Tag: Trump impeachment

We Asked 81 Americans About Impeachment. Here’s What They Had to Say.

New York Times logo“A fit of partisan rage” is how Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader of the Senate, characterized the bid to remove President Trump from office. The president’s behavior, in the view of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, left House Democrats with “no choice” but to impeach.

But what do the American people think?

With the Senate trial of Mr. Trump now underway, we deployed a team of journalists to find out. We contacted hundreds of voters who had responded to an online survey saying they would be willing to be interviewed. We reached 81 people, from nearly 30 states. Continue reading.

Trump’s lawyers are also on trial

The president’s impeachment trial has revealed a common Trump theme: The lawyers he brings in to defend his behavior end up in their own legal morass.

They’ve been accused of orchestrating a criminal conspiracy. They’ve been dubbed ethically compromised. They’ve been labeled liars. They could even be called to testify in the impeachment case they were hired to combat.

In the opening days of Donald Trump’s Senate trial, it has at times felt like the president’s lawyers are his co-defendants.

“Nonsense,” said Jay Sekulow, the longest-serving personal attorney to Trump, when asked about the litany of allegations flying around Capitol Hill. Continue reading.

How Trump’s Senate trial lawyers could complicate the case his DOJ lawyers are making in court

Washington Post logoPresident Trump’s legal team took House Democrats to task in the opening hours of the Senate impeachment trial for refusing to defer to the federal courts and rushing to impeach the president without waiting for judges to resolve lingering disputes over witnesses and evidence.

But that doesn’t sound at all like the Trump Justice Department’s team that is actually navigating those courts. In fact, it’s pretty contradictory, some legal experts suggest, and could affect the administration’s efforts in those cases.

“We’re acting as if the courts are an improper venue to determine constitutional issues of this magnitude,” the president’s lawyer Jay Sekulow declared on the Senate floor. “That is why we have the courts, that is why we have a federal judiciary.” Continue reading.

New poll finds Trump is losing the battle for public opinion on impeachment

AlterNet logoA new CNN poll reveals for the first time that a majority of Americans want President Donald Trump to be impeached and removed from office.

The survey, which was conducted by SSRS, also reveals that 69 percent of respondents think the president’s upcoming Senate trial should feature witnesses who did not testify before the House impeachment inquiry.

Notably, this is the first prominent phone poll to be conducted on the national level since the two articles of impeachment facing Trump were transferred by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to the upper chamber. Continue reading.

We Must Hear From Witnesses

For no good reason, Mitch McConnell wants to keep this trial from having any witnesses. He’s thrown up all kinds of hurdles to prevent their testimony.

A fair trial must have witnesses. We need to hear from the multiple first-hand witnesses who have potentially critical information about Trump’s abuse of power, but were blocked by Trump from participating in the House inquiry:

JOHN BOLTON:
Trump’s former National Security Advisor John Bolton said he is willing to testify before the Senate, but Republicans refuse to let him. Continue reading “We Must Hear From Witnesses”

Sekulow’s ‘Due Process’ Argument Falls Flat

The evidence against Trump is overwhelming and irrefutable. Because his attorneys can’t argue with the facts, today they launched his defense with the false claim that Trump’s been denied due process.

Trump and his lawyers were offered a chance to participate in the House impeachment proceedings. They refused.

New York Times: “The House did offer Mr. Trump and his lawyers a chance to participate in the latter stages of the impeachment proceedings, but he declined to take them up.”

Trump stonewalled the House impeachment inquiry.

New York Times: “Fueling the obstruction of Congress charge, a dozen more witnesses, some with direct knowledge of Mr. Trump’s actions, were blocked from speaking to investigators, and the Trump administration refused to produce a single document under subpoena.” Continue reading “Sekulow’s ‘Due Process’ Argument Falls Flat”

House managers accuse McConnell of setting up ‘rigged’ trial

The Hill logoThe team of House Democrats arguing their case for impeachment in the Senate are slamming the trial resolution put forward by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), describing the compressed schedule as an attempt to cover up President Trump‘s conduct.

The resolution, circulated by McConnell on Monday night, would give the House Democrats 24 hours over the course of two days to make their opening arguments to impeach and remove Trump from office over his contacts with Ukraine. The same time constraints would be placed on the White House team defending Trump.

“A White House-driven and rigged process, with a truncated schedule designed to go late into the night and further conceal the President’s misconduct, is not what the American people expect or deserve,” the impeachment managers wrote in a statement. Continue reading.

‘Constitutional Nonsense’: Trump’s Impeachment Defense Defies Legal Consensus

New York Times logoThe president’s legal case would negate any need for witnesses. But constitutional scholars say that it’s wrong.

WASHINGTON — As President Trump’s impeachment trial opens, his lawyers have increasingly emphasized a striking argument: Even if he did abuse his powers in an attempt to bully Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election on his behalf, it would not matter because the House never accused him of committing an ordinary crime.

Their argument is widely disputed. It cuts against the consensus among scholars that impeachment exists to remove officials who abuse power. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” means a serious violation of public trust that need not also be an ordinary crime, said Frank O. Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor and the author of a recent book on the topic.

“This argument is constitutional nonsense,” Mr. Bowman said. “The almost universal consensus — in Great Britain, in the colonies, in the American states between 1776 and 1787, at the Constitutional Convention and since — has been that criminal conduct is not required for impeachment.” Continue reading.

Isn’t That Special: Trump, Impeachment and American Exceptionalism

Liberals can finally turn a conservative weapon into one of their own.

The Senate trial of President Donald John Trump gets underway in earnest Tuesday, and the occasion calls for some reflections appropriate to the majesty of the occasion. Perhaps a meditation on American exceptionalism.

Whoa, there, why the sour face? Aren’t you feeling exceptional?

Don’t you believe the constitutional exercise underway highlights how this country has been ordained by history to play a special role in the affairs of mankind? Isn’t it true that the USA is just plain better than those other countries that are not the USA? Continue reading.

Trump’s lawyers, Senate GOP allies work privately to ensure Bolton does not testify publicly

Washington Post logoPresident Trump’s legal defense team and Senate GOP allies are quietly gaming out contingency plans should Democrats win enough votes to force witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial, including an effort to keep former national security adviser John Bolton from the spotlight, according to multiple officials familiar with the discussions.

While Republicans continue to express confidence that Democrats will fail to persuade four GOP lawmakers to break ranks with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has opposed calling any witnesses in the trial, they are readying a Plan B just in case — underscoring how uncertain they are about prevailing in a showdown over witnesses and Bolton’s possible testimony.

One option being discussed, according to a senior administration official, would be to move Bolton’s testimony to a classified setting because of national security concerns, ensuring that it is not public. Continue reading.