Tag: Trump second impeachment trial

In an avalanche of words, there’s no sign of regret from Trump

Washington Post logo

The first day of the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump began in silence and dignity. It ended with a tale of grievance and fury told by a team of last-minute lawyers who looked and sounded more than a little worse for wear.

On Tuesday afternoon, the Democratic House managers marched soberly through Statuary Hall and onto the Senate floor. The assembled legislators voted on the rules of the proceedings and then the managers, in their rainbow of tailored gray suits, took to the microphone to analyze, parse and massage a multitude of words focused on interpreting the intent of the Constitution, the mind-set of the former president and the meaning of the noun “person.” They even coined a new phrase for the occasion: January exception.

The House managers spent the bulk of their allotted time explaining precisely why Trump’s impeachment trial was constitutional. And in arguing their case, they quoted from the history books and from modern legal scholars. They appealed to a sense of logic, noting that if a former president could not be held to account by the Senate, then sitting presidents could simply save their most egregious behavior for the final weeks of their administration and then go wild without fear of repercussions. Continue reading.

Trump’s Senate allies Graham, Lee and Cruz huddle with defense team

Washington Post logo

After the Senate trial adjourned Thursday, three of Donald Trump’s chamber allies, Sens. Lindsey O. Graham, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, were seen entering a room to meet with the former president’s attorneys.

After their meeting, Trump attorney David Schoen told reporters the senators were just “talking about procedure,” called them “friendly guys” and said they did not tip him off to questions they would be asking.

They discussed “just how this format goes, you know, the question-and-answer period, all that,” Schoen said. “And then just talking about where they’re from and all that, but it’s just very nice. I said to them it was a great honor to have the opportunity to talk to them.” Continue reading.

Four takeaways from Day 3 of Trump’s impeachment trial

Washington Post logo

Day three of former president Donald Trump’s impeachment trialfeatured the remainder of Democratic House impeachment managers’ case against Trump.

Below, some takeaways.

1. A novel appeal to GOP senators about the consequences of acquittal

If there is one quote that summed up the Democrats’ argument for conviction of Trump, it came Thursday from Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.).

The fact that Trump is no longer in office renders the biggest punishment of the impeachment process — removal from office — moot. Beyond that, it’s about sanctioning him and preventing Trump from being able to hold high office again. Continue reading.

On a day of legal wrangling, the trauma of Jan. 6 becomes the centerpiece of Trump impeachment trial

Washington Post logo

The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump opened Tuesday heading toward what seemed a preordained conclusion. But as the day revealed, the events that led to this moment — Trump’s efforts to overturn an election and his role in inciting a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol — will have left an indelible mark on his presidency and on the history of the country, no matter the trial’s outcome.

The first day had been set aside for what some anticipated might be a dry constitutional argument over whether the Senate had the authority to conduct a trial for a president who no longer is in office. That debate did provide the backdrop, but the horrors of Jan. 6 became the emotional centerpiece and highlight of the day — and, no doubt, the days to come.

House managers, led by Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.), presented a powerful opening argument — asserting with historical documentation and contemporary legal analysis that the Senate must go ahead with the trial, lest it create a “January exception” to impeachment that could allow future presidents to rampage at will in their final days in office without fear of being held accountable. Continue reading.

Even Alan Dershowitz is stunned by Bruce Castor speech: ‘I have no idea what he’s doing’

Trump defense lawyer Bruce Castor had not even finished his opening remarks in the U.S. Senate before he was harshly criticized by Alan Dershowitz, who defended Donald Trump in his last impeachment trial.

Dershowitz was interviewed on Newsmax during Castor’s presentation.

“What are you making of Bruce Castor’s arguments so far?” the host asked. “Where is he going with this?”

“There is no argument,” Dershowitz replied. “I have no idea what he’s doing.” Continue reading.

Law Prof Cited By Trump Team Says They ‘Flat-Out Misrepresented’ His Work

In a legal brief submitted this week, one of the sources cited by former President Donald Trump’s impeachment lawyers is a 2001 article by Brian C. Kalt, a University of Michigan law professor. Attorneys Bruce Castor, David Schoen and Michael T. van der Veen use Kalt’s article to argue against Trump’s second impeachment — and according to a Twitter thread by Kalt, they have taken his arguments out of context “badly.”

Kalt’s 2001 article dealt with late impeachment. Trump, following the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol Building, was impeached late in his presidency for incitement to insurrection — too late, according to his impeachment lawyers. But Kalt, noting that the brief “cites my 2001 article on late impeachment a lot,” explains, “The article favored late impeachability, but it set out all the evidence I found on both sides — lots for them to use. But in several places, they misrepresent what I wrote quite badly.”

Kalt, in his 2001 article, never reached the conclusion that a late impeachment was unconstitutional. But Castor, Schoen and van der Veen, according to Kalt, strongly suggest he did argue for this conclusion. Continue reading.

Opinion: My fellow Republicans, convicting Trump is necessary to save America

Washington Post logo

Adam Kinzinger, a Republican, represents Illinois’s 16th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Winston Churchill famously said, “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.” All Americans, but especially my fellow Republicans, should remember this wisdom during the Senate’s trial of former president Donald Trump.

I say this as a lifelong Republican who voted to impeach Trump last month. Virtually all my colleagues on the right side of the aisle took the opposite path. Most felt it was a waste of time — political theater that distracted from bigger issues. The overwhelming majority of Senate Republicans appear to feel the same way about conviction.

But this isn’t a waste of time. It’s a matter of accountability. If the GOP doesn’t take a stand, the chaos of the past few months, and the past four years, could quickly return. The future of our party and our country depends on confronting what happened — so it doesn’t happen again. Continue reading.

On cusp of impeachment trial, court documents point to how Trump’s rhetoric fueled rioters who attacked Capitol

Washington Post logo

Storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 was no spur-of-the-
moment decision for Jessica Marie Watkins, an Ohio bartender and founder of a small, self-styled militia, federal prosecutors allege.

In documents charging her with conspiracy and other crimes for her role in the insurrection, they say she began planning such an operation shortly after President Donald Trump lost the November election, ultimately helping recruit and allegedly helping lead dozens of people who took violent action to try to stop congressional certification of the electoral college vote last month. 

In text messages cited in court documents, Watkins was clear about why she was heading to Washington. “Trump wants all able bodied patriots to come,” she wrote to one of her alleged co-conspirators on Dec. 29, eight days before prosecutors say they invaded the building. Continue reading.

Myth that Trump can’t be convicted by Senate because he’s no longer in office blown up by DC law firm head

According to the head of a high-powered law firm based in Washington D.C., Republican protestations that Donald Trump cannot be convicted in his second impeachment trial because he is no longer in office are fundamentally wrong.

With conservative boosters of the president attempting to undercut the proceedings that begin on Tuesday on the floor of the U.S. Senate by attacking the process, Chuck Cooper, the founder and chairman of Cooper & Kirk, laid that argument to rest.

On the pages of the conservative Wall Street Journal, Cooper referred to the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton to make his case. Continue reading.

Mental health expert explains why Trump must be convicted

AlterNet logo

The Trump presidency may be over, but Donald Trump’s dangers continue. This is because we have yet to contain the number one emergency, which is the spread of mental pathology.

Without addressing this mental health pandemic, even the Biden administration’s admirable efforts to contain the viral pandemic may meet with obstacles. Similarly, without conviction and prosecution, which is the first step to containing this mental health pandemic, hopes for “reconciliation” and “unity” may also be for naught.

Mental health professionals knew from the start that Donald Trump had the psychological makeup to become very dangerous with presidential powers. Following our 2017 assessment, I and thousands of my colleagues at the World Mental Health Coalition issued more than 300 pages of letters, petitions, and statements asserting that Donald Trump’s dangers would spread and erupt. In March 2020, we issued a “Prescription for Survival,” stating that the president’s removal through the 25th Amendment, impeachment, or resignation—or at least removal of influence—was essential to avoiding widespread unnecessary deaths. Continue reading.