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.

Rules for second impeachment trial have been set, with House managers to begin their case on Weds.

On Monday evening, House impeachment managers, Senate leadership, and Donald Trump’s legal team reached agreement on the rules under which the impeachment trial will proceed. In many ways, the trial will look like the one that followed Trump’s first impeachment: Each side will have up to 16 hours over two days to present their case, there will be a period of debate in which senators can submit written questions to either side, then the Senate will vote on whether to hear from witnesses. That last vote will happen only if the House impeachment managers request witnesses, and at the moment it doesn’t appear this will be the case because the crimes Trump committed were done in front of the nation, and every senator and representative present bore witness to the results of those crimes.

The rules for the trial will be voted on in the Senate on Tuesday. Assuming everything goes as expected, House managers will begin presenting their case on Wednesday. But as the Senate heads into the second impeachment trial in a year, Trump is looking for more than an acquittal from Republicans. He’s looking for a vote that confirms the party is his, now and forever.

As The Washington Post reports, the stage is set for a trial over what are by far the most serious impeachment charges ever to be considered. Last year, Donald Trump was impeached for using his office in an attempt to extort the leader of a foreign government into interfering in a United States election. It appeared to be—and was—a clear case of violating the oath of office, exploiting the power of the presidency for personal gain, and threatening an allied nation to generate false claims against a political opponent.

In that Senate trial, Republicans signaled Trump that their support was absolute, and that they would not even consider the evidence against him. Bolstered by the knowledge that he was free to do as he pleased, Trump went on to spend the period before the election preparing his followers with this message: “The only way we can lose this election is if it’s rigged.” Trump delivered this statement not once but dozens of times at rallies, on Twitter, and before the media. When Trump did lose the election—by a wide margin—he doubled down on the idea that the election wasn’t valid, repeatedly attempted to overturn the results, and drove his followers with claims that ultimately generated the events on Jan. 6.

Now Trump is hoping to do it again. According to the Post, Trump’s lawyers will continue to argue that the Senate trial is somehow unconstitutional. To do so, they’ve leaned heavily on statements from Michigan State University Professor Brian Kalt, citing Kalt’s statements in both sets of replies they have provided to the House charges. However, as NPR reports, the statements aren’t just taken out of context. They’ve been turned inside out.

"The worst part is the three places where they said I said something when, in fact, I said the opposite," Kalt said in an interview with NPR.

Kalt’s argument is not that someone’s impeachment trial can’t go forward after they’re out of office, but that they can’t be impeached for actions taken while out of office. He also argues that impeachment is about more than just removal, though his work is cited by Trump’s attorneys as if he claims the reverse.

But it doesn’t matter that there’s not real support for the claim that Trump can’t be tried over crimes which he carried out in office, and for which he was impeached while still in office. What’s important is that Republicans intend to use this claim of “big constitutional issues” to simply ignore all evidence put forward against Trump. Just as with the 2020 trial, Republicans have already set up Trump’s “Get Out of Jail Free” card and are prepared to execute on that plan no matter what evidence the House managers provide.

The end result is that Donald Trump expects to emerge from this trial, as he did in 2020, with an even firmer control of the Republican Party. As Politico reports, the Republican Party has already “coalesced back behind” the “Teflon” Trump. Trump and his allies are confident that he will emerge from the trial as the only real power in the party, able to punish every Republican who doesn’t go along with his acquittal.

Trump’s not wrong. Criminals have long known that the best way to secure the loyalty of others is to involve them in a crime. It’s not just the people on the receiving end of knuckle-breaking goons who fall in line. Once you’re a goon, it’s very, very hard to ever be human again. 

In 2020, Senate Republicans went along with Trump’s crimes against an American ally and American elections. In 2021, they’re expected to sign on again, this time to the destruction of democracy and sedition.

And how do you come back from that?

Liz Cheney Says ‘Massive Criminal Investigation’ Underway Into Whether Trump Incited ‘Premeditated Violence’ At The Capitol

Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) claims there is a “massive criminal investigation underway” to determine if former President Trump is guilty of inciting “premeditated” violence on the Capitol.

Cheney made the startling assertion during an interview on “Fox News Sunday” with Chris Wallace.

The Republican lawmaker urged her colleagues in the Senate to consider the evidence that would be put forth during the upcoming impeachment trial.

“If I was in the Senate, I would listen to the evidence,” she said. “I think that is the role the Senate has as jurors.”

“I would also point out that the Senate trial is a snapshot. There’s a massive criminal investigation underway,” continued Cheney. “There will be a massive criminal investigation of everything that happened on Jan. 6 and in the days before.”

RELATED: Explosive TIME Magazine Investigation: “Well-Funded Cabal” Worked To Change Election Laws, Control Flow Of Information

Liz Cheney – Trump the Subject of a Massive Criminal Investigation

Rep. Liz Cheney went on to suggest that the criminal investigation into Trump’s alleged role in the Capitol riots was to determine whether or not his actions were “premeditated.”

“People will want to know exactly what the president was doing,” Cheney said referencing a tweet in which the former President criticized vice president Mike Pence for not being courageous in combating the election results.

People “will want to know … whether that tweet, for example, was a premeditated effort to provoke violence,” she claimed.

Cheney’s rantings are nearly indiscernible from those of her colleague Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) who claims Trump should face premeditated murder charges for his alleged role in the riots.

“There’s information that some of the planning came out of individuals working in his campaign,” Waters said.

“As a matter of fact, he absolutely should be charged with premeditated murder because of the lives that were lost with this invasion, with this insurrection.”

Not an ounce of difference between what Waters has said and what Liz Cheney is trying to say with her criminal investigation comments about Trump.

RELATED: Maxine Waters Wants Trump Charged With ‘Premeditated Murder’

Claims No Future For Trump in the Republican Party

Liz Cheney, during her interview with Wallace, went on to claim that Donald Trump has no future in the Republican party.

“Somebody who has provoked an attack on the United States Capitol to prevent the counting of electoral votes, which resulted in five people dying, who refused to stand up immediately when he was asked to stop the violence, that is a person who does not have a role as the leader of our party going forward,” she said.

“We should not be embracing the former president.”

The reality, however, suggests it is Cheney and the anti-Trump Republicans who are not being embraced by Republican voters.

One poll, released last month, shows a vast majority of Republicans do not hold Trump responsible for the Capitol riots, and a staggering 92 percent still see him as their preferred nominee in 2024.

Another poll shows an overwhelming percentage of Republican voters would follow him to a new political party if need be.

Cheney, one of the few Republicans to join the Democrats in their impeachment charade, was censured by the Wyoming Republican Party for her actions.

Former Clinton campaign adviser Dick Morris recently told Newsmax that she “has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting reelected.”

The post Liz Cheney Says ‘Massive Criminal Investigation’ Underway Into Whether Trump Incited ‘Premeditated Violence’ At The Capitol appeared first on The Political Insider.

Matt Gaetz Reveals How Democrats Made Marjorie Taylor Greene Possibly ‘Most Powerful’ Republican In Congress

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) went on Fox News on Friday to reveal how he feels that Democrats’ efforts to take down Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) have backfired on them.

Gaetz Issues Warning About Greene

After Democrats successfully ousted Greene from her committees, Gaetz warned that they had made her “possibly one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress.” Not stopping there, he said that they had definitely made her “the most powerful freshman in Congress.”

“Bravo, Marjorie Taylor Greene,” Gaetz said in response to her last press conference. “That was so good I almost had to smoke a cigarette afterward. She was policy-focused; she was graceful. I think she pointed out the hypocrisy in the media.”

“Most importantly … we saw that yesterday Democrats made Marjorie Taylor Greene certainly the most powerful freshman in Congress and possibly one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress,” he added.

Related: Rashida Tlaib: Any Republicans Who Support Marjorie Taylor Greene Support White Supremacy

Gaetz Doubles Down

“What other freshman could command a press conference like that and get it carried live with the opportunity to share the views and values that emanate from their district?” Gaetz questioned. 

“Marjorie is off the proverbial leash right now,” Gaetz concluded. “I think she’s going to be a major communicator.”

“And if she shows the grace and the focus and the attention to policies that matter to everyday Americans like she did in that press conference, she is going to be a very successful congresswoman,” he said.

Related: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasts ‘Hate America Democrats’ As Vote To Remove Her From Committees Is Confirmed

Greene Speaks Out

Greene took to Twitter on Friday morning to say, “I woke up early this morning literally laughing thinking about what a bunch of morons the Democrats (+11) are for giving some one like me free time.”

“In this Democrat tyrannical government, Conservative Republicans have no say on committees anyway,” she added. “Oh this is going to be fun!”

During her press conference, Greene claimed that Democrats have “stripped my district of their voice” by removing her from the committees, according to the BBC. She also blasted the Democratic-run government as “tyrannically controlled” and denounced the upcoming Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

Greene went on to go after the media for “addicting people to hate”.

This piece was written by James Samson on February 5, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Says It’s Trump’s Fault After Teachers Union Stops Schools From Reopening
Trump Resigns From SAG-AFTRA With Epic Letter Blasting Its ‘Dismal Record As A Union’
Former AOC Staffers Launch Plan To Take Down Moderate Dems – Make Room For Far-Left Agenda

The post Matt Gaetz Reveals How Democrats Made Marjorie Taylor Greene Possibly ‘Most Powerful’ Republican In Congress appeared first on The Political Insider.