Impeachment 2 Continues: Prosecution Merits

The impeachment managers the last couple days provided their merits presentation. The jurisdiction (no impeachment after he leaves office!) question was allegedly settled.

Some Republicans rather it not be, particularly since it allows them to avoid the merits. They realistically have the power to decide on those grounds. And, ignore the very good presentation that showed Trump's incitement was long coming, it was particularly in place on 1/6 and once they started, Trump didn't do anything but if anything keep it up. Early on, the Georgia call was cited and I hope they bring it up again.

This is so that even the Belknap "precedent" helps them even less than some might think. The debate there was not really that he resigned and thus the trial occurred afterwards. No. According to that historical account, the debate is that he resigned before the House could even impeach. Trump was impeached while in office. The precedent there was broad -- you can impeach for official conduct, even if the person no longer was in office. Two senators broadly provided their views:

Norwood argued from history and precedent that the impeachment process was remedial. The purpose of the constitutional clauses providing for impeachment were not simply to remove a person from office but to purify government, prevent future crimes and give warning to those who would attempt crimes. Stevenson claimed that under the interpretation of those who denied the Senate’s jurisdiction, government could become a carousel of corruption and criminality. The corrupt could dismount from office as necessary and remount when the time was opportune.

(Talking broadly that era's history, Women’s War: Fighting and Surviving the American Civil War, was interesting. It was basically three case studies -- war crimes for women, dealing with slave women by attaching their freedom to male slaves' wartime service and post-war struggles of white women via a case study.)

Talk is that the Trump side wants to use a fraction of their time and manage to finish their merits argument before one of their chief lawyers (the one that didn't ramble on the first day) has to step aside for Jewish Sabbath. They will apparently focus mostly on b.s. procedural issues. Then, you will have Q&A and wrap-up, unless the managers want witnesses. Chuck Schumer earlier suggested the Democrats in the Senate rather them not, but not says it is up to the managers. Again, witnesses can be good, but who? Let's see how it goes on Friday etc. first.

Again, the various impeachment managers -- each in their own fashion -- did a good job. Only near the end did it seem a bit low energy. I was worried that they would go too narrow -- focus too much just on 1/6 -- but they opened things up some. I think they should have did that more last time. If Republicans were going to vote to acquit, bring up how the Ukraine phone call wasn't out of nowhere, it was a result of a pattern back to the Mueller Report stuff. Oh well. Schiff ended earlier February 2020 with a warning.

Deja vu.