Showing posts with label TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL. Show all posts

February 14, 2021

Senate Acquits Trump In Impeachment Trial — Again

 NPR

Jon Cherry/Getty Images

The U.S. Senate on Saturday acquitted former President Donald Trump on an impeachment charge of inciting an insurrection.

The acquittal comes more than a month after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers were counting the electoral results that certified Trump's loss. Five people died in the riot, including a police officer. Two other officers later killed themselves.

A majority of senators voted to convict Trump — 57 to 43, including seven Republicans. But two-thirds, or 67 votes, was needed to convict. It was the second time Trump was acquitted in an impeachment trial.

The seven GOP senators who voted to convict Trump on Saturday were: Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Trump is the first president in U.S. history to be impeached by the House twice, and the first to be tried for impeachment after leaving office.

The verdict closes the book on this Trump presidency, though the Senate, by not convicting and barring him from holding public office in the future, left open the possibility that Trump, a 74-year-old Republican, could run again for president.

Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

In a narrowly divided Senate, the outcome of the trial, which lasted a little less than a week, was largely expected, though it very nearly was extended potentially by weeks. Impeachment managers began Saturday with a surprise, saying they had decided to call a witness, Washington Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler.

After the defense rested Friday, Herrera Beutler issued a statement detailing — again — that Trump had gotten into a shouting match with Republican House leader Kevin McCarthy during the riot, telling him, "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are."

The Senate then voted to allow witnesses, and Trump's lawyers threatened to call dozens. Both sides eventually agreed to enter Herrera Beutler's statement into the record and move on.

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

The vote to hear witnesses threw the Senate into confusion as senators were so convinced the trial would end today that many had already booked flights home. The House impeachment managers said they wanted to call Herrera Beutler to testify; Republican supporters of Trump warned they would call more than 300 witnesses, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Kamala Harris.

After the two sides conferred, the House managers gave up demands for witnesses in exchange for reading Herrera Beutler’s statement into the record as evidence. While there was a widespread outcry at what seemed to be a Democratic capitulation, there were reasons the Democrats cut this deal. Witnesses to Trump’s behavior, like McCarthy, did not want to testify and would have been difficult. The Republicans as a group would have dragged the process on well into the spring, muddying the very clear story the impeachment managers told. They allegedly said that if the Democrats called witnesses, they would use the filibuster to block all Democratic nominees and legislation.

NPR

The heart of Trump's legal team's argument was supposed to be that the Senate did not have jurisdiction to take up the trial of a former federal official. That was certainly part of it and was a message that resonated with the overwhelming majority of GOP senators.

In a vote on the first day of the trial, for example, 44 Republicans voted to say it was unconstitutional for the Senate to try a president after he left office. That's despite a 145-year-old precedent in which the Senate voted that it was constitutional to try a former Cabinet official for impeachment.

The constitutionality argument allowed many Republican senators to sidestep the merits of the case against Trump. That's even though the lead impeachment manager, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., on Thursday closed his side's arguments by imploring senators that the constitutionality of the trial had been resolved by the earlier vote.

Trump's lawyers, however, did not stick to a narrow constitutional argument. Instead, they accused Democrats of using the impeachment process for partisan gain and of trying to disenfranchise the people who voted for Trump's reelection. The defense declined to provide evidence of what the president knew about the violence, when he knew it and what he did about it.

The Democratic House impeachment managers argued that the former president, who addressed a rally outside the White House ahead of the insurrection, was "singularly responsible" for the violence on Jan. 6.

They relied, in large measure, on video to prove their case, including never-before-seen Capitol security footage. The videos showed on the Senate floor during what was an, at times, emotional trial brought back the vivid images of the Capitol violence to the very place it happened.

The video demonstrated how close rioters came to then-Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress. And the impeachment managers argued that the video showed clearly that the mob of pro-Trump supporters was there for the president, and many believed they were there at the president's behest.

The impeachment managers, however, made a broader case than Trump's comments on Jan. 6. They argued that Trump laid the groundwork for false grievance on the part of his supporters with two months of baseless claims of widespread election fraud that cost him the election and years, in fact, of tolerating, condoning and encouraging violence.

Trump's lawyers largely sidestepped Trump's false claims of election fraud. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., asked during the question-and-answer session: "Are the prosecutors right when they claim that Trump was telling a big lie, or in your judgment did Trump actually win the election?"

Trump lawyer Michael van der Veen shot back, "My judgment? Who asked that?"

"I did," Sanders replied.

"My judgment is irrelevant," van der Veen said.

"You represent the president of the United States!" Sanders yelled back before Sen. Patrick Leahy, the presiding officer, gaveled the chamber back to order.

Trump's rhetoric about widespread fraud and a stolen election was false, dismissed by many courts stemming from dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and allies across several key states.

Trump's legal team also argued that his Jan. 6 rally speech was protected by the First Amendment, a contention that impeachment managers labeled ludicrous. This, after all was an impeachment trial, not a criminal proceeding. An impeachment trial is a political process intended to judge whether an official was upholding their oath of office and a standard of conduct.

With his second acquittal, Trump now plots his next steps in political and public life. Yet he is also contending with potential legal trouble stemming from a New York grand jury investigation and a newly announced criminal probe in Georgia.

That's in addition to Trump's mounting debt and devalued assets. The former president's net worth also dropped $1 billion in early 2020, according to Forbes.

Trump has been able to spin difficulties in his business and personal life before, and the country waits to see if has a next, and perhaps final, act.

February 13, 2021

5 Takeaways From The Trump Impeachment Trial After Defense Wraps Up

 NPR

Michael van der Veen, lawyer for former President Donald Trump, departs through the Senate Reception room on the fourth day of the Senate Impeachment trials for former President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill.

Jabin Botsford/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

The second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump is all over but the closing arguments. They are taking place Saturday, and the Senate could render a verdict as early as Saturday afternoon.

Despite a compelling and extensive case made by the Democratic impeachment managers, the outcome still seems predetermined. Trump is likely to be acquitted because not enough Republicans will side with Democrats for the two-thirds majority needed to convict — though a majority, including a handful of Republicans, are poised to do so.

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

Led by a new spokesman, Michael van der Veen, a former personal injury lawyer from Philadelphia, Trump’s lawyers brought to the floor of the Senate the same tactics the former president used for his four years in office. Rather than engaging in substantive discussion of the merits of the case—which, in fairness, ran pretty heavily against them—they delivered sound bites for right-wing media. They lied about facts, insisted that Trump’s language leading to the riot was the same sort of rhetoric all politicians use, insulted and talked back to the senators, and claimed Trump was the victim of years of witch hunts by Democrats who hate him.

He had been angry at his lawyers’ meandering defense earlier in the week, but this was more his style. “His base will be pleased,” a former aide told Meridith McGraw and Gabby Orr of Politico. “[H]e had four hours of free television to pitch [to the public].” Defending the former president, his team even reached back to defend his embrace of the white supremacist rioters at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. 

After the presentation, though, the senators questioned the former president’s lawyers, and revealed two key pieces of information. First, Trump’s lawyers refused to say that he lost the election. 

The other key information centered on what Trump did during the attack on the Capitol....Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) asked whether Trump knew Mike Pence was in danger. Van der Veen said definitively, “The answer is no, at no point was the President informed the vice president was in any danger.” He then turned back to blaming the House managers for the lack of information.

 NPR

 This week was revealing, however. Here are five things we learned:

1. When the chips are down, grievance and partisanship are still the GOP's go-tos

Trump's defense took aim at Democrats with cries of partisan targeting.

It was, for lack of a better phrase, very Trumpy. Trump's defense largely set aside what was expected to be a narrow constitutional argument that a former president could not be tried for impeachment.

Instead, perhaps predictably, there was a healthy dose of angry whataboutism — with videos repeatedly showing Democrats using the word "fight" (despite its lack of relevance to Trump's culpability to the violence Jan. 6); the First Amendment was leaned on to say Trump had a right to say whatever he wanted (despite an impeachment trial not being a criminal proceeding but one to determine whether a president upheld his oath and a standard of conduct); and they even invoked "cancel culture" four times.

Making the argument this way was a choice. There were enough Republican senators who would have gone along with Trump's acquittal solely based on the narrow constitutional argument. But they still opted to go this route, which may have been an attempt to save and defend Trump's legacy — and to solidify his place as the head of the party.

2. The outcome is what it is, as a former president might say

Despite senators, at times, appearing to be moved by powerful videos they saw, and the praise many of them had for the Democratic impeachment managers, few, if any, additional Republicans (other than the handful expected) seemed moved to convict.

The Trump defense's approach likely worked with the overwhelming majority of Republican senators because they've been down this road before in the Trump years and have muscle memory to dismiss inquiries and criticism of the former president as a hoax or witch hunt or scam.

The outcome has always been somewhat preordained, which is why the Trump team only took a few hours of their allotted 16 to make their rebuttal.

3. There are still a lot of questions about what Trump did and didn't do

Regardless of the fact that Trump is likely to be acquitted, there are still open questions about what Trump did or didn't do, knew or didn't know behind the scenes that day that could haunt him beyond this trial.

Trump's defense said Trump didn't know the danger Vice President Mike Pence was in — despite GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, one of the most pro-Trump states in the country, confirming that he talked to the president on Jan. 6 and told him of the danger before Trump sent a tweet disparaging Pence.

In all of this, Pence was a target — because of Trump — for doing his constitutional duty to preside over the usually ceremonial counting of certified presidential election results from the states.

Trump's team not only denied that happened, it refused to answer what actions Trump took to make the violence stop. One of his lawyers, Michael van der Veen, went so far as to say, "It's not our burden to bring any evidence at all" and blamed Democrats for not doing an investigation to get the information.

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

Just after the Senate adjourned for the day, CNN broke the story that gave details about a phone call between House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Trump as the rioters were breaching the Capitol. As McCarthy begged the then-president to call off his supporters, who were at that point breaking into his office, Trump allegedly said, “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.” The two men began shouting at each other, with McCarthy demanding: “Who the f*ck do you think you are talking to?”

Trump did not call off the rioters for several more hours.

this story came from “multiple” Republican lawmakers, who provided detailed information to the journalists at this crucial moment. They said that Trump had no intention of stopping the riot. “He is not a blameless observer,” one said, “he was rooting for them.” One of the sources named in the story, Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA), said, "That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry."

Another source, Representative Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH) said, “He was not sorry to see his unyieldingly loyal vice president or the Congress under attack by the mob he inspired. In fact, it seems he was happy about it or at the least enjoyed the scenes that were horrifying to most Americans across the country."

 NPR

Trump's lawyers also denied the impeachment managers' pretrial request for Trump to testify — under oath.

4. New evidence showed how much danger lawmakers were in

Democrats presented a new, not previously seen before, video that clearly moved and disturbed many senators.

Utah Republican Mitt Romney said he hadn't realized just how close he was to the mob when he was shown on video running after being turned around by Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman.

Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, gave a harrowing account Friday night of her own close brush. "They were pounding on our door and trying to open it, and my husband sat with his foot against the door, praying that it would not break in," she said on PBS NewsHour. "I was not safe. It was a horrific feeling, and it lasted for a long time."

The outcome may be predetermined, but what was shown gave a fuller context of what happened Jan. 6 — for history.

5. Americans could have a new standard for their leaders in the future

Trump's behavior as president has grated against what was previously acceptable behavior from a president — belittling, acting confrontational and stoking cultural and racial division.

Trump used to joke that he could be so presidential, and we'd all be so bored. That was an acknowledgment that the way he was acting wasn't "presidential;" it wasn't the accepted view of what a president should be. That lasted throughout his presidency, culminating in his refusal to concede and the lack of a peaceful transfer of power, which had distinguished the United States from far-less-free countries around the world.

Trump's defense had argued that convicting Trump would set a new, too-low bar for impeachment — one that Democrats could get caught up in next.

But Democrats warned that if Republicans continued to remain steadfastly against Trump's conviction, it would be essentially giving a "green light" for future odious conduct from presidents. [What if Trump should  run again in 2024 and lose again; how would he react then?-Esco]

With Trump's likely acquittal on the horizon, lead Democratic impeachment manager Jamie Raskin summed up the danger this way:

"They [Trump's lawyers] are treating their client like he is a criminal defendant. They are talking about 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' They think we are making a criminal case here. My friends, the former president is not going to spend one hour or one minute in jail, but this is about protecting a Republic and articulating and defining the standards of presidential conduct. And if you want this to be a standard for totally appropriate presidential conduct going forward, be my guest. But we are headed for a very different kind of country at that point."

The fact is American politics is at a volatile moment. Look no further than what's happened in Georgia over the last few months. The same state that gave Congress a conspiracy believer who harassed a mass-shooting survivor also saw Democrat Joe Biden win the state in the presidential election and two Democrats win Senate races there that gave Democrats control of Congress.

There's no telling what happens next.