Impeachment redux

[Scooter]

Nine Ten Republican House members have located their spines.

Mitch McConnell, after being heard saying that Trump has committed impeachable offenses, still refuses to bring the Senate back into session until the 19th. Fish or cut bait.

[MGMcAnick]

There still has to be a 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict the SOB. I doubt that's likely.

[BoSoxGal]

There still has to be a 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict the SOB. I doubt that's likely.

Only a 2/3 majority of the present and voting Senators. It’s totally doable.

Just FYI, the Senate requires a simple majority (51) for a quorum and vote call. If cowardly GOP Senators just stay away from the chamber, the conviction could easily happen.

[BoSoxGal]

Bill Cohen was right. The fallen snow must not be ignored.

by The BDN Editorial Board

Nearly 50 years ago, then-Congressman and Bangor native William Cohen voted to impeach President Richard Nixon. Cohen bravely stood up to a president from his own party, and history will remember him for it.

“If you wake up and there’s snow on the ground where there wasn’t any the night before, you conclude that it snowed during the night, even if you didn’t see it fall,” Cohen said during the Watergate investigation. “Conspiracy is too subtle and ambiguous to leave smoking pistols, but the fallen snow must not be ignored.”

Last week, America and the world saw figurative snow fall in real time as President Donald Trump helped fuel a violent mob that attacked the U.S Capitol and then could only manage a delayed, weak, haphazard response. This country can’t shovel all that hateful snow aside and pretend it doesn’t exist, or ignore where it came from. That’s what Trump is now attempting to do.

A small but significant group of House Republicans had their Bill Cohen moment Wednesday, standing up for truth and standing up to the dangerous actions of an unfit president.

Like Cohen, who even as a freshman member of Congress recognized and rebuked the lawlessness of Nixon, history will look kindly on these Republican lawmakers who realize that the presidency is bigger than any one person, and that clearly impeachable offenses culminating in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, striking at the heart of democracy, require impeachment.

For anyone looking to find responsible voices working to heal America in a moment of great division, or for any U.S. senator looking to find the will and the words to be part of that process, we recommend reading the impeachment statements from House members like Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming or Rep. John Katko of New York.

“Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough,” Cheney, a member of House Republican leadership, said in a statement on Tuesday. “The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.”

Katko, a former federal prosecutor, said that, “To allow the president of the United States to incite this attack without consequence is a direct threat to the future of our democracy,” and that he could not sit by without taking action.

“The divide in our country is more clear than ever before. I hear my Republican colleagues in their argument that impeachment only further divides our country at a time when we must move forward. I agree,” Katko added. “There must be a continuance of government and a peaceful transition of power. But I also believe firmly that I must follow the law and the facts and hold this President accountable for his actions.”

The statement from Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington in particular stands out for its directness, detail and eloquence:

“The President of the United States incited a riot aiming to halt the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. That riot led to five deaths. People everywhere watched in disbelief as the center of American democracy was assaulted. The violent mob bludgeoned to death a Capitol police officer as they defaced symbols of our freedom. These terrorists roamed the Capitol, hunting the vice president and the Speaker of the House,” she said.

“Hours went by before the president did anything meaningful to stop the attack. Instead, he and his lawyer were busy making calls to senators who were still in lockdown, seeking their support to further delay the Electoral College certification. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy describes pleading with the president to go on television and call for an end to the mayhem, to no avail. The president attacked Vice President Mike Pence on Twitter while Pence was in a secure room having fled from the mob that had breached the Senate floor threatening to hang him. Finally, the president released a pathetic denouncement of the violence that also served as a wink and a nod to those who perpetrated it: ‘I love you’” he said to them, ‘you are special.’ More hours of destruction and violence ensued before law enforcement officials were finally able to clear the Capitol.

“The President’s offenses, in my reading of the Constitution, were impeachable based on the indisputable evidence we already have. I understand the argument that the best course is not to further inflame the country or alienate Republican voters. But I am also a Republican voter. I believe in our Constitution, individual liberty, free markets, charity, life, justice, peace and this exceptional country. I see that my own party will be best served when those among us choose truth.

“I believe President Trump acted against his oath of office, so I will vote to impeach him.”

Like Cohen’s words half a century ago, these words will echo through history.

[Joe Guy]

The Donald will henceforth be known as President D J Trumpeached II.

[Bicycle Bill]

And here's one I missed post-election, but it works here too.



-"BB"-

[Gob]

[MajGenl.Meade]

So, how about the argument that an impeachment trial cannot be held because:

(a) “When the president is tried, the chief justice shall preside.” But Trump isn't the president; so Roberts cannot do it. So who can? [I'm guessing the framers didn't think it should be the VP because at that time the VP was the runner-up in the election; not an impartial person, that]

(b) Trial of a private citizen in the senate is in essence a bill of attainder - prohibited by the Constitution
(yeah I don't know what that is but lib told me about it)

(c) doesn't the Constitution specify that the penalty upon conviction is "removal AND disqualification"? Not, removal or disqualification . . .

Is this thing gonna happen or not?

[ex-khobar Andy]

Alan Dershowitz (yes, yes, I know) has this to offer in The Hill:

The Constitution provides, “When the president is tried, the chief justice shall preside.” But there is just one president of the United States, and his name is Joseph Biden. Donald Trump is no longer the president anymore. So it would be improper, and in violation of the Constitution, to have the chief justice of the Supreme Court preside over a trial in the Senate. This remains even though Trump was impeached while he was still president. The Constitution is clear in that it uses the word “tried.”

There's a whole essay in which he is clearly trying to say that the whole idea - impeachment of a private citizen - shouldn't happen. He wants Rudy's 20 big ones a day, I shouldn't wonder.

Logically, his argument is absurd. “When the president is tried, the chief justice shall preside." = 'If A, then B.' True enough. But the Constitution, however much Dershy might try to twist it, does not say 'If not A, then not B.' There is of course the general notion of separation of powers (a phrase which does not appear in the Constitution) but there is plenty of precedent for situations of convenience. In any case, if Roberts does preside, Senate rules largely constrain his function. We saw how little he had to say last time around. He didn't preside in any sense that I could see except as keeper of the stopwatch.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Logically, his argument is absurd. “When the president is tried, the chief justice shall preside." = 'If A, then B.' True enough. But the Constitution, however much Dershy might try to twist it, does not say 'If not A, then not B.'

You're saying that the Constitution does not say "If the president is not tried, the chief justice shall not preside"????

[Sue U]

Trump is being tried for acts commited in his capacity as president. He is not being tried (in this forum, anyway) for anything he did as a private citizen. This is a stupid argument.

ETA:

Dershowitz, who has always played the comically exaggerated role of "Dershowitz," has now become a complete parody of himself.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Trump is being tried for acts commited in his capacity as president. He is not being tried (in this forum, anyway) for anything he did as a private citizen. This is a stupid argument.

ETA:

Dershowitz, who has always played the comically exaggerated role of "Dershowitz," has now become a complete parody of himself.

Oh well, that settles it then

[Big RR]

Dershowitz, who has always played the comically exaggerated role of "Dershowitz," has now become a complete parody of himself.

Yep, he's following the path paved by Giuliani.

[BoSoxGal]

Once upon a time years before law school was even a glimmer in my mind’s eye, I thought Dershowitz was something special. Back in the 80s when he was on 60 Minutes while representing the wrongly convicted Claus von Bulow, who had been tried in the court of public opinion - where I think he was still considered guilty by many for the rest of his life despite his vindication on appeal and retrial.

Anyway, back then Dershowitz seemed a true hero and champion of the constitution, but over the years it became more and more clear that he was obsessed with notoriety (being a brilliant legal mind and Harvard’s youngest ever law professor apparently not rewarding enough) and since learning he’s just another rapist of teenaged girls (and I wholeheartedly believe Virginia Roberts Giuffre), he totally disgusts me.

[Bicycle Bill]

There is historical precedent for impeaching and trying to convict a former federal officeholder.

In 1876, as the U.S. House of Representatives was about to vote on articles of impeachment against Secretary of War William Belknap over corruption charges, Belknap walked over to the White House, submitted his resignation letter to President Ulysses S. Grant, and burst into tears.

The House still went ahead and impeached Belknap, and the Senate tried him, with the impeachment managers arguing that departing office doesn’t excuse the alleged offense; otherwise, officeholders would simply resign to escape conviction or impeachment (as did one Richard M. Nixon, in 1974).  And the Senate voted in 1876, by a 37-29 margin, that Belknap was eligible to be impeached and tried even though he resigned from office.

But Belknap was eventually acquitted, with the Senate failing to muster the two-thirds vote needed to convict.  A significant number of senators believed — or came to believe — that the Senate lacked jurisdiction to convict him because he no longer held office.

So the Belknap precedent is instructive.

Nearly 150 years ago, a majority of senators voted that you could impeach and try a former officeholder — for high crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office.  But just enough senators were persuaded that it was pointless to convict.

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

That post feels plagiarized to me - maybe because entire paragraphs are lifted word for word from yahoo/nbc news articles like this one. https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yaho ... 32146.html

Did you mean to use quotes but forgot?

[ex-khobar Andy]

CNN is saying that Sen Patrick Leahy (D, VT) will preside.

[Bicycle Bill]

That post feels plagiarized to me - maybe because entire paragraphs are lifted word for word from yahoo/nbc news articles like this one. https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yaho ... 32146.html

Did you mean to use quotes but forgot?

Yes, I did forget to use quotes.
However, to quote Rhett Butler, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."  The point still stands, with or without quotes.

-"BB"-

[ex-khobar Andy]

Good piece by David Graham in The Atlantic.

The Riot Has Obscured Trump’s Other Impeachable Offenses
The charges against Trump focus on January 6, but with each passing day, additional troubling evidence emerges.


Nothing concentrates the mind, Samuel Johnson said, like an impending hanging. Perhaps we might add a codicil: Nothing distracts the mind quite like a mock hanging.

On January 6, a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol, leading to five deaths, many more injuries and COVID-19 infections, and plenty of property damage. Some of the insurrectionists erected a gallows on the National Mall, and many talked of lynching members of Congress or then–Vice President Mike Pence.

The attempted coup reshaped the debate over then-President Donald Trump’s attempts to steal the 2020 presidential election, focusing both opponents and defenders on the insurrection itself and what role he played in inciting it. Now out of office, Trump is facing a second Senate impeachment trial. But as blockbuster reports in three newspapers over the weekend imply, January 6 was not the only or even necessarily the most important example of Trump’s attempts to hang on to power despite losing an election.

Those articles, in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal, sketch out a heretofore-unknown episode in early January involving an obscure Justice Department official named Jeffrey Clark, who was an assistant attorney general. He’d been appointed in 2018 to lead the DOJ’s environmental division, but became the acting head of the civil division in September.

After the election, Trump pressed Attorney General Bill Barr to turn up evidence of fraud in the voting. The Justice Department did not manage to find such evidence, nor has anyone else provided any persuasive proof of widespread fraud. Barr soon resigned, amid public browbeating from Trump on the topic. The president then began badgering Jeffrey Rosen, the acting attorney general, to intervene in lawsuits filed by his allies about election results and to appoint a special counsel. Rosen refused.

At some point, Representative Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican, told Trump that Clark was amenable to his crusade to overturn the election. Clark’s belief in fraud tainting the election was based not on inside information or some expert’s reading of the law, but—he reportedly told colleagues—on spending a lot of time reading on the internet.

Under the quaint, pre-Trump practices of “norms” and “propriety,” Clark would not have spoken directly to the president without his bosses’ permission. But Trump and Clark apparently developed a plan in which the president would fire Rosen and install Clark in his place. Clark would then use the DOJ’s power to assist Trump’s efforts to stay in office, including by taking cases to the Supreme Court.

Rosen and other officials were apparently stunned by the subterfuge. The ploy came to a head in a White House meeting where Clark and Rosen, a former mentor in the private sector, made their respective cases to Trump. The president was persuaded not to fire Rosen after top Justice Department officials threatened to resign en masse if he did so.

This caper would have been the crowning scandal of almost any administration; in this one, it is almost an afterthought. Part of that is because its path to success is hard to understand, other than on the “underpants gnomes” theory of election law. Let’s say Trump had fired Rosen and installed Clark. Then what? Maybe Clark would have gone to the Supreme Court (assuming he didn’t hit other roadblocks at the DOJ). The justices would likely have laughed him out onto First Street Northeast.

Trump’s real aim seems to have been giving the appearance of a federal challenge to the vote, which would given Georgia legislators a pretext to throw out the state’s election results. That seems unlikely to have worked, even with a DOJ letter; if legislators had acted, the matter would have ended up in court, and likely been overturned; and anyway, being awarded Georgia’s electoral votes wouldn’t have been enough to make Trump the winner.

Writing the Clark gambit off as both a doomed, pie-in-the-sky plan and a revelation that comes too late to make much difference misses the point, however, although both those things are true. The episode has to be viewed in the context of Trump’s broader effort to steal the election. Other facets included Trump’s demand-cum-threat to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes”; his pressure campaigns on the governors of Georgia and Arizona to throw out state results; his parallel courting of legislators in other swing states to do the same; and his intense lobbying of Pence, both privately and publicly, to derail certification of the results on January 6.

The idea of a violent coup was perhaps the most far-fetched element of this push. No one except the truest believer would have expected that the Capitol would be so poorly guarded and so easily overrun. Trump certainly wasn’t going to throw himself into that effort the way he had others. In fact, each of these ideas was probably doomed. Maybe they all were as a whole. What is dangerous is that the president of the United States had so many different tendrils of sedition active at once.

The January 6 riot quickly eclipsed all of the other machinations. The article of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives on January 13, for example, focuses almost entirely on the violent insurrection. It mentions the call to Raffensperger in one brief aside, and the other ploys not at all. The emphasis is partly because the riot was so shocking, partly because it personally threatened the lawmakers in a way Trump’s other actions did not, and partly because it facilitated a hasty impeachment.

But that narrow focus on the insurrection has also allowed some of Trump’s defenders to derail the conversation by debating whether Trump was culpable for the actions of the mob on January 6. Letting him off on this count requires ignoring not only his speech that day, but also his weeks of telling people the election was being stolen from him; if that had been true, they might have been acting rationally in storming the Capitol, but he was lying to them all the while. As the Clark gambit illustrates, Trump’s speech to the mob was just one of many improper and illegal efforts to retain power. Trump’s attempt to overturn the election was amateurish and poorly thought-out, like most of his initiatives, but it was also sprawling, dangerous, and unacceptable.

The Senate won’t begin the former president’s trial for another two weeks. According to the conventional wisdom, that cooling-off period benefits Trump, but it also leaves two weeks for more stories like this one to emerge—and for the nation to see the stakes of the trial, and to weigh the case for permanently disqualifying him from office.

[ex-khobar Andy]

An excellent video from the WSJ about the Capitol breach and the actions of the police. Of course they are all commies over there at WSJ so you can't believe a word of it.

Normally you need a subscription to read WSJ stuff beyond the first paragraph or two but this video appears to be on this side of the paywall.