Trump could still get to work for him was a former prosecutor whose claim to fame is that he refused to prosecute a case against Bill Cosby. He began by misidentifying himself as leading the case for the prosecution, not the defense. And he went downhill from there.
For almost an hour, Bruce Castor seemed to ad lib his way through a rambling speech which roamed from reminiscence of his childhood in the Philadelphia suburbs to all sorts of other strange places in his mind. It had little to do with impeachment or Donald Trump, at least that anyone could tell. He did touch upon these subjects briefly, at the end, but by that point it was far too late. The damage to his legal reputation had already been done. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that we won't see much of Castor for the rest of the trial, although who really knows? But in general, Trump likes people who get feisty on television, so it's a fair assumption that Trump won't be very happy with Castor's performance today.
On Twitter, the instant reviews were scathing. About the most polite derided Castor's performance as "when you get called on to give your book report, and you haven't read the book." And those were the polite ones.
Speaking of Twitter, Castor's speech was so horrible that I found myself grateful to be distracted by the trending "Cat Lawyer" -- which was precisely what America needed to see, at that particular moment (watch the video, it's hilarious... and "you're welcome," in advance, if you hadn't seen it yet...).
Where was I? Oh, right, Trump's defense.
The second Trump lawyer was better, but that's not really saying that much. He used the typical Republican argument of accusing Democrats of precisely what Republicans are guilty of. For instance, he tried to make the case that impeaching Trump and convicting him would somehow be "disenfranchising" the millions who voted for him (it would not), conveniently ignoring the fact that what Trump is on trial for was actively attempting to disenfranchise millions of voters -- mostly Black -- by overturning election results that he didn't like.
In other words, the usual Republican thing. He also had the chutzpah to argue that impeaching Trump would drive people apart for partisan gain -- which, again, Trump was guilty of pretty much each and every day he was in office.
He also conveniently ignored the fact that Donald Trump committed an impeachable offense while in office, and was impeached by the House while still in office -- he kept trying to make it sound like all of this had happened after Trump left office. Look for the Democrats to remind everyone of the reality, in the next few days.
He also argued two contradictory things -- that Trump's impeachment happened too fast and he just wasn't given enough due process in the House, and that the process happened too slow because now Trump's out of office. Again, typical Republican doublethink.
He closed by reading a poem, for no particular reason. Perhaps the star power of Amanda Gorman has infected Washington with a newfound love of poetry? One can only hope, I suppose.
The vote
One amazing footnote from today -- after the defense sat down, the prosecution was given a half an hour to rebut anything they chose. Instead of doing so, they essentially said "We don't need to, our case is strong enough," and deferred the time. This meant the vote took place immediately. This was a show of legal strength, plain and simple.
As mentioned, the vote had one surprise in it. If Cassidy truly is acting as an impartial juror and if he's already voting against Trump, perhaps he will vote to convict (along with the other five brave Republican senators)? Well, I'm not counting my chickens yet, personally. But if this turns out to be true, then Democrats will only need 11 more such votes to successfully convict Trump.
At present, this seems like a very long shot indeed. But then we haven't seen how powerfully the House managers are going to lay out their case.
But that will have to wait until tomorrow's column.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Thanks for the report! I've no interest in watching or listening to the thing, as important as I know it to be.
Sooner or later I'll steel myself to watch the opening video (thanks for the link). I've no desire at all to immerse myself in pure Trump and Trumpist violence, when I'm just coming down from four years of changing the radio channel whenever his voice came on, and four years leaving the office when colleagues began defending him the morning after a long night of Fox-watching.
Please do continue the reports.
perhaps castor will quit the trump case, and be replaced by toonces the driving cat.
https://youtu.be/5fvsItXYgzk
JL
here's a brief analysis from the atlantic:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-jamie-raskins-speech-resonated/ar-BB1dxN5t
also, where is the commentary on donald trump's betrayal of the constitutional right to eat pie?
get edible.
I saw Rep Jamie Raskin on a CNN program a little while ago and he was talking about his son - Tommy sounds like such a wonderful kid. It's a truly heartbreaking story ...
I'm always astonished when I react to an event and later find out everyone else had the same reaction too (because it's usually so rare).
But, boy, everyone thought that first defense lawyer was a rambling clown, seems to be pretty universal. Can't wait to see what Colbert and Seth do to him tonight...
-CW
CW: At the end, the Senate voted to affirm that the trial is indeed constitutional, by a vote of 56 to 44. The trial then adjourned until noon tomorrow.
The Constitution isn't the least bit unclear about this; however, a sizable portion of America's representatives in the United States Senate has decided to self-relinquish the awesome power granted to We the People through them by our United States Constitution in favor of cowering in the corner in fear.
If 44 Republicans are too cowardly to even cast a vote that affirms their power to hold a trial regarding the impeachment of the 45th President, when it was also the GOP who refused to hold said trial while he held office, that tells you everything you need to know.
The GOP is flailing and has ceased to govern. Reminds me of the Whig Party who supported the importance of the power of Congress over that of the president... except these cowards are just doing it in reverse. Abraham Lincoln was a Whig. Of course, it's far more nuanced and complicated than this, but the Whig Party became extinct when they ultimately fractured over the issue of slavery... some joining the Democratic Party, some retiring, and the anti-slavery Whigs becoming the Republican Party... and here we are now with the Party of Lincoln bending over and relinquishing their power in favor of an autocrat.
History has its eyes on you.
CW: He began by misidentifying himself as leading the case for the prosecution, not the defense.
I thought it was a particularly heartwarming gesture when he culminated all that rambling prattling nonsensical drivel by suggesting that the Department of Justice should arrest his client. Oh, I completely agree and not for nothing, I assure you.
But in general, Trump likes people who get feisty on television, so it's a fair assumption that Trump won't be very happy with Castor's performance today.
Thank you for your services; the check is (not) in the mail. Poor Donald... but what's a billionaire to do when it's difficult to retain respectable legal representation because you have a 50-plus-year reputation for being both a (mob connected) criminal and a deadbeat who doesn't pay his vendors for property purchased and/or services rendered.
Donald Trump could hold a news conference tomorrow where he brags about how successful his attempted insurrection was and how impressive his plan was to hold Congress hostage truly was, but Rudy screwed it all up — and the Republicans in the Senate would still vote to acquit Trump!
Well, I guess if there is anything positive about Trump’s time as president it would be that Trump has demonstrated how the Founding Fathers ideas on the Electoral College’s role in preventing an unfit cult leader from becoming President and that Impeachment is the best way to remove an unfit President from office were both huge FAILURES!
If the Senate is tasked with serving as the jury in determining the guilt or innocence of Trump for each Article of Impeachment that the House has brought against him, then how can they acquit him on the grounds that the trial is unconstitutional? That is not a charge that they are tasked with adjudicating!
Senators took this oath at the start of the trial:
‘I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God.’
Not sure how Republicans can be viewed as not violating their oaths if they are ignoring the charges being brought against Trump by acquitting him based on something not stated in the Articles of Impeachment?
To get a handle on the mindset we are dealing with here, both of Trump and of the vast majority of people who voted for him and who are now the base of the Republican party, I offer the following analysis:
MAGA Trump voters are a lost cause. They don't vote based on policy. It doesn't matter to them what Democrats do. MAGA Trump voters only want 2 things: 1) To see people who look and talk like themselves in power 2) To see those people "stick" it to the Libs. There is no amount of messaging by Democrats that can persuade them.
For Example: If Donald Trump was in favor of a 15 dollar minimum wage, they would be in favor of it. If he was against it, they would be against it. If Democrats were for it, they would be against it, simply because Democrats were for it, even if it was something they originally supported.
Democrats have won the culture war, this has been accepted by both parties. Republicans have abandoned or surrendered their positions on gay marriage, free trade, deficits, law and order, etc. The vast majority of what now constitutes the Republican base never really cared about those things (except maybe evangelicals, who could care less about Trump's own morals, as it now turns out), as Republican legislators have come to find out.
That's why the Republicans only concentrated on TWO things while in power. 1) A tax cut and 2) getting as many conservative judges in power as possible. Because corporate America can get what it wants thru the courts.
What natters to the Republican voting base is the perception of who has power. A multicultural, multiracial, liberal, black and brown America is seen as an existential threat by MAGA America. Not policy, but WHO wields the decision making, is what matters to them.
More political theater, even dumber that the first episode.
[11]
This is an excellent and to the point summary of the MAGAt mindset. Many fell in love with Trump's TV portrayal of a supposed billionaire, yes, but "sticking it to the Libs" is the bottom line for these poor Devils.
[12]
It's only More political theater, even dumber that the first episode if you're going to be cool when Joe Biden openly extorts a country to announce a fake investigation of, say, Nikki Haley during the next Presidential primary season, and then send the ANTIFA/BLM people to stop Haley's Electoral vote victory confirmation.
Acquittal is the foregone conclusion and remains the smart bet.
But Trump is still a yuge problem for the Establishment Repugs and this is still their yugest and bestus chance to be rid of him. This from Bloomberg.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is signaling to fellow Republicans that the final vote on Donald Trump’s impeachment is matter of conscience and that senators who disputed the constitutionality of the trial could still vote to convict the former president...
That position is starkly different than McConnell’s declaration at the start of Trump’s first impeachment trial last year that he did not consider himself an impartial juror.
I'm researching whether or not Senators can simply abstain come time to vote -- full report shortly.
Don't be overly discouraged by the Senate Repug's two Impeachment related votes thus far, most recently regarding it's Constitutionality.
They are keeping themselves safe from Trumpanzie rage for the moment and, in the end, can still vote to end the scourge of Trumpism. Or abstain: same result, less political pain, perhaps.
MtnCaddy
If Republican Senators decide they do not want to vote, nothing requires them to show up to work the day the vote occurs. It makes it it much easier to get 2/3 votes to convict if there are less members in the jury!
But, isn't "showing up" the virtual equivalent of voting for conviction? I mean, if conviction occurs after they abstain, they will suffer the same consequences as they would have if they had voted with the super majority for conviction, no?
EDIT!
But, isn't "NOT showing up" the virtual equivalent of voting for conviction? I mean, if conviction occurs after they abstain, they will suffer the same consequences as they would have if they had voted with the super majority for conviction, no?
In future I will always use the preview thingy. In future I will always use the preview thingy. In future, I will always ...