Impeachment II: Questions, Witnessess & Closing

Finale: 57-43.  Republicans to convict: Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, Toomey.  Cassidy voted for jurisdiction but not witnesses, so I was thinking he might be a "not guilty."  Burr had a good statement; he voted against jurisdiction but unlike some others actually accepted the vote that upheld it.

Sen. Burr (and Toomey) has announced he won't run again, but that is true for one or more of the cowards.  The two women senators are a usual pair that in rare cases are rightly seen as moderates.  Romney is in a special category. Sasse is mostly all talk, but acts a few times too. Democrats held firm. Let's not forget the 14A.

I added this and some other details after my first publish after the rejection of witnesses. But, just one more thing: there will be various accounts about how they didn't vote to convict. Fine.  They didn't convict OJ.  When even your Minority Leader has a speech saying Trump is still liable and passes the buck on bare procedural grounds, maybe toss that in too. 

There was a move to suspend the impeachment trial during the Jewish Sabbath, but the Trump lawyer in question later said it wasn't necessary. The reason is fairly clear -- they wanted to get things over quickly. The defense case on the merits, to the degree one can call it that, only took a few hours of the sixteen hours granted. A new lawyer with plenty of Trump bombast dominated and probably can be honored for basically doing his job, if one not the same as much respect overall.*

The impeachment managers could have basically supplied a classic rebuttal, but things basically went to questions. Last time, by one account from a reporter of the events, we have over 100. This time we had around a quarter. Questions tended to be targeted to one side to basically "lead the witness" though a few times it was as a gotcha. A few was for both sides; really, each question should be answered at least in part by both sides. The questions included attempts to clarify Trump's knowledge of the danger to Pence (basically handwave response) or to try to provide a legalistic definition of incitement. On that, Raskin did a good job, but it was a sort of trap -- this is an impeachment, not a criminal trial.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is expected to vote to acquit Trump according to an email he sent to colleagues that was obtained by Politico. McConnell suggested in the email that his decision was “a close call,” but leaned on the argument made by Trump’s counsel that impeachments “are a tool primarily of removal and we therefore lack jurisdiction.”

We also had an attempt to re-litigate the jurisdiction issue. The fact that (after the last serious Republican candidate for POTUS voted to convict and a leading member of the House Republicans voted to impeach) the Minority Leader here rests on procedural bullshit is telling. So, he cannot rest on Trump's basic innocence?  And, he did so -- he had a speech after the vote that basically agreed with the managers but oh so sorry, did not have the power.  Bullshit.  Jurisdiction was decided and the argument is b.s. either way.  Nice speech, like on 1/6, but net, he did his part to enable. And, McConnell was the one who said the impeachment could not be delivered when the House wanted to days before the Inauguration.  But, that is a bit off as a full answer, since the managers would need time to make their case.

The last question (from Cruz's colleague from Texas, a leading Republican partisan) was actually fairly helpful. It asked why impeachment was necessary, especially now, given the criminal alternative. A basic answer -- and this is the answer to Democrats and others who cite alternatives, including congressional hearings that are a dime a dozen -- is that impeachment is different.

It is a national inquest that in this context addresses the nation in a special way, a way other means do not, with special penalties. This includes the national attention it is receiving, including reporting that brings out new or lesser known details to the nation in way some hearing would not. Raskin quite correctly added that it was important to be timely in this case since the time was sensitive, threats particularly important to respond to when new leaders come in. I'd add the danger is not over in that respect, some even suggesting the "true moment" is the old March inauguration date.

It is a bit amusing that the general inference one takes here is the other side is basically daring the government, including Georgia (which is investigating the matter, though I'll believe they will actually prosecute when I see it), to prosecute. (Some seem rather serious about it.) Perhaps, [partially at least] to use it for partisan effect. We should use all the tools, including the Fourteenth Amendment and civil lawsuits. I'm not really into a censure though ... in this context, the 14A is a logical approach, a sort of statement with a censure-like aspect while also addressing a wider question that might arise later on when various people's eligibility is challenged.

But, as last time, some do not accept this. They want to move on. This was seen when in the evening more and more news accounts came regarding Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy reportedly talking to Trump (who taunted him the the insurrectionists supported Trump more) as the insurrection was taking place, multiple Republican members of Congress talking about it or related matters, Sen. Tuberville -- who also worked with Trump back in December -- talking about that call shortly before Pence was escorted out, regarding Trump knowing Pence was in danger etc. The evident move was to call witnesses.

Remember last time when Democrats were (correctly) pissed off that Senate Republicans refused to have them? Rep. Raskin opened things in the morning asking for the chance to briefly depose one Republican in particular that made a statement, get her notes and if other witnesses wanted to testify, to do the same with them. The reply was more bullshit, including threats to call a who bunch of witnesses. Of course, that wasn't Trump's side call -- the Senate would have to agree to witnesses. In a 55-45 vote, Graham changing to "yea," (he earlier threatened if they asked for witnesses, the Republicans would retailiate with a whole bunch, including Nancy Pelosi ... again, they cannot do so on their say-so), debate was agreed upon.

This basically took off off camera for a few hours.

The result was Raskin got to read that Republican congresswoman's statement into the record (see here for a play by play of the day's events) and me screaming at the television for them to do their fucking job. You have the impeachment. Witnesses are part of it. You were upset about it last time. You open yourself up to the usual suspects complaining how you are just weak, while others will say the witness talk was just partisan rhetoric last time. The whole affair is depressing, including talk by one about how long the Clinton trial was. We can't have such an extended trial in these times so easily. But, we need not. And, the process is not necessary to call them while we listen or something. We didnt have that when they called three during the Clinton impeachment.

This isn't some, as someone snidely said, intended to be a "Matlock" moment. But, it is a moment, not the same as extended little covered congressional hearings or criminal trials for specific people -- not Trump [if he actually is prosecuted, it is likely going to be for a limited role, such as the Georgia call, and a plea bargain is quite possible]. And, we should use it to the degree we can. People testifying matters. It adds a different aspect to the proceedings. It also can be used to clarify things, especially Tuberville's phone call. There is no good reason to deny them. It will not drag the trial on. In fact, once the trial is over, the Senate is likely to take a break for the holiday.

I had to turn off the closing argument of the managers after this. It all had a feel of also ran. It's depressing. I would like to get some background -- probably will come out -- about the back/forth behind the scenes. Anyway, if you want to "move on," my patience for compromise has decreased. 

(Raskin in his press conference noted that the Republicans are basically relying on jurisdiction or something though I think some -- or their supporters -- will rely on fact too.  But, I didn't really expect sixty seven senators. Citing that at some point is stupid.  The issue here is making the case.  A single statement read is not the same thing as the alternative. 

Plaskett raises concern about subpoena being resisted but it far from clear what would happen there.  If that happened, you could show it to people.  You try. Sometimes, you fail.  But, you try.  If this was all so obvious, not sure why it took like two hours to settle things.  So, sorry, love ya, but you are spinning some people. The article here speaks of how the matter "bedeviled" the managers. If it comes or came out one or more managers were upset at what happened, it wold not surprise. They won't say so publicly. What's the point? You publicly go with you are left with. )  

Let me end with this. Getting information via news reports -- see Trump taxes etc. -- is fucking annoying when there is a way for it to come in an official way, including official congressional proceedings. "We will have hearings" only goes so far there even then. So, we will get a Page 10 story in five months or something about information that excites Rachel Maddow or something, huh?

We have a fucking impeachment trial now. 

----

* Like last time, and like his m.o. generally, Trump's side complained ("whined" seems appropriate ... maybe "ranted") about lack of due process. It is cited by some that the Constitution gives each house in relevant part "sole" power here, but  that isn't necessary. 

Or, appropriate. There are ways an impeachment process can be patently unfair. "No review, tough luck," is not how things work there.  It is also part of relying too much on court review to decide certain questions.  To cite a standard concern of mine. 

The bottom line -- though this time for reasons of time and the evidence being clear the House sped impeachment along -- is that there was plenty of due process, other than the basic supermajority that in the end is the reason Trump was not convicted.  Trump's side had access to the evidence, counsel to make a case, a chance to be heard and so forth.  As RBG once noted: "This case is most readily resolved under a core requirement of due process, the right to be heard."

Moving past the bombast, the claims are much more narrower, including parsing what the law requires. Again, that doesn't just include constitutionally requires -- the Supreme Court leaves that very open -- but what a reasoned judgment would.  Many might not think the allegations -- sensibly made given their role -- is worth this much comment. But, it is useful to address them.  They even might be valid in some other case.