The evidence, some circumstantial and some of it tangible, keeps piling up.
Donald Trump is looking more each day like someone who incited a coup d’ etat against the U.S. government.
His allies in both congressional chambers are now admitting to being duped into thinking Trump would concede the 2020 election if he lost. Then he actually lost it bigly to President Biden and he then challenged the outcome of the vote. He called it rigged; he trotted out phony vote fraud allegations.
Then came the events of the Sixth of January. He exhorted the mob of terrorists/rioters to march on Capitol Hill and “take back” the government. The terrorists attacked with force.
The House of Representatives impeached Trump a week later. He now is preparing to stand trial in the Senate even though he no longer is in office.
The question keeps boiling up: Will the Senate Republican caucus muster up the guts to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection or will it hide behind the dubious defense that the trial is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer in office?
Folks, we need to clear up a thing or three about the U.S. Senate trial that awaits us next week.
Donald Trump’s legal team is arguing that the trial is unconstitutional because a former president cannot be impeached. Hold on, ladies and gentlemen!
Donald Trump vacated the U.S. presidency on Jan. 20. The House of Representatives impeached him a week earlier, on Jan. 13. The impeachment occurred one week after Trump incited a riotous mob to storm Capitol Hill, seeking to prevent Congress from fulfilling its constitutional duty to certify that President Biden won the 2020 election.
Do you see where I’m going with this? Talk of impeaching a “former president” misses the mark by a Texas mile. The House did not impeach someone who had already left office; Trump was still in office when the House delivered the “yes” vote on impeachment.
So, let us remove impeachment from the discussion. It was done legally and constitutionally.
What’s at stake is the Senate trial, which is a separate quasi-legal/political function.
What does the Constitution say about that? It says that the Senate has the sole authority to put a president on trial. A conviction can result in no punishment greater than removal from office, the document notes; that means, as I read it, that it can convict a former president and can establish in a separate vote whether that individual should be barred from seeking public office in the future.
Let us cease conflating impeachment with the trial. The first event has happened. The second one will commence soon.
Republicans in Congress want to “move on” from the events of the Sixth of January. They are calling now for “unity” in the nation, that Americans do not want to see Donald Trump put on trial for inciting an insurrection against the government of this great nation.
I don’t think I will move on. Nor should any of us put the horrendous events of that terrible incident behind us. We need a full, thorough hearing on what the nation witnessed in real time and the U.S. Senate needs to put all its members on record on whether they believe Donald Trump committed a crime on that momentous day.
The Senate is preparing to conduct the second impeachment trial on Donald Trump’s conduct as president. The Senate acquitted him in early 2020 on charges of abuse of power and of obstruction of Congress.
Now comes this event. To my way of thinking, what Donald Trump did on Jan. 6 was tantamount to launching an attempt coup against the government. The terrorist mob marched on Capitol Hill with many terrorists intent on harming Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Their “crime”? They were presiding over Congress’s sworn duty to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election, which Joe Biden won.
Is it really time to “move on” from this incident? Do we just throw up our hands and say that none of it matters any longer just because Trump is no longer in office? Good God in heaven, no!
I say this understanding that Trump is likely to walk away once again with an acquittal. That outcome will cause me some internal grief, but I’ll get over it.
There must be a full hearing of what Trump did that day. What the mobsters did in response to his egging them on. The consequences of what could have occurred had they achieved their stated aim of overturning a free and fair election.
They attacked our democratic process.
Once we hear it all, every detail of it, only then can we move on.
Donald Trump’s Senate suck-ups are making what I believe is a specious argument about the constitutionality of a pending Senate trial of the former president of the United States.
Here is what the nation’s founding government document says about impeachment in Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to the law.
That in effect is the sum of what the Constitution lays out.
Trump is going to stand trial a second time. The Senate acquitted him the first time on multiple charges of abuse of power and coercing a foreign government. This time he is standing trial on a single charge that he incited an insurrection.
He left office on Jan. 20, meaning that he cannot be “removed” from an office he no longer occupies.
But let’s parse the language of what the founders wrote, OK?
They wrote that “judgment shall not extend further than to removal from Office.” The way I read that clause means that removal from office is the maximum punishment that a conviction that deliver. It doesn’t preclude any other judgment.
If one is to take an “originalist” view of the Constitution — acknowledging what the founders intended when they wrote it — then one could presume that the brilliant men who crafted the document would accept the idea of putting a former president on trial.
But … the suck-ups in the Senate are likely to stand firm in their cowardly attempt to curry favor with Donald Trump’s lunatic base of voters who would threaten them if they do the right thing.
Under normal, legal circumstances the decision by Donald Trump’s legal team to bale out of a pending defense of their client would have me clapping my hands.
As idiotic as the former president’s strategy reportedly is playing out, though, I am going to withhold any hope that there might be an actual conviction coming from the upcoming trial in the U.S. Senate.
Trump is getting ready to stand trial on a charge that he incited the insurrection that occurred on the Sixth of January. He did as has been accused. I saw it. You saw it. The world saw Trump whip the crowd into a frenzy before it marched on Capitol Hill. The House impeached him for it. The Senate will put him on trial even though he has left office.
Trump’s legal team exited the scene reportedly over a disagreement with its client on defense strategy. The lawyers wanted to defend Trump on the basis of a constitutional argument, that the impeachment trial doesn’t fit the Constitution’s provision for removal from office if a conviction is the result. I believe that’s a long shot legal argument.
But then we have Trump wanting the legal eagles to argue on the basis of The Big Lie, that there was widespread vote fraud in the 2020 presidential election. They declined. Then they walked. Who can blame them? Trump’s argument is moronic in the extreme.
So now Trump has no legal team to defend him against the House impeachment. Should he sweat it? No. Why? Because this isn’t strictly a legal trial being conducted in a court of law. The Senate is going to deliver, more than likely, a political verdict. Senators likely already have made up their mind. Heck, 45 GOP senators voted that the trial is unconstitutional, which suggests to me that the Senate is far from likely to convict, given that the Constitution calls for 67 senators to vote for it; a 50-50 Senate split requires 17 Republicans to make that call.
About the only thing the reporting of the lawyers bugging out tells me is that Trump is clinging to a ridiculous notion that has nothing to do with the issue at hand: Did he incite the terrorist mob to attack the Capitol with the intent of stopping Congress from certifying President Biden’s victory in the 2020 election?
President Biden has gone on the record, saying he wants Donald Trump’s Senate trial done quickly, that there is no compelling need to drag this charade any longer than necessary.
I agree with him.
It’s probably no stretch to presume that Joe Biden shares the views of many millions of Americans who want the Senate to convict the former president, even though removal from office no longer is possible. I damn sure want him convicted. I also want the Senate to approve a provision that bans Trump from seeking public office ever again.
A 55-45 vote in the Senate the other day, though, likely spelled doom for a conviction. Only five GOP senators joined their Democratic colleagues in determining that the trial is constitutional.
Back to the president’s point about a speedy trial. Yes, I am weary of presidential impeachment talk, of the morass it creates. As for President Biden urging a swift outcome, it is because he has an aggressive COVID relief agenda he wants Congress to enact. He wants to get the legislative branch on the fast track to providing economic relief, not to mention getting the nation on the road to full recovery from the killer pandemic.
A drawn-out impeachment trial would take senators’ eyes off the legislative prize.
Let’s get real for just a moment, too.
Gutlessness is alive in both houses of Congress. The 10 Republican House members who voted to impeach Trump are facing the wrath of constituents back home. That electoral anger frightened other House members into doing what they likely know is right, that Donald Trump incited a riot that could have resulted in many casualties than it did. Still, the House impeached Trump.
As for the trial, the Constitution requires two-thirds of senators to convict. The bar is high, as it should be. However, the cowardice that too many House members exhibited is showing itself in the Senate.
A second Senate acquittal of the corrupt, amoral and moronic former president now appears to be a fait accompli. There is no need, therefore, to drag this charade on.
What about Donald Trump’s political future? My strong hope is that he sealed it with his hideous post-election response, his fomenting of the Big Lie about widespread vote fraud that did not exist.
I stand with President Biden in wanting a quick end to this chapter. Then Congress can get to work seeking an end to the pandemic and rescuing a collapsing economy.
Have we just witnessed a precursor to the verdict we can expect from the U.S. Senate that is putting Donald Trump on trial after his second impeachment by the House of Representatives?
I am afraid so. The Senate voted today to narrowly defeat a GOP measure to dismiss the trial on grounds that it isn’t constitutional. Five Senate Republicans joined Democrats in moving ahead. The vote was 55-45. The GOP senators with guts are: Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Pat Toomey and Ben Sasse.
The rest of ’em? All cowards. They are cowering under threat of reprisal by the Trump cultists in their home state who will go after them at the next election.
They contend that the Constitution calls for impeachment to remove a president. Donald Trump already is gone, they say, so the trial is irrelevant and is unconstitutional.
Oh, my. Forty-five out of 50 Senate Republicans want to give a pass to a president who fomented a riotous mob into violence on the Sixth of January. What in the world is wrong with these idiots, er … individuals?
The terrorists captured the very floor of the Senate, where our lawmakers do their jobs. They threatened to kill then-Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, only God knows who else might have been killed or wounded in action had the rioters had gotten their hands on them.
None of that is sufficient to persuade most GOP senators to proceed with a trial that should occur, if only at this point to keep Donald Trump out of the political scene … for the rest of his miserable life.
Stay tuned, folks. It looks to me as though a Senate trial conviction is slipping away.
Donald Trump’s defense in his second impeachment trial is beginning to take shape.
It will not center on the high crime for which the House of Representatives impeached him. What he did was visible on TV screens around the world: He incited the terrorists to storm Capitol Hill on the Sixth of January and seek to prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election that determine Joe Biden the winner.
Instead, the former president’s defense will hinge on some constitutional language that suggests that the House acted beyond the scope of its power by impeaching a man who no longer would be serving in the office of president.
Except for this little item: Trump was president when the House impeached him on Jan. 13. He left the office a week after that. The Senate is trying him now to prevent him from seeking public office ever again.
As I ponder this event, which begins on Feb. 9, I am left to wonder whether a second acquittal for Donald Trump will be on a technicality. You know, the kind of verdict that hardline prosecutors detest when they lose cases in which they present incontrovertible evidence, only to see it swept aside because of some technical matter.
You can bet your final dollar that the House managers who present their case will rely solely on the evidence that everyone saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears. Think as well about the fact that senators will be hearing this evidence in the very scene of the crime that the rioters committed … at Donald Trump’s behest.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered the single count leveled against Trump to the Senate. The House managers have a steep hill to climb if they hope to persuade 17 GOP senators to do the right thing and vote to convict Trump.
However, as we have seen with all too much maddening regularity, congressional Republicans too often exhibit cowardice when faced with political repercussions. Donald Trump is now a cult leader in exile … but the cultists who follow him remain committed to him far more than to the country they profess to love.
I hate to deliver bad news, but I am going to deliver some right here.
It appears that the upcoming Senate trial of Donald J. Trump is not going to produce a richly deserved conviction of the former president. It has nothing to do with the evidence that he incited an insurrection. It has everything to do with what I expect to be a display of political cowardice among Senate Republicans who will face the mother of political revenge if they do the right thing.
The House impeached Trump on an allegation that he whipped the rioters into the frenzy that erupted when they stormed into the Capitol Building on the Sixth of January. I saw the president make those remarks. I saw the rioters’ response to it. Trump committed an act of incitement of insurrection.
The Constitution sets a high bar for the Senate to convict a president. It states that two-thirds of senators must agree. That means 17 GOP senators have to do the right thing.
Ten GOP House members joined their Democratic colleagues in impeaching Trump. The most notable of them is Rep. Liz Cheney, a member of the Republican leadership. She has been threatened with a primary challenge; some of her fellow GOP colleagues want her replaced as a congressional leader.
Therein is the problem facing Republican senators who might be inclined to convict Trump. Do they do what’s right and convict or do they seek to salvage their Senate careers by deciding to acquit?
The Senate will convene a trial on Feb. 9. The delay is of no particular consequence, given that Trump is now out of office. The only goal remaining is for Democrats and at least 17 Republicans vote to convict him, setting up a follow up vote: whether to ban Trump from ever seeking public office, which requires only a simple majority.
So … here we are. Fifty Senate Republicans face a reckoning. Do they punish a former GOP president who demonstrated for all the world that he is unfit for public office? Or do they scurry into the tall grass and avoid angering the cultists who continue to worship the ground on which Donald Trump treads?
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell wants to delay the trial of the disgraced former president until February.
To which I am inclined to say: Sure … whatever.
The former president is out of office. A conviction won’t kick him out. He’s in Florida luxuriating at his posh resort/residence and playing lots of golf.
All he did to merit the second House impeachment was incite an insurrection on Capitol Hill. It happened on the Sixth of January. He egged on a mob, told ’em to walk to Capitol Hill and “take back the government.” That’s what happened and for that the House impeached the Insurrectionist in Chief.
If he’s convicted, and a delay might allow prosecutors to muster up even more evidence than what we all saw happen in real time, the Senate then can cast a simple majority vote to bar him from seeking public office ever again. That is the goal! It’s a noble one.
That is what makes McConnell’s request doable, even for those who want to rush to judgment against the former president.
I am not one of those. I am in no particular hurry to see him convicted. I just want House impeachment trial managers to collect all they evidence they need to get the job done.
