Everyone would prefer no witnesses at Trump’s second impeachment, but Trump is making it hard

Republicans are desperate to have no witness testimony at Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial. They’d much rather run on the pretense that the whole thing is unconstitutional for mumble mumble reasons, and power through the whole of the presentation from the House impeachment managers with hands clamped tightly over their ears. After all, as long as they can pretend to be voting on a technical issue about impeachment, it’s less obvious that they’re actually signing on as full participants in sedition.

On the other hand, Democrats in both the House and Senate seem content to also run the impeachment trial without witnesses. Part of that comes from a concern that if there is a trial stretching out for weeks, Republicans will be on television every day pounding the “the Senate is getting nothing done because of this trial” drum—and ignoring the fact that “getting nothing done” was the definition of almost every day that Mitch McConnell controlled the Senate. Democrats also feel like they already have a solid case against Trump without needing testimony. After all … what he’s accused of is an event that everyone in the nation saw unfold. Every member of the House and Senate was a witness.

But the one person who seems determined to force the House impeachment managers to call witnesses against Trump is … Trump. That’s because the direction he’s taking his legal defense practically screams with the need to bring in people who can explain the truth.

Over the last week, Trump’s legal team and the House impeachment managers have filed a series of letters and replies. In the latest of these, the House team walked through the response that Trump’s attorneys made to the original statement from the impeachment managers. 

The first three-fourths of that response lean heavily on the idea that trying Trump after his term in office has expired is not constitutional. It’s an argument that is based largely on quotes taken from work by Michigan State University Professor Brian Kalt, only every single instance has been taken out of context, or misquoted, to completely reverse the intention of Kalt’s readings. That alone may be enough to nudge House managers into calling a witness, because having Kalt appear to take apart the statements by Trump’s legal team has to be tempting—especially since this house of straw is the shelter where every Republican in the Senate is hiding from the big bad wolf of facts.

But there are actually two other parts of Trump’s defense that are even more tempting, both when it comes to calling witnesses and focusing the the case by the House.

First, Trump’s team has inserted into the response the claim that Trump felt “horrible” about the events on Jan. 6, and “immediately” took action to secure the Capitol. That’s pretty amazing, because the most “immediate” response that Trump seems to have taken was to focus the attack on Mike Pence. Ten minutes after the first insurgents smashed their way into the Capitol building, Trump tweeted this:

"Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!"

It was an hour and a half later that the announcement was made that National Guard forces were on their way to the Capitol. And that announcement cited approval by Pence. There was no mention of Trump. There were multiple phone calls and communications that afternoon between the Pentagon, local officials, police leadership, and Pence. Not one of these calls seems to have involved Trump.

As The Washington Post has reported, “Trump was initially pleased” by the assault on the Capitol and the resulting halt in the counting of electoral votes. According to Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, Trump was “walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building.” Witnesses said that Trump “belatedly and reluctantly” called for peace only after ignoring people both inside and outside the White House trying to get him to stop his supporters. Then, when Trump finally appeared before the public—following a demand that he do so by Joe Biden—Trump told the people smearing feces along the halls of Congress, “We love you, you’re very special.” 

The claims that Trump was immediately horrified and that he acted quickly to restore order are both clearly contradicted by events and statements on that day. In making these claims, Trump’s legal team makes it more likely that witnesses will be summoned to directly counter these false statements and show that Trump is still lying to the American people.

But there’s one last thing about Trump’s final response that may make it even more necessary to call witnesses, no matter what kind of strange threat Lindsey Graham makes. That’s because Trump has apparently made it clear to his attorneys that at no point can they admit he lost the election. Instead, as The Daily Beast reports, every mention of President Biden is only as “former Vice President Joe Biden” and at no time can the attorneys admit that Trump’s lies about voting machines, dead people voting, truckloads of ballots, sharpies affecting outcomes, or any of the other conspiracy theories raised over the course of months … are lies.

Trump is insisting on running a defense that doesn’t just make false claims about his actions on Jan. 6, but one that extends his incitement to violence right into the impeachment trial itself. And that needs to be made clear enough that no flimsy shelter of “we’re only here to talk about technical issues” can protect Republicans when they give the last scrap of their party to Trump.

Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial opens with a familiar question: Live coverage #1

The second impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump—this time for inciting an insurrection—kicks off Tuesday with four hours of argument on whether it’s constitutional to hold an impeachment trial for someone who is no longer in office. If that sounds familiar, it’s because the Senate already voted once on this question, with five Republicans joining Democrats to say yes, it is.

The quality of the Trump team’s argument was previewed when one of the lawyers they cited in a pre-trial document said they misrepresented his work.

Assuming Republicans once again join Democrats in moving the trial forward, the coming days will bring up to 16 hours of arguments over two days from both the House impeachment managers and Trump’s defense team, followed by up to four hours of questions from senators, possibly followed by debate over whether to allow witnesses and subpoenas.

At no point should we lose sight of the fact that this trial is about an insurrection aimed at preventing Congress from certifying the presidential election, in which five people lost their lives.

Tuesday, Feb 9, 2021 · 6:11:06 PM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

Things kick off with a procedural vote on the rules for the trial—that were agreed upon by the House Managers, Democratic and Republican senate leadership, and Trump’s legal team—so naturally the usual suspects will be voting no. 

Tuesday, Feb 9, 2021 · 6:20:00 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

The sedition caucus voting against the rules for the trial: 11 Republicans voted Cruz (TX), Hawley (MO), Hagerty (TN), Johnson (WI), Lee (UT), Marshall (KS), Paul (KY), Rubio (FL), Scott (FL), Scott (SC) and Tuberville (AL)

Tuesday, Feb 9, 2021 · 6:27:48 PM +00:00 · Laura Clawson

The House managers are showing video evidence that stitches together what was happening in the House and Senate chambers with the approaching mob. The message to Republican senators: This is what was coming for you as you tried to do your jobs.

Tuesday, Feb 9, 2021 · 6:31:45 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

The video from the House managers is incredibly shocking and disturbing, even if you watched every moment of video coverage on Jan. 6.

Tuesday, Feb 9, 2021 · 6:33:18 PM +00:00 · Hunter

Here’s part of the powerful video House managers are presenting. We’ll be posting it in full when available.

Tuesday, Feb 9, 2021 · 6:34:27 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

Raskin, after the video: "You ask what high crime…and misdemeanor is, that's what a high crime and misdemeanor is under the Constitution."

Tuesday, Feb 9, 2021 · 6:42:44 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

Raskin: "President Trump may not know much about the Framers, but they knew a lot about him."

— emptywheel (@emptywheel) February 9, 2021

Tuesday, Feb 9, 2021 · 6:51:17 PM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

Here’s the video presentation (shown in two parts). Graphic images and language:

Constitutional Professor: Why Senate Cannot Bar Trump From Being President Again

By James Sieja for RealClearPolitics

Perhaps they are thinking about the next election or their political legacies, but Democrats and some Republicans intent on impeaching and convicting former President Donald Trump are not reading the Constitution correctly. 

When the Senate trial begins Monday, there will be lots of grandstanding and lawyerly pettifogging, and we will find out if Democrats can convince 17 Republicans that they need to convict the former president. 

Fortunately, I don’t think they’ll succeed. I say fortunately because impeaching Trump would be wrong, constitutionally speaking. 

RELATED: Trump Lawyer’s Demand Senate Impeachment Trial Be Dismissed, Top Dem Admits ‘Not Crazy To Argue’ It’s Unconstitutional

Forty-five Republicans recently voted that this second Trump impeachment trial is in itself unconstitutional. They are incorrect. 

The bipartisan group of 55 senators who voted to proceed to the trial think that the Senate can apply a sanction after conviction. Constitutionally, they’re wrong, too. 

Republicans are wrong because the plain text of the Constitution, as Michael McConnell, a Stanford professor and former federal judge, points out, makes no exceptions or qualifications to either the House’s “sole power of impeachment” or the Senate’s “sole power to try all impeachments.” 

Therefore, the Senate clearly has the power — what legal scholars call jurisdiction — to try the case. 

But, jurisdiction is not the only consideration enshrined in constitutional law.

Two other concepts, standing and justiciability, are central to any court’s decision-making at the beginning of a case. Along with jurisdiction, courts call them, collectively, “threshold questions.” 

Because senators, especially the ones looking to convict, exercise judicial power when they try any impeachment, they would do well to take seriously the requirements for standing and the Supreme Court’s rules for justiciability. 

Standing refers to someone’s ability to bring a case to court in the first place. In the 1992 case Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the late Justice Antonin Scalia listed three factors that comprise the “irreducible constitutional minimum” basis for standing.

While people probably know Justice Scalia for his acerbic dissents, the Lujan majority today is likely his most widely cited uncontroversial opinion. 

In the second Trump impeachment, the relevant element of the Lujan trio is the last one: The court must be able to give a final, binding judgment to the party that wants a punishment.

RELATED: Rand Paul Roasts Hypocrisy Of Impeaching Trump, Doing Nothing About Chuck Schumer, Waters, And Omar

The House wants to punish Trump for his actions. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution plainly declares the required punishment: “The president … shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of … high crimes and misdemeanors.”

“Shall” means it must happen. The Senate can’t remove Trump from a position he no longer holds, which means it can’t punish him. Thus, the House lacks standing. 

To be clear, the House retained standing while Trump retained the presidency. But, once he left, the case became moot — purely a matter for discussion, like the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

“Wait!” supporters of conviction cry out. “There’s also the bit in Article I about disqualifying a person who’s been impeached from holding office ever again.”

That is true, but the passage doesn’t improve the logic of a post-presidency Senate punishment in the least. No matter how long we “Wait!” the Senate will still not be able to render the required punishment, so the standing problem remains. 

More importantly, the disqualification punishment presents a justiciability question. Justiciability refers to the ability of a court to effectively resolve the case.

Over several cases, the Supreme Court has identified a bunch of factors that lead to justiciability issues, but all of them stem from a single idea: It’s not the court’s job to decide this, but rather it’s somebody else’s job. 

If the Senate tried to disqualify Trump from holding the presidency again, it would arrogate a privilege — determining who will not be president — that the Constitution explicitly reserves to another body: We the People.

Thus, there is a clear justiciability problem with disqualification if it tries to block anyone — Trump, you, me, anyone — from winning the presidency or other elected office. 

RELATED: Hiding Biden: How Democrats Crafted First Impeachment, Helping Defeat Trump With Media Help

Alexander Hamilton declared that the Constitution stood for the idea “that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.”

However imperfectly, this is what we do in districts and states throughout the country. And we choose through the Electoral College, a defense of which the current impeachment ironically springs from.

For the House and Senate, a mere 535 citizens, to absolutely bar nearly 160 million from a completely free electoral choice turns the Constitution upside down. 

Ultimately, the Senate can exercise its clear jurisdiction to hear the case, complete with senatorial bloviations, and lawyerly dodges.

But, if the outcome is anything other than the status quo ante, meaning Trump remains eligible for the presidency in the future, the Senate will deal a grave blow to not just the Constitution but to every member of We the People who thinks they still have a choice.

Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

James Sieja, assistant professor of government at St. Lawrence University, studies the federal court system and teaches courses in the U.S. Constitution.

The post Constitutional Professor: Why Senate Cannot Bar Trump From Being President Again appeared first on The Political Insider.

Meghan McCain Calls Bashing Liz Cheney, Pro-Impeachment Republicans A ‘Losing Strategy’

“The View” co-host Meghan McCain said on Monday that reports of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy asking Congresswoman Liz Cheney to apologize for her vote to impeach former President Donald Trump was concerning.

McCain said Republican leadership taking this route was a “losing strategy.”

Watch the video below.

RELATED: Trump Lawyer’s Demand Senate Impeachment Trial Be Dismissed, Top Dem Admits ‘Not Crazy To Argue’ It’s Unconstitutional

McCain On Cheney’s Impeachment Vote: ‘She Has Nothing To Apologize For’

McCain said on ABC, “There was a really interesting report that came out in Axios over the weekend that said that Kevin McCarthy actually asked her to apologize for voting for impeachment, and she said that.”

“She said people in the caucus asked me to apologize, and she said that publicly,” McCain said.

According to Axios, before the GOP conference met to decide the fates of Cheney and Marjorie Taylor Greene, GOP House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy had asked Cheney to apologize.

McCain said it worries her that McCarthy or any other Republican would think that voting for impeachment was something to apologize for.

“It’s interesting to know that it’s the leader of the caucus that asked her to do that, and she defiantly said she won’t apologize, and she has nothing to apologize for,” McCain insisted.

McCain Is Worried About The ‘Liz Cheneys Of The Party,’ Including Herself

She continued, “I now am feeling very concerned about the fact that the leader of Republicans in Congress seems to think that if you are for impeachment, you have something to apologize for and atone for, and I do think that’s a losing strategy.”

McCain is worried there isn’t enough love for the “Liz Cheneys of the party,” and included herself in the same category as Cheney.

“I’m very skeptical of the big-tent party narrative right now because it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of love for the Liz Cheneys of the party,” McCain complained, adding, “which I guess at this point includes me.”

RELATED: Sunny Hostin Confronts CNN’s Van Jones On ‘The View’ – ‘People In The Black Community Don’t Trust You Anymore’

McCain Calls Cheney A ‘Red-blooded Conservative’

“The View” co-host also added that she is worried about the future of the GOP when a “red-blooded conservative” like Cheney can be treated this way.

“I’m very skeptical of the promises that we will respect the Liz Cheneys after this,” McCain said. “My question is, how long until we start trashing her?”

“I think she’s doing good work now, but at a certain point, she’s a red-blooded conservative,” McCain insisted. “She’s not a squish or a RINO.”

“She is not someone in the middle,” McCain finished.

McCain and Cheney exemplify what many in the conservative movement consider the Establishment of the GOP, who are out of step with the base that largely aligns with President Trump. 

In a measure of how out of step she may be, Cheney has been censured by the Wyoming state Republican Party, and at least 10 County Republican Parties in Wyoming for her vote to impeach Trump. 

Commentator Dick Morris recently said Cheney has a ‘snowball’s chance in Hell’ at getting re-elected.

RELATED: If Republicans Put America First, They’ll Remove Liz Cheney, Not Donald Trump

Watch the segment here:

The post Meghan McCain Calls Bashing Liz Cheney, Pro-Impeachment Republicans A ‘Losing Strategy’ appeared first on The Political Insider.

Just a fraction of Americans think U.S. democracy is working well

Americans are broadly worried about the state of our democracy, according to a new poll released from the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

A plurality of 45% of respondents say it's either not working "too well" or not working "well at all," according to the poll, while just 16% of Americans believe democracy is working "well" or "extremely well." Another 38% are somewhere in between, saying it's working "somewhat well."

On a slightly brighter side, a majority of Americans (54%) are optimistic that the country has a bright future and its best days are yet to come, while 45% say the country's best days are behind it. Those numbers have remained roughly stable since last fall, when the outlet asked the same question in October 2020.

Two-thirds of respondents also said Joe Biden was legitimately elected while 33% said he wasn't; 61% also approve of the way Biden is handling his job as president.

Meanwhile, respondents widely shared the belief that the following principles are essential to the identity of the U.S.:

  • 88%, a fair judicial system and the rule of law
  • 85%, individual liberties and freedoms as defined by the Constitution
  • 83%, the ability of people living here to get good jobs and achieve the American dream
  • 80%, a democratically elected government

A separate poll from the ABC News/Ipsos found that 56% of Americans say Trump should be convicted and barred from holding office again, and 43% say he should not be. The finding comes on the eve of Trump’s impeachment trial and figures worse for him than polling from just before his last impeachment trial, when an ABC/Washington Post poll found 47% of Americans said the Senate should vote to convict Trump and remove him from office while 49% said he should not be removed from office.

Congress irons out final details on the eve of Trump’s historic impeachment trial

Congress and the American people are preparing for the Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, which is set to begin on Tuesday. It's a historic first for the nation, as a president has never been impeached twice. Yamiche Alcindor and Lisa Desjardins join Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest.

Tamara Keith and Amy Walter on Trump’s impeachment and his enduring influence

NPR's Tamara Keith and Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report join Judy Woodruff to discuss the latest political news, including how former President Trump's second impeachment trial will be different from the first, how partisanship plays in to the trial, Trump's continued influence on the Republican Party and President Biden's relief plan.