I continued my up-close experience of New York City elections by being a poll worker. I helped to check in voters at a local polling place on primary day.
Early voting began around when I started voting at the polling place. So, election day itself is no longer as important. It still has a certain energy and symbolic importance.
I discuss things further, including comparing the upset of Cuomo with Democratic leadership here.
Senator Jon Ossoff, who is up for a quite competitive seat next year, "strongly" agrees that Trump should be impeached:
“There is no doubt that this president’s conduct has already exceeded any prior standard for impeachment by the United States House of Representatives,” Ossoff told the audience at a town hall in Cobb County, adding later that there is “no question” a number of Trump’s actions have risen to the level of an impeachable offense.
The Administration's wrongdoing is akin to a powerful industrial firehose spraying so much water that we have a hard time keeping track. We keep on reading about the latest thing. It can be overwhelming.
There is a value in symbolic case studies, which provide clarity and allow a special amount of attention. Kilmar Abrego Garcia is an example. He has a powerful story.
The government clearly made a mistake. It is being reckless and criminal. Yes. They are openly ignoring protected rights. That is not legal. Impeachment is supposedly an overall safeguard. It is a paper tiger in many ways, even if Democrats controlled the House. Even more so now.
(Impeachment retains some value. The two impeachments of Trump had value. They weren't enough and 14A, sec. 3 was but one additional tool that should have been used.)
So, other methods are used. A Democratic senator went down to visit Garcia. It helped to lead to his being removed from a cruel prison. There have been some implications that there was a positive development in his legal case. And, yes, the courts provide another avenue to fight the Administration.
I found a little book entitled A Right To Lie, which uses current rules that allow much more restriction of what government employees say as a way around very strict First Amendment rules. The book goes into some detail about the lies of Trump and how that is one method to address them.
It has a chapter on the Stolen Valor Case, which involved a minor governmental official lying about being awarded a congressional medal of honor. I'm inclined to say that Justice Alito in dissent has a point. [And, in a "how did this slip thru" bit, the book wrongly says the majority had five votes; it had six. Kennedy wrote for three others; he made four. Breyer/Kagan concurred.]
On the narrow issue -- not "lying is never socially valuable" or something, it is at least a close case. This is not about a "Ministry of Truth" ... it's a clear objective factual detail. The person was also not merely a civilian or in this case running for office. He was a member of the government. The law, perhaps, was overbroad. But, again, sometimes these things are taken too far. It is not like normal bullshitting or the like.
Everyone is assuming that Donald Trump will be indicted in New York next week. I am on record saying that prosecuting Trump is a terrible mistake. Nevertheless, there are two implications of that decision that I want to highlight.
Mark Field, a regular commentator when they allowed comments, noted once in response to my reference of this guy being self-identifying as a Never Trump type, that the label should require the willingness to adequately address the wrongs of Trump.
This guy does not.
He at times is useful -- his 14A, sec. 3 scholarship alone -- but takes an ivory tower approach. He wants that provision to dominate but sees how little it is used. A quite useful-sounding congressional bill? Goes nowhere. Possible challenges when the new congressional term began? Nothing (his reply: oh well). The provision generally? A few challenges, so far a single minor official is being blocked (for now at least).
He supported an artificially high standard of proof in the first impeachment and set up a bunch of overblown concerns (including the pro tempore presiding, which my research suggests actually happened in at least one judicial impeachment, at least for part of the trial). He was wrong, wrong, wrong about everything. He even noted the last part.
GM also ignored that impeachment is different than denial of office-holding. Which he would challenge and we saw how that went. Years of litigation repeatedly run out the clock. Basically, with an assurance that we find him distasteful and all that, we will find yet another reason why he alone can avoid consequences.
Recall Clinton settled regarding the legal proceedings connected to the impeachment, including paying a fine and having his law license suspended for five years or something. And, he never ran for office again. Trump? Well, he's special!
First, a New York indictment makes a Georgia indictment more likely, even though the two cases are very different. Being the first prosecutor to indict an ex-President is daunting. Being the second one to do so . . . not so much.
I think he's basically right there. This is one reason I support it. It sets a precedent. It shows he is not above the law. This is obviously a "terrible mistake." Trump enabler says what?
Second, a New York indictment makes the legal effort to disqualify Trump from the presidential ballot more credible.
The argument here is more psychological. It shouldn't matter. The disqualification provision applies simply for being involved in the insurrection. The Georgia indictment at least would be somewhat related to that. This is not even related to that election. It's a much more typical bit of campaign law-related violation.
But, he might be right. Nonetheless, he notes that even here only "some" judges might look at things differently. That's of limited value. Some nice-sounding words only take us so far without a final result. He can blandly comment from his ivory tower as it all goes down. Slowly oh so slowly.
We had a sorta mid-season finale, to use the lingo, of the 1/6 Committee hearings with another prime time showing. There will be more, the chair (remotely, since he like President Biden, has COVID) upfront announcing more hearings in September. This left Liz Cheney as the chair in the room while Rep. Elaine Luria (another vet) getting some time in the sun.
Rep. Luria (a Generation X member), for instance, got to show Sen. Hawley running out of Congress is a rather to be un-PC, he looked like a sissy. This does not only have amusement value. His infamous fist shake at the protesters was supposed to be his rode to MAGA cred. As we see him "scamper off," this outrageous act of egging on protesters -- protesters the hearings showed Republicans already knew were not just peaceful types -- should have consequences on him personally.
The basic focus of the hearing was to show Trump not doing anything to stop the invasion of the Capitol for over three hours (187 minutes). If anything, while he watched FOX and multiple people (including the House minority leader and his own children) basically begged him to do something, he made things worse. Early on, after he knew the invasion started, he tweeted his infamous tweet against Mike Pence.
In fact, and the raw video also makes him look embarrassing ("yesterday" was a hard word for him to say), we see that even on the day after that he did not want to say Biden won. He was only willing to say that Congress formally announced the vote. One of the witnesses, Sarah Matthews, the former White House deputy press secretary, focused her disgust at talk about not him wanting to use "peace" in a tweet to the protestors.
The other witness was Matthew Pottinger, the former deputy national security adviser, who reminded me in both appearance and manner as a sort of Dan Quayle type. He still noted how proud he was to serve in the Trump Administration. And, yes, in answer to one online, I can see him voting for Trump again if it was Trump v. Biden in November 2024.
Some are concerned about the important role Liz Cheney is playing here. The reality of the situation is that she is doing a good job and provides a message that this is not just a partisan witch hunt. There was some feeling toward the end -- her closing statement was rather long this time -- that she was trying to argue there are good Republicans, including good Republican former members of the Trump Administration. This is rather unclear.
There are Republicans who are showing some spine. One who is not is former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, whose stonewalling without apparent punishment so far is aggravating. Steve Bannon was just convicted for criminal contempt, but we are still months away from sentencing, putting aside a possible appeal. Trump's stonewalling of Congress was even an impeachment charge, if one that seems to have gone down the memory hole.
The whole thing was bullshit. The Trump officials appeal to use of litigation and then during litigation claim total immunity. Oh, and offer impeachment as a possible alternative. But, when Congress moves in that directly, even early stages of investigation, it is a partisan witch hunt and violation of due process. We should not take this seriously.
People have dreams of Congress sending a marshal to arrest people here and put them in some sort of congressional jail or something. To me, the sensible thing is for Congress to have some sort of inherent contempt, not needing to rely on the executive branch that times will be at cross purposes -- concerned themselves about executive flexibility -- and use monetary fines as a means to apply pressure. And, decide things quickly, within months at most.
A basic concern here is that Republicans will regain control in November and then the shoe will be on the other foot. But, at some point, you have to bite the bullet. This also shows the value of special mechanisms, including an impeachment investigation, which can put the edge more on the congressional side. Still, not even wanting to show up? Hillary Clinton did so. You are going to have to do that even if the Congress is in troll control.
Cheney's final message was that we can not trust Trump with power any more given what he did. This should be expanded to all of their enablers. She at one point noted that the hearings would have gone basically the same even with the original Republicans chosen for the committee. Sure. Having the likes of Jim Jordan wasn't going to cause problems.
People who don't like Cheney getting so much air time -- other Democrats have some too -- like to call the opposite side Nazis. Well, we worked with the Soviet Union to defeat them. I think Cheney can be used now. But, yes, we should be wary. The appeal to "good Republicans" and leaving an opening to "move on" without enough full accounting is something to be wary about.
===
I find it depressing and almost giving oxygen to something that should not be given it, but guess I should add a bit on Rachel Maddow's bit on the Garland memo regarding investigations in an election year.
As one review noted: "Rachel Maddow reported the exciting news that Merrick Garland released the same memo that Attorneys General always do during election years." No. We are supposed to be APPALLED at Garland. Fire him! Biden should have picked someone like Doug Jones ... who tweeted a video reminding people there is nothing to see here.
Back to the Bush43's firing of U.S. attorneys, one in particular who was in part fired for not indicting someone during a campaign, the possibility of prosecutorial abuse has been cited multiple places. One discussion by Alex Kozinski, before citing him became in bad taste, about prosecution abuses cited the issue. We were mad when Comey violated it.
I did not watch the segment, I admit, but at this point am tired of Rachel Maddow's extended emoting entrances anyways. The memo was dropped earlier this year, sensibly as the mid-term election cycle started to go in full swing. Oh no! It cited a Barr memoranda saying that the Attorney General has to sign off on an investigation of someone like Trump. Just as you would expect. Anyway, the investigation already started.
I STILL will not believe Trump will be prosecuted until I see it. I STILL am wary about the speed of certain investigations. But, the Watergate investigations took years. Five years or so; and they were smaller in scope, without an insurrection with over a thousand participants alone.
I basically block everyone on Twitter who shows that meme with Chris Farley screaming at Garland to arrest someone ... after lots of people, including top people ... were arrested. Multiple people were charged by Mueller, until Barr and Trump blocked it, for those who sneer at him too.
To the degree Rachel Maddow is aiding and abetting this despair that in various cases is probably aided and abetted by trolls, I say "get behind me Satan." And, as we moved past chattel slavery and a bunch of other things, the idea we won't be able to survive the current times? Grow up.
Oh, Garland and the Justice Department said the investigation goes on and they will not let an election campaign stop that. And, things will be taken where justice warrants. Not that this will satisfy those who wish not to be.
The Pentagon acknowledged on Friday that the last U.S. drone strike before American troops withdrew from Afghanistan was a tragic mistake that killed 10 civilians, including seven children, after initially saying it had been necessary to prevent an attack on troops.
One thing I have disagreed with some liberals on is the justification of drone strikes. People argue they amount to "assassination," have no restraints, and so on. I disagree.
Assassination is the unauthorized murder of some political leader. For instance, no matter what is says on his tombstone, Jesse James was not "assassinated." Killing of a person like Martin Luther King Jr. (civilian leader of a movement) is more appropriately an instance for that term.
A military leader in an armed conflict is not either in most situations, particularly when they are killed during an authorized conflict (such as one arising from an authorization of military force) in a combat zone. This also touches upon how drone strikes are part of a process, subject to a variety of rules. Likewise, deadly force can be legitimate even without court process.
Also, American citizens can be killed without court process. The Civil War is a prime example, but a few American citizens also served in other foreign conflicts, at times being in harm's way.
Note that though it doesn't cover all drone attacks, the authorization of force covering the Pakistan-Afghanistan region at the very least is a sort of "process" too -- it is a specific authorization. Some American who went to live with the Taliban or something and became a leader of their military effort very well is fair game in the right situation.
This does not mean drone strikes are generally a good idea. I don't think they never are justified. I can imagine how the use of a drone to kill an enemy combatant that is an immediate threat and cannot be obtain by other means could be defensible. But, like use of force generally, there is a lot of problems. The news item highlights why.
It also highlights a problem with tough guy talk like President Biden saying that those who committed the attack on the airport or similar suspects have a price on their head. A certain level of rhetoric pushes the sentiment that use of force for reprisal is necessary. Closer calls become seen as more of a reasonable risk. And, it simply is going to be the case that drones will kill innocents. They aren't that pinpoint, even with the right data.
The article also the NYT itself studied the evidence, questioning the attack. It is unclear how much that led to the official finding, but probably can be said to have put some pressure on the Pentagon. It seems there is a quick turnaround, the attack happening less than a month ago.
Drone strikes were used particularly by the Obama Administration, the Bush Administration more concerned with two military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem like a less invasive approach, which they probably are, but they can also fool you. The U.S. forces rightly left Afghanistan because military attacks and occupation is going to cause "tragic mistakes" too. War does that. Drones will do the same while looking "cleaner." Something can be wrong without be wrong in other ways.
We now are hearing calls for some "accounting" -- was that such a concern in past drone strikes that somehow went wrong? Do have one. Meanwhile, the children are still dead. As they many were during the invasion.
===
Meanwhile, France removed their diplomatic personnel from the U.S. for instructions (apparently never happened before -- even during the Quasi-War?) because France thinks the U.S. really screwed them over regarding a military deal with Australia. I guess Australia is less of a concern for them, or perhaps France-Australian diplomatic relations is less newsworthy here.
[Guess they are mad at Australia too.]
I find it hard to care too much though it's notable enough to serve as a sort of footnote. France comparing Biden to Trump surely won't help much to clam things down. I don't recall the Trump Administration actually managing to do something this productive. I'm sure some of their people might be jealous of such "art of the deal" behavior.
Anyway, it is France after all. The U.S. is not their enemy or something. And, the French need the U.S. too. At some point, it is hard to imagine they won't relent, perhaps being paid off somehow.
===
To toss in one more thing in the news, one of the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump (the second time) said he won't run for re-election. Recall that the election is next year, but these days, we probably do have something like continual elections on some level. His act of "infamy" already got him a primary opponent. He figures he can win, if after a nasty primary, but doesn't want to be part of the current House majority any more. The need for protection after voting for impeachment doesn't help.
The problem is widespread here. It is a problem of the Republicans at large. And, it helps turn off a few, probably more likely to be halfway decent in some sense (the true believer/willing to go along can still thrive), from being part of Congress. We have heard for a few years now some noise -- at times Democrats too -- finding the situation more unpleasant.
Many could have agreed that Trump crossed the line. No. They either avoided the responsibility or actively agreed with him. This yet again goes beyond mere party politics to the heart of the matter.
I was a strong opponent of the Bush43 Administration, repeatedly personally appalled by things they did. I supported strong opposition, including filibustering judicial nominees (in hindsight, questionable). But, Republicans have gone further down in my estimation. Down the sewer.
On the same day that the 1/6 Commission debate (DEBATE) was filibustered, another Biden pick to the Board of Governors of the Post Office was confirmed by voice vote (one of the things Schumer handled by universal consent). A summary of the current situation can be found here, which includes upcoming increase of rates (such as a fifty-eight cents stamp). The head of the Board has been something of a villain, which various people wish would be fired or even removed for cause.
As noted on that LGM thread, including in answer to a comment of mine, DeJoy is not someone that came from nowhere. Not only does he have support from at least one of the "Democratic" members, as noted by the MSNBC link, but the "neo-liberal" (if that is the right word) approach has been around for a while. But, you have to start somewhere here, and DeJoy provides a way not only to stop the bleeding some,, but also a way for another view to promote their view of the postal service. A good way to do that is to find a convenient target.
New York: I saw a reference providing kudos in part to my state for improvements in the area of felony disenfranchisement. ("New York and Washington enacted laws in the past two months that automatically restore voting rights to people convicted of felonies after they are released from prison.") As cited in my comment, as attention by many (including me) is nationally, reform also happens locally. This is especially seen in the area of criminal justice reform, making local races that much more important.
I fully grant my continual lack of attention on my local government, including since so many news/blog sources are more nationally focused. Here is a link to an article on ranked choice voting. The time for early voting is approaching and extended locations are available. Doing a search, a closer one to me pops up though it is cited as a church, which to me has questionable First Amendment implications.
Anyway, I still am not fully sure about all my choices though my first choice for mayor is leaning toward Maya Wiley. My sentiment was more to Morales, the most lefty candidate, but her issues with labor in her own campaign staff and decision not to provide a #2 choice to me is problematic. Kathryn Garcia is somewhat more realistic as a compromise choice, having experience and less strongly conservative leaning than Eric Adams. Plus, I want a woman mayor. OTOH, Adams might actually have to be my fourth or fifth rank as a guard against Andrew Yang. I also have to finalize other races.
[ETA: We have a second Stringer allegation but it was from a LONG time ago and I think he handled it better than the more hard push -- including the misleading suggestion the accuser supported Andrew Yang -- against the first one. And, it really doesn't seem the first got much traction, though it did lose him some key endorsements.
It's just unclear how much support he has. From what I can tell, maybe, he might be getting 15% or something at the moment. But, Garcia has more compromise energy. I'm inclined to go for Wiley (more so after both Julian Castro and AOC endorsed) and even as a safety choice with five ranks, not sure there is much value in voting for him. We shall see.]
Trump Oversight: Back in the days of Air America, Al Franken pushed for Democrats to win in 2006 (tempus fugit) because it would give them increased power of oversight, including subpoena power. But, subpoena power is limited by the intransigence of executive actors, allowing them to run out the clock and overall stonewall. The whole thing is quite aggravating and was a less remembered part of Trump's first impeachment, the count that Romney did not support.
We continue to have repeated instances of stonewalling here, including the Garland Justice Department not wanting to release much of a Barr letter related to the Mueller Investigation. They see it as a matter of deliberation privilege, but the net result is aiding stonewalling. From what I can tell, the House still have not seen Trump's tax returns. Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn refusing to testify for years is another. At least there, to some degree, he fucking finally is at least somewhat (so aggravating) testifying. We shall see what comes of it.
Filibuster: I'm working on another Supreme Court entry (will be a lot of material this month) and referenced Senator Sinema, who is getting a lot of vitriol for her public stance against filibuster reform and bipartisan theater (including a public event with one of the most partisan Republicans, the somewhat less annoying senator from Texas). My comment was that yeah she deserves strong criticism, as does Manchin, but she isn't a DINO.
People, including some experts in the area, feel we are at a particularly dangerous moment and need strong action to attack Republican anti-democratic actions. This is particularly, but not limited, to voting issues. (So, e.g. GLBT rights isn't likely.) I saw something that Schumer was going to bring the big voting rights bills (or least one) to a vote at the end of June. Vice President Harris (still nice to say) basically volunteered to help lead the effort. Good luck with that, Kamala.
But, what chance is there without changing or ending the filibuster? The continual dance on the infrastructure bill, which doesn't hit to the basic ideology/electoral chances of Republicans as much as voting, shows the chances of getting ten votes. The push to end the filibuster is nice, but what chance does it have? The reality here is that when you have no margin for error,* you are going to be stuck with one or more people that are going to be big pains. And, it also leaves me to think the most realistic thing to do there is to severely weaken the filibuster, especially to the degree it is somewhat symbolic/theater for the two key troublemakers.
As we are getting back to normal on COVID, it does seem even more appropriate to ratchet up the pressure on voting rights. If the big voting rights bill is too far realistically, fine, focus on some core measures that will push the ball forward there. I'm also interested what Pamela Karlan, a voting rights expert that is in the Biden Justice Department thinks. Meanwhile, various people are crying out that the damn house is on fire.
But, it is damn hard to have major change with no margin of error. The situation was different in the 1960s. McConnell didn't push any major changes, mainly doing nothing to restrain Trump, including helping to push judicial nominees. So, it is not even totally clear it is a "you know Republicans would do this" sort of thing. I won't pretend I know the answer. Weakening the filibuster to me very well is a reasonable offer, and one that just might have a shot. Let's see what July 1st brings.
---
* No margin of error means relying on Joe Manchin, a senator who did not get some supermajority of votes really even from West Virginia. This is why it is so depressing that the Dems couldn't get one or two safety senators last November. Hair on fire all you want -- you have cause -- but numbers don't lie here. How exactly do you convince Manchin? Biden isn't quite LBJ, and the Great Society didn't have to get sixty votes.
Arizona is a somewhat different thing -- Sinema barely won in 2018, but Biden/Kelly (both of whom were helped by support of the candidates specifically; Biden particularly won narrowly) suggests Democrats might push for a somewhat different Democrat later on. 2024 is pretty far alone though. The link is one of many valid criticisms of Sinema's logic, but again, what do you do to move forward here? Need more senators.
Election integrity legislation that passed last session included a provision that required a public report referenced in the tweet..@ODNIgov confirms that the Trump White House, GOP and their propaganda organs colluded with, or at least worked on parallel lines with, a Russian campaign to defeat Biden.
— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) March 17, 2021
This is the 2nd campaign in a row where Trump got Russian help. GOP doesn’t care. https://t.co/iuDPdq5PHd
From the op-ed from a hard liner type that now found religion:
A newly declassified report from the director of national intelligence confirms that the Trump White House, the Republican Party and their propaganda organs colluded with, or at least worked on parallel lines with, a Russian campaign to defeat now-President Biden.
The details (those that can be publicly provided) are useful and up to date, but this is not news. The Mueller Report, e.g., explained how the Trump campaign manager (Manafort) gave polling data to a Russian agent, data that would be helpful to Russian troll farms to influence swing areas. Members of Trump's family actively tried to get dirt from Russian agents. Roger Stone, working with the Trump campaign ... okay, how much do you need? People still made it controversial somehow to say that completely trusting the integrity of the elections was difficult.
The Biden Administration will add to the sanctions to Russia, China and Iran, as I understand it, to retaliate for their involvement. But, there will be just so much sense of just desserts here. People are pushing for criminal charges, for instance. Yeah. Good luck with that sort of thing though Rudy G. might get in trouble somehow and Georgia is investigating Trump etc.
The bottom line is the basic core rot, including a majority of the Republicans in the House, even after the Capitol (THEIR CAPITOL) was invaded, aiding the effort by voting to challenge the electoral count, aiding and abetting the big lie. Each time when I see one of the under ten Republican senators who join in, including those people don't associate with it much (Cruz, Hawley and to a degree Tuberville are usually given the attention when there are five others), I'm disgusted again.
And, it annoys me more wasn't done before. People badmouthed the Mueller Report, when it had damning stuff, and he wasn't some independent actor, but someone restrained by his bosses. House Democrats should have done more with it, especially when an impeachment involving the SECOND instance of electoral conspiracy arose, the count specifically referencing a pattern. The impeachment report barely referenced Mueller for whatever reason, suggesting a bit of a mulligan.
The whole thing is so damn aggravating, but you take what comes, and fight to do the best you can now that actual American first (no racist implications) government is in power in the White House and Congress. Reports like the one cited provide some means to obtain some oversight and action as the insurrection on 1/6 and all else is being investigated and acted upon. Removal would have been appropriate there, but you take what you can get.
One more thing. Okay Lt. Colombo. There is a general assumption that the 2022 congressional elections will be close, and that the Republicans very well might win at least the House back, at least if the economy is not going well. That is so fucking screwed up. The House Republicans have screwed us over for years now and supposed they can get in power again in two years, including as they continue to oppose COVID relief and so forth. It is a basic mark against our society that this is somehow not a clear reason to make re-electing them firmly deemed ridiculous if not offensive.
We are at the spot where 47% or more of the voting public supported the pro-Trump, anti-U.S. party. It is a dark moment. Anyway, less than a week from the signing of the legislation, I received my stimulus money. Other people did last weekend.
Witnesses
I still think they should have took more time -- it need not take never-ending time since the Senate Democrats had the power to vote up/down a plan for a limited set (see Clinton impeachment where three witnesses were called; not some open-ended process) -- to call witnesses.
A lawyer responding to TPM said "The managers said they wanted one witness — a one hour deposition of Herrera Beutler." I listened to Raskin. He didn't actually say that. He first asked for her AND access to her notes. That is rather notable. Also, he said that she referenced others and welcomed them if they were willing to come forward. Finally, he said if given the witness and notes, the managers would work off not. I took this to mean that he left open others, if warranted.
It's done, but I'm not sure what the point of all the drama was to insert a single statement into the record. It was a helpful statement but (and the "it doesn't matter" brigade willing to throw anything at the wall cite this) what really changed? Any votes? Any big clarification of what Trump was guilty of? Not really. It's one person making a statement. You don't even have the notes! People who insist it was so very helpful are being a bit silly.
Plus, the morning vote raised hopes. The other side appeared worried. The fact they agreed to release of the statement underlined that they didn't lose much at all. And, again, didn't we say we wanted witnesses for "real trial" last time? The disputed facts and new stuff that came out in the media underlined the value of it. The Dems looked bad and (unlike sometimes) the criticism this time was not really wrong on some level.
You do have people, including some members of the impeachment team [at least publicly], rather upset at people like me being upset. The reasons don't come off as very credible. Anyway, it would have been helpful if instead of simply reading the statement into the record, which came off as tacked on, Raskin made a statement on the agreement. For instance, he could explain why it net was the best approach. Maybe, not saying anything was part of some deal, but you know, it would have been more convincing.
And, why couldn't we have people who were willing witnesses, including one would think the police officer who received special congressional acclamation? Again, such witnesses in a trial or hearing would have special symbolic effect to spread the whole story to the nation. My only counter, perhaps, is that if you did that, the Trump side would feel a need to troll answer somehow. That, however, is not quite the "it wouldn't matter" etc. type typical replies you heard that pissed off people like me.
Timing
A lot also can be said about timing and I heard one person suggest that it might have mattered if the Senate at least started the trial before 1/20. Maybe. But, the figleaf probably would be as helpful as long as the final vote to convict took place once he was no longer in office. Taking their position seriously, I actually would find that actually credible. So, if it mattered, it wouldn't have mattered much.
I think it was wrong for the Senate -- once the insurrection happened -- to go into pro forma session (not doing business) after the electoral count was over. The situation was live and warranted them to be there. The Senate also should have accepted the impeachment before 1/20, which would have given Mitch's post-vote speech a tad bit more credibility.
But, the whole process took time -- contra to the Trump side this goes to the presence of "due process" -- and it is hard to see how it would have been over before Trump's term. The House could have started immediately, but even there, the process was going to take time. The great prosecution case itself took time to prepare and present. Getting the whole House to impeach (tossing in the ritual of asking Pence to do the 25A) also took time on the front end. Like moving a tanker around, these things take time.
The complete 9/11 Commission deal might take like a year or something. This was for a more limited reason and the timing was appropriate. For instance, Rep. Raskin noted that change of power moments are very sensitive and a special statement underlining the insurrection (which very well might not have been over, including talk of some "real" inauguration date still coming -- rumors of additional protests were afoot) was time sensitive. Republicans were already starting to handwave on 1/6.
Hope for ten more votes while emotions were still high seems naive. After all, the House vote couldn't be much sooner -- impeachment on 1/8 or something wasn't likely -- and you got ten votes on the Republican side. Noting that, the extra time that the prosecution side had to give a great presentation [the witness issue aside, which very well involved something unsaid] was appreciated.
Again, the things flagged in the last post don't hold up. But, we still can and should do other things. Let's see how it goes.
With the trial set to begin on Monday, I thought I'd would offer some opinions on the proceedings.Let's see how this worked out. Then, maybe I too will move on.
1. I do not think that this trial is unconstitutional. I am instead against the trial on prudential grounds.I supported it and think it worked out fairly well.
2. My chief prudential reason is that the trial will end in an acquittal. Thus, all we are doing is creating a precedent that what President Trump was not a high crime and misdemeanor. This will not serve us well in the future.The NYT did have a big TRUMP ACQUITTED headline on its website. But, if he wasn't brought to trial, he would have been deemed to get away with it too. Plus, if people look past two word headlines, this "acquittal" makes OJ Simpson's look good. There, you had concerns the cops were racist liars.
Here? You not only had a 57-43 vote, but a strong statement [however phony it is on some level] from the Senate Minority Leader that Trump was damn guilty, still is open to punishment but the Senate doesn't have a role any more. The "future" to me also would be more likely to see the value of impeachment in this end of term situation, especially after yet another precedent of a trial taking place. I too think that useful.
3. A full-blown trial will take a long time and be a circus. The Senate has other important priorities during the pandemic. Moreover, the country does not at this time need another extended discussion about the former President dominating the news.The trial to me probably provided the FIRST full fledged comprehensive discussion of the story here to the degree it was addressed to the nation as a whole. This was a useful enterprise. It did not crowd out other action, especially since national legislation has to be crafted over time, including by the House. And, a respectful effort -- and I think this was that -- would be evidence that the matter was addressed. That would help moving on to other things without it being an open wound.
The trial was not a "circus" though the Trump side was somewhat clownish. Yes, they threatened a circus if they had witnesses, necessary to me for a "full-blown trial," but I don't even think that was necessarily required. Anyway, the trial was pretty full.
4. A short trial with no witnesses is equally pointless. At least with a proper trial you could argue that we might learn new facts. A short trial doesn't even do that.We learned new facts. This includes a wider audience who unlike some "we" may not pay as much attention. This includes media reports about Kevin McCarthy etc. of the sort that come out when things like this are put out there and people dig deeper and have stories to fill. Not on back pages either as might be if it was some congressional hearing. It was not "pointless."
5. Having Patrick Leahy as the presiding officer will create a number of problems.It was a non-story. The expected subjects made an issue about it but it did not actually affect to trial much at all and the textual parsing was silly. Leahy stumbled a bit a few times, but it didn't really change anything. So, you had the Sen. Mike Lee business, which was asinine on his part, and it led to a bit of confusion. Roberts being there would have changed little.
6. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment offers a better path forward, as I've explained before and will do again next week.It wouldn't be better but we should still use it, especially since the 14A is not just about Trump, but a range of people not even covered by impeachment itself such as state officers.
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.
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.
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.
Here is Rep. Jamie Raskin's full 13-minute video montage of the Capitol insurrection.https://t.co/1pQtNtMHmd
— The Recount (@therecount) February 9, 2021
Today we had the arguments that we shouldn't even go to the trial itself, amply dealt with (waiving a half hour of rebuttal time) by Raskin and two other lesser known guys. It started with a video of the invasion of the U.S. Capitol, "R" content and all. Raskin ended his argument with a personal statement about his family being at risk. Other two were good.
Trump, after one guy rambled and the other ranted b.s. arguments, had his side end with some poem. Sure. The big issue on that side was why the lawyer covered his head when he drank water (Jewish thing, religious head coverings apparently not allowed on the floor). The shoddy nature of the argument not stopping the Republicans from voting against it 44-6, only one senator (Sen. Cassidy of Louisiana, not exactly the lead guess) changing their vote from an earlier procedural motion to table the question. Republicans are horrible.
We shall see how the Dems fill their time -- Schumer flagged the senators don't want witnesses (I'd have at least a few since they are powerful) -- but a comment suggested the nature of the crime -- extended instigation by fraudulently calling the election a fraud, incitement and then not doing anything (except for patting them on the back) as the crime occurred.
Note in theory that once the jurisdiction question is decided, Republicans can in theory deem that settled and rest on other things. I realize why they rather not, since "neutral" process arguments come off best. Also, realize that is rather optimistic, though it would not shock if a senator did vote "guilty" (and even one of the"fair process" six change on the merits). Still.
===
Keep Your Powder Dry is one of the Lana Turner movies on yesterday and was a fairly enjoyable WWII patriotic piece. Apparently, "Mrs. Howell" did more than one movie with her, since I saw her pop up in another movie in the series on that channel. I also saw that actress in another film (a woman gets to experience a year over again) from that time period.
The film concerns three different types of women who train to be WACS, it being released in 1945. Wikipedia tells me it was discontinued late in the 1970s, the units becoming co-educational, as they say. The film is nothing surprising but is a respectful look at the dramas of each women, including their concerns for self-respect. I thought Susan Peters, sort of the "Jan" character, was very good. Her character's ability to hold firm when she just found out her husband died was powerful. Checking, her life soon became tragic itself, though at first it looked like she might be able to handle it.
I recall watching at least part of Lana Turner's famous movie, the one about how many times the postman rings the bell. Would like to see Susan Peters in other roles too. Probably saw Lorraine Day in something too. Can do without fake drunks though -- tiresome character trait. Ah. I saw her in Mr. Lucky with Cary Grant.
===
I was annoyed that a horrible call and more led Kansas to escape their one real threat, resulting in two teams in the Supreme Bowl that many not me will watch. I would be annoyed if the Bills lost fair and square, but even harder now. Anyway, my support is with Tampa as a team, even if Pretty Boy leading the way taints the process. Wish for a Super Bowl I can enjoy, preferably without him being involved (even the two Giants wins had him).
Once we get that out of the way, we will be marching toward baseball season, with pitchers and catchers due this month. The Big V still makes things far from clear, even if vaccines and (up to a point) success during the not quite the same (closer contact, fewer games) NFL season (which itself had blips). No DH this season in the NL though there is a lot of people rooting for it. It depresses me. There is enough offense as is, including the resulting increase of the usage of the bullpen. Why is there such a driving need for even more offense, taking away strategical moves to boot?
On the front, there has been a lot of Mets news, including not signing any of the key free agents (they did sign some, including a big trade; but, that was a surprise, not the usual suspects). The current NY Daily News Mets reporter (replacing another woman a couple years or so ago, who is now covering the Yankees) argues not signing Trevor B. was not really some big disappointment while analyzing their moves and possible further moves.
Deesa Thosar also had a bit bite in her covering of the sexual harassment controversies, including bluntly in a past article referencing TB "harassing" more than one person. She also argued that women should not have the job of cleaning up the mess of sexual harassment (and worse) in baseball. Sure enough. I do think they can have a role, including maybe Sandy Alderson and others in baseball seeking out their counsel (and options for jobs).
The two women reporters, anyway, covered the team well. Among the various good sports reporters out there, there are many good women that stand out. I wish SNY had a woman sideline reporter for Mets games like the NFL does for games. How about even for eye candy reasons?
(Update: Reports are that the Mets have went with a middle range center-fielder option, Albert Almora, akin the the catcher they signed. The Mets got their big name with a surprise at shortstop and the big thing to look for is for them to get him long term. This is more of a limited move.
There was a big name (or two) talked about but Lindor served that role. So, shrugs. I think they will also get another back-end starter. We should see more avoidance of Dom Smith playing a corner spot, but figure he can play enough to keep him active, both there and in the infield. This is not a reason in my view to root for the DH either. There is a trade-off there.)
====
The Trump Impeachment Trial starts on Tuesday and it is almost blocked out by all the other stuff going on. I linked some comments against having one for which I added a couple extended comments. Here is a taste:
A full-blown trial will take a long time and be a circus. The Senate has other important priorities during the pandemic. Moreover, the country does not at this time need another extended discussion about the former President dominating the news.Again, I don't want to belabor the point here, I will though, but this upsets me. What this sounds like to me is that he wants to "move on" since an accounting of the insurrection [he separately says he thinks it is sensible to label it as such when talking about the relevant 14th Amendment provision] is not really important now. We dealt with it enough. Facing up to it in a full trial, as compared to piecemeal stuff, will be a "circus."
The last part is almost absurd. He's going to be a major issue regardless. The trial provides a chance for the matter to be addressed so that it doesn't linger on. Not that, again, he will simply go away. The participants are being handled by the criminal justice system at the moment and in each case Trump in some fashion is at least a silent partner. The true accounting, as we saw in the area of torture in the Bush years or the 2016 election, will take years. This will include in the upcoming weeks and months.
But, there is a certain immediacy here that we need to move on from. And, a trial is part of that. It will be far from a "circus" as well, even though like any public even trial will have that aspect. The comment to me seems like a desire to push what happened -- a MONTH ago -- away since we have better things to worry about. This is madness on a basic level. We have to face up to what happened, the invasion not just a crazy fringe, but an extreme version of a much bigger part of this nation.
The author wants to use the more legalistic 14th Amendment disenfranchisement mechanism. I don't think this will totally allow us to push things away since it will (should) involve some sort of congressional involvement. Just having scattered means of enforcement piecemeal is the road to problems. It also trivializes things to a major extent. The provision can apply to some small fry (as it did after the Civil War) who wants to run for office in some locality. This seems to be a charm for him, putting aside the involvement of the judiciary (though just what is required is simply far from clear -- you can cite 1869 state court rulings all you want, still true).
The provision sets up an almost bureaucratic remedy here, upheld by some local election review action if challenged. Putting aside my concerns that it might be seen as antiquated or at least novel (it last was really used over 100 years ago), this isn't what the impeachment is about. The impeachment very well is about bringing Trump to trial in front of the country. Having the country face up to what happened and what Trump's role in it was. Not on Rachel Maddow or a trial of the guy who wants to eat organic food in prison. No. Trump himself. Who realistically won't be arrested for it. This will be his trial.
Yes, it is likely he won't be convicted by the Senate. But, this is part of the process. Republicans in the Senate already swore an oath that they will basically violate as they did last time.* The country has to face up to that. That is part of what electing Democrats to control the House was about and having control of the Senate. The author is also concerned about Trump being found not guilty. But, it will be the not guilty of OJ Simpson. As last time, Republicans repeatedly are not saying he didn't do it. Procedural concerns -- told with the level of passion suggestive of them being aware they are full of shit -- are repeatedly provided.
After this, the 14th Amendment remedy can be provided. Let's see how many Republicans actually sign on a resolution officially saying he committed insurrection. Let's see if that too will be a "circus," labeled merely a partisan thing. Anyway, it is not the same thing. Impeachment is a special national political inquest. It is proper and necessary that we face this. A trial now is a good thing, including if you are concerned about other problems. Let us get it over with then. The reasoning falls even on its own premises.
Concerns about procedural niceties (like another person parsing text on who presides) is bullshit. Trump is not being treated unfairly. If anything, a majority vote via the 14A remedy [without Trump getting a chance for an extended defense] with a few judges upholding it since there is a rational basis for it (a criminal conviction for insurrection wasn't necessary in the past) to me comes off as more unfair to some degree. Law professors can parse things like the presiding officer but the author himself noted the same presiding officer was present in past impeachments.
So what the hell is really at stake here? A Chief Justice presides when the person impeached is a sitting president and in the same clause "persons" overall are referenced. A Chief Justice probably can (should) preside now too but it is a more complicated and disputed point. Plus, you are not going to force the guy, realistically. The real concern, and then more symbolically to be realistic since a presiding officer has limited power and a vice president still can be self-interested in other cases too, is when a vice president would preside for someone whose position they might step into. Impeachments for people who left office also was a common practice when the clause was ratified. But, who really cares about history when it results in conclusions not your own?
===
Anyway, the trial begins on Tuesday. The Democrats, after two weeks, also control committees, the organizing resolution finally settled upon. Harris also got a chance to do something Biden never did -- break a tie. And, it looks like something about five years in the making will come -- a hearing for Merrick Garland.
---
* In an alternative universe, the trial would be a way for many Republicans (not just a few -- like the five that didn't vote to end debate on a vote that the trial itself is unconstitutional, which is moronic stuff) to show themselves as serious about the problem at hand. Not just mildly concerned and saying enough to show "I care." To show Trump crossed a red line.
Many in the House are just assholes, including those who can't manage even to just be checked for guns before going on to the floor. See, non-assholes might find that sort of thing asinine, but realize a few weeks after an armed attack might warrant being a grown-up. There is a range there, but senators have their own things, including needing to call out the trial. How about just letting it be, even if you (badly) vote not to convict?
GM will see such things and sigh, this is the sort of "circus" that bothers him. But, it is also a result of one side failing to step up to the occasion. An occasion that should be addressed. Skipping it is not the solution.
The author recently suggested that the invasion of the Capitol very well might be treason, a crime that under modern constitutional law covers limited ground. As early as the 1850s, and probably much earlier, it was already clear merely interfering with the execution of federal law was not treason. Timothy McVeigh was not a "traitor" in a legal sense though he might have once been treated as such. But, this was about the transfer of power, much closer to the core concern of the treason provision.
(The word "treason" is tossed around a lot, but the constitutional provision is much more narrow. Other crimes are usually prosecuted and other than the symbolic meaning of "treason" (including to get a sense of what other impeachment counts are warranted) -- the crime historically meant more such as very harsh punishment - an argument can be made it is at least somewhat antiquated. Note though that on some level, it is okay to loosely use terms, everyone not required to talk like lawyers.)
The author repeatedly wrote that things that very well could be wrong and even criminal is not "treason." He cites, for instance, negative pushback when noting that a conspiracy with Russia to interfere with a presidential election would not be treason based on what we know. This, however, came pretty close. Imagine if slave supporters tried to stop the electoral count of Abraham Lincoln in 1861, deeming his election a grave threat to the South, hoping the result was Stephen Douglas would be chosen.
Terms like "insurrection" are even easier to apply here, the Fourteenth Amendment using it separate from "rebellion." Consider one dictionary definition: "a violent uprising against an authority or government." And, this is specifically what the second impeachment (Trump has been impeached ... the issue at hand next week is conviction) is about.
Query how far to take this -- Trump basically had at least three instances in which he tried to interfere with the normal transfer of power. This one is most directly aiding and abetting an insurrection. But, the basic mulligan involved in the Mueller Report and the attempt to interfere with the election involved in the first impeachment as a whole is rather comparable.
An impeachment is also a specific constitutional institution that is separate from the disqualification at issue in that amendment, even if the impeachment count does reference it. Without repeating myself, see here, e.g., for why I think the impeachment is appropriate. One thing there is the concern about Leahy presiding, which I find a bit asinine. It's at best a sort of interesting dispute that at the end of the day is really not that important.
We shall see how the trial goes. Anyway, the book is very interesting, ending with modern day questions such as involving be charged with treason for things like sending videos as part of terrorist groups. It touches upon drones, which is a whole other matter in my opinion that led me to have disputes with people I usually agree with on most matters. Either way, treason still has some applications and not only as a symbolic label.
The look at the text and history of the constitutional history here is informative. I think the text should (anyway does) have some important role here while history (including original history) should (but does anyway) have a more mixed role. History, surely someone with a BA in it and who now helps by writing little historical summaries for a site geared to high school students, is valuable. Decisions are made with it in mind. It just is a changing thing with various moving parts that we can use in various ways.
The text, to be clear, tends to leave a lot of space in most hard questions when resting on that alone. This is especially the case here. It is quite true that only a few things require a supermajority by constitutional rule (the op-ed cites some of the history here) but it also provides the Senate broad power to set rules of proceedings. The fact that only something like treaties requires a supermajority doesn't mean no respect should be allowed to the minority, blunt majority rule always winning. That isn't a good way to do things generally. But, that leaves open a lot of ground.
I will honestly note that during the Bush Administration, I argued that filibustering judicial nominations (at least) could be legitimate. It to me was a way to deal with certain wrongs involving the election of Bush, the two senator rule resulting in a majority of people represented by a minority of senators and the to me overreaching of the Bush side. OTOH, in hindsight, it is unclear how helpful the whole thing was. Most of the judges got through anyway and the precedent hurt President Obama. It is even unclear how much it helped to block controversial legislation. Also, should it?
We saw eventually that the back/forth led Democrats in the Senate to end filibusters for executive nominations (a rule that they never had a chance to apply to the Supreme Court, but Republicans did for Gorsuch). In effect, after years of both sides actually doing it, the whole thing was being used too much for the Democrats. This included Republicans refusing to confirm any judges for D.C. vacancies or to fill an agency that they didn't like. Other basic filibusters like blue slips (which Republicans didn't respect when control changed) also factored into the situation.
The result helped the Republicans fill in a lot of court slots, though there are ways to compensate (there are a lot of senior status slots, already starting to be taken, alone open, but the big solution is both quick confirmations and expanding lower courts). A few abuses of note here -- especially at the Supreme Court level -- very well can be cited. But, long term, this is good policy. Why should those who don't win elections have the power to fill the courts? Leaving slots open for years is abusive.
Then, we have policy. As some have noted, as a whole, even during the Great Society (involving controversial policy), filibusters have not historically been used much to block legislation. Surely, not to the extent used in recent years. The big story there was civil rights, but even there, there was often as much of a majority settlement against them. I think -- without analyzing the data in detail -- one can exaggerate. For instance, national education policy was blocked in part by filibuster as I recall in the post-Civil War period. But, it seems to be the sort of thing that might be used in a limited fashion, but not like more recent assumptions that it takes sixty to pass things.
So, we come to the present. Mitch McConnell at first blocked the rules for a new Senate because he wanted Democrats to agree to the filibuster for the next two years. The Democrats said "no way," but there is constant references to Manchin and Sinema in particular not wanting to let go of the filibuster. Some even fear -- though he consistently has voted for Democratic policies when it matters -- Manchin would switch as if he was some sort of DINO. Sinema, a newer member from the new Democratic state of Arizona, is a more interesting character there. How far will she go?
It's unclear. The first test was the rules. Next, comes financial matters which can appear to be something you can settle via the reconciliation workaround. That seems to be a key approach here -- avoid as much as possible any way to push the point. Change comes over a span of time, people appropriately pushing, but not all at once.
There already is talk that Biden saying he is for "unity" doesn't mean he will just agree to anything to get bipartisan votes. Basic core things will be demanded, details can be negotiated. How far this will go is unclear. We now have a probably not first ten Republican caucus proposal (thus 60 votes with the Democrats) on COVID. The big test might be voting rights.
There is also an argument, one I noted above, about how each half of the Senate are not really equal. The Democrats represent many more people. I think that's valid though obviously that pushes against a constitutional rule. But, hey, the filibuster itself is not found in the Constitution. It supposedly is there to advance the overall principle of debate (ha ha) and the cooling saucer of the greatest debating society and all that. Such open-ended principles can factor in a lot of things, especially when the Senate equal vote rule is so locked in.
When things are so locked in, you usually have workarounds too. A final thing there is that we are realistically stuck with a party in both houses (if somewhat less blatant in the Senate as seen on 1/6) that refuses to do the bare minimum. As an impeachment trial (people keep on saying "impeach" as if it means removal) already starting, the House Minority Leader goes to meet Trump. Can't wait a little bit, huh? Republicans cannot simply even agree (though voting against tabling the question is not technically the same as supporting the merits) the impeachment trial is acceptable. Bare minimum republican values, far from policy disputes, cannot be granted by even some significant limited number of them.
Some would deem 2021 as the true beginning of the twenties. Should be interesting.