‘Done in a week’: Democrats look to move past Trump trial

Even before Donald Trump’s impeachment trial begins, some Senate Democrats are getting ready to speed to the end.

After only five Republican senators joined Democrats in a vote Tuesday essentially declaring that Trump’s trial was constitutional, some in the new majority are signaling they’d like to quickly focus their attention elsewhere. If it wasn’t obvious before, they say, it’s now clear the GOP isn’t going to convict Trump.

“To do a trial knowing you'll get 55 votes at the max seems to me to be not the right prioritization of our time,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) told reporters Wednesday. “Obviously we do a trial, maybe we can do it fast, but my top priority is Covid relief and getting the Biden Cabinet approved.”

Under Senate rules, the chamber is obligated to hold a trial now that an article of impeachment has been delivered. But lawmakers can decide how long the trial itself will last or whether to hear from any witnesses. Several Democrats emphasized in interviews Wednesday that they view Trump’s second impeachment trial as far different from his first, given that senators themselves witnessed the insurrection.

“This is a pretty straightforward trial,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “I never thought it needed to be as long as the Ukraine trial which was a very complicated charge with a lot of witnesses and important testimony. I would hope we could get this done in a week.”

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), a member of Democratic leadership, agreed: “It is really a judgment call about whether or not people think that his inciting an insurrection and essentially an attack on our democracy warrants conviction.”

The trial comes as the new Democratic majority is eager to confirm President Joe Biden’s nominees and advance his agenda, including another coronavirus relief package. But rushing through the proceedings could also undercut the only chance to hold Trump accountable for inciting the deadly riot at the Capitol and prevent him from running for office again.

Some Democrats are in no mood to discuss any timeline for the trial. Asked whether Tuesday’s procedural vote forced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) informed his thinking on how much time Democrats should spend on the trial, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) responded that senators need to take a step back.

“Our job isn’t just to answer the minutiae of today’s Twitter-fueled news cycle but to think about our republic and its health and its viability,” said Coons, a close Biden ally. “We just had one of the most terrifying incidents in American history that put in question the viability of our democracy. How much time do you think we should spend on that?”

Coons added: “I’m struck at how few of my colleagues seem concerned about the quality of their answers.”

The parameters for the forthcoming impeachment trial have yet to be set. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reached an agreement last week that the trial would begin the week of February 8 and established a schedule for House impeachment managers and Trump’s defense to file their trial briefs. But Schumer and McConnell still need to work out the organizing resolution to govern the trial itself. Earlier this week, Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that the trial will be “fair” but also done “relatively quickly.”

Democrats are privately predicting the trial could start Tuesday February 9 and wrap up by the weekend. But the length of the trial could also depend on whether the House impeachment managers decide to bring in additional witnesses.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the new Budget Committee chairman who would help steer any relief package under reconciliation procedures, also signaled his desire to move quickly on the trial. “I would hope that we deal with that as quickly as possible,” he said, adding that he wants to see "the needs of working families" addressed.

While Senate Democrats are broadly expected to vote to convict Trump, they may only win over the five mostly moderate or retiring GOP senators who already voted with them: Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Pat Toomey and Ben Sasse. That’s far short of the 17 needed to convict Trump on a two-thirds majority.

Even after departing the White House largely disgraced in the eyes of official Washington, Trump has maintained his grip on the GOP. Many Senate Republicans are coalescing around the argument that it’s unconstitutional to convict a former president, though that claim is disputed by other legal scholars, including members of the conservative Federalist Society. Republicans have been eager to focus on procedural arguments against impeachment and not on Trump's behavior.

Some Republicans suggested that their vote Tuesday was not necessarily an indication of their final vote on whether to convict the former president. McConnell is among the Senate Republicans who say they remain undecided. The Kentucky Republican told reporters Wednesday that he’ll listen to both sides of the argument.

“I hope enough Republicans join us to impeach this president,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “If they don't, perhaps we'll consider some alternatives.”

Among the alternatives under discussion is a possible censure resolution, though it's not yet clear whether it could gain momentum.

Collins told reporters Wednesday that she and Kaine are working on a proposal that she said would be “in lieu of a trial.”

“The outcome of the trial is already obvious,” Collins said. “I believe yesterday's vote shows clearly that there is no possibility of conviction... the question is, is there another way to express condemnation of the president's activities with regard to the riot and the pressure that he put on state officials?”

Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

Posted in Uncategorized

President Biden issues flurry of new executive orders commanding action on climate

The executive orders that President Joe Biden signed today demonstrate his seriousness on the climate crisis. Adding to the fact that he has already appointed more people to positions with “climate” in their title than any president before him and has rejoined the Paris climate agreement, Biden today moved to prohibit more drilling for gas and oil on public lands, make climate change a top national security matter, conserve 30% of federal lands and oceans by 2030, cut greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector to net-zero by 2035, reach net-zero carbon emissions for the whole economy by 2050, form a civilian climate corps, and host a climate leaders summit on April 22, Earth Day. These moves, among many others including a focus on environmental justice, will mark the most significant change in U.S. environment and energy policies since the first Earth Day in 1970. 

In a speech prefacing the signing of the orders today, Biden delivered a climate message from the White House that we have not heard with such fervor ever before. His focus on well-paying jobs, people’s improved health from the elimination of fossil fuel pollution, and the transformation of our crumbling, outdated infrastructure into a green economy ought to bring smiles nationwide. But as serious as Biden is showing himself to be on this matter, as bold as the changes he has put forth are, as encouraging as the appointments are, and as much as he should be applauded for moving rapidly and early in his administration with these actions, they still aren’t enough. Many additional steps will need to be taken. Biden was, of course, right today when he said, “We have already waited too long” to address the climate crisis, which is a “existential threat.” What a difference it makes to have this kind of talk from the White House after four years of malicious idiocy on the subject.

But despite this tremendously encouraging change of direction, despite these first steps, Biden rejected Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s call for him to declare the climate crisis a national emergency, because it most certainly is. Biden should reconsider his opposition. "I think it might be a good idea for President Biden to call a climate emergency," Schumer said. "Then he can do many, many things under the emergency powers of the president that he could do ... without legislation."

Executive orders, as we saw in the Trump regime, can have large impacts. But they are reversible by a future president and, while they matter, they aren’t sufficient to achieve all that is necessary. And Congress—still brimming over with climate science deniers and other lawmakers who don’t deny the scientific consensus but nevertheless have for years dragged their feet on addressing climate—is going to be a major obstacle on legislation, despite Democrats being in charge in the Senate. 

This will be especially the case when it comes to investing federal funds to accomplish the necessary transformation of our transportation, agricultural, and energy systems away from dependence on burning fossil fuels that are also burning up the planet. That opposition, if congressional Democrats cannot overcome it, may eventually sway Biden to follow Schumer’s good advice.

Among the executive orders issued today is the assigning of Avril Haines, the newly installed director of national intelligence, to oversee the crafting of the nation’s first National Intelligence Estimate on climate change.

Biden is also imposing a one-year freeze on new federal oil and gas leases. The immediate impact on greenhouse gas emissions of that will be relatively small. For one thing, companies have stockpiled leases, with 26 million acres of public land now under lease, although the vast majority of that is not being drilled. Lawsuits can nevertheless be expected under the century-old Mineral Leasing Act that requires oil, gas, and coal on public lands be leased for auction. "I suspect there will be litigation if they try to cancel all future oil and gas sales," Mark Squillace, a law professor who served in the Interior Department during the Clinton administration, told E&E News.

Getting to net-zero emissions in the electricity sector in 15 years is possible, but it will take a massive effort. A report released in December by Princeton University researchers—"Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts”—laid out potential paths on this conversion. "The transformation of our national energy infrastructure ... is not going to be easy," Jesse Jenkins, one of the Princeton analysts, told the meeting of the steering committee of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). "The good news is it looks like we have the tools. It's technically feasible." The Princeton study estimates that the nation needs to add an average of 60,000 megawatts of wind and solar generation a year for a decade to reach carbon goals, nearly twice the level gained in 2020.

Another executive order issued today establishes a "Civilian Climate Corps Initiative" that will work to restore public lands and waters and address climate change. This is a modern version of the Great Depression’s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), a reinvention that some congressional lawmakers have proposed recently. The original CCC provided employment and job training to 3 million Americans between 1933 and 1942. 

In a statement, National Wildlife Federation President and CEO Collin O'Mara said, "What better way to put millions of Americans to work and build back better than by restoring our forests, grasslands, wetlands, and coastal areas to bolster resilience, sequester carbon, and recover imperiled wildlife populations through a revitalized 21st century Civilian Conservation Corps and a commitment to restore 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030?"

Just a week after swearing the oath of office, President Biden has given climate hawks and other environmental advocates good reason to be pleased Wednesday even if some matters—such as repeating that he will not end fracking—caused clenched teeth in some quarters. With such exceptions, the Biden-Harris team is assertively steering us down the right road to address the climate crisis with a comprehensive transformation of our economy and environment. 

That’s a huge switch after 30 years of obstruction and dilly-dallying by lawmakers in both parties. Grassroots climate activists still have a big task ahead of us in helping to expand, hone, and achieve the goals the White House is setting forth. And that will mean a tough, continuing fight with some of the same foes whose past actions have put us in the dire climate circumstances we find ourselves in. We can do it. We have to.