Impeachment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Refuses Surprise Call to Testify in His Impeachment Trial

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentDivisions in the SenateList of Senators’ StancesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTrump Refuses Surprise Call to Testify in His Impeachment TrialThe former president’s lawyers wasted little time in swatting away the invitation to testify, saying the trial was “unconstitutional” and the request to testify a “public relations stunt.”President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers denied that he incited the attack or meant to disrupt Congress’s counting of electoral votes to formalize President Biden’s victory.Credit…Pete Marovich for The New York TimesNicholas Fandos, Michael S. Schmidt and Feb. 4, 2021Updated 9:19 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The House impeachment managers issued a surprise request on Thursday for Donald J. Trump to testify in his Senate trial next week, making a long-shot attempt to question the former president under oath about his conduct on the day of the Capitol riot. It was quickly rejected by his lawyers.In a letter to Mr. Trump, Representative Jamie Raskin, the lead House impeachment prosecutor, said the former president’s response this week to the House’s charge that he incited an insurrection on Jan. 6 had disputed crucial facts about his actions, and demanded further explanation.“Two days ago, you filed an answer in which you denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment,” wrote Mr. Raskin, Democrat of Maryland. “You have thus attempted to put critical facts at issue notwithstanding the clear and overwhelming evidence of your constitutional offense.”He proposed interviewing Mr. Trump “at a mutually convenient time and place” between Monday and Thursday. The trial is set to begin on Tuesday.But Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen, wasted little time in swatting away the invitation. They said that Mr. Trump wanted no part of a proceeding they insisted was “unconstitutional” because he is no longer in office, and called Mr. Raskin’s request a “public relations stunt.”“Your letter only confirms what is known to everyone: You cannot prove your allegations against the 45th president of the United States, who is now a private citizen,” they wrote in a letter to Mr. Raskin.Mr. Schoen and another adviser to Mr. Trump, Jason Miller, later clarified that the former president did not plan to testify voluntarily before or after the trial begins. Instead, his defense team intends to argue that the case should be dismissed outright on constitutional grounds, and that Mr. Trump is not guilty of the bipartisan “incitement of insurrection” charge in which the House asserts he provoked a mob with baseless voter fraud claims to attack the Capitol in a bid to stop Congress from formalizing his loss.The decision, if it holds, is likely to be helpful for both sides. With Senate Republicans already lining up to acquit Mr. Trump for the second time in just over a year, testimony from a famously impolitic former president who continues to insist falsely that he won the election risks jeopardizing his defense.Democrats might have benefited from Mr. Trump’s testimony, but his silence also allows the House managers to tell senators sitting in judgment that they at least gave Mr. Trump an opportunity to have his say. Perhaps more important, they quickly claimed — despite the defense’s protests — that his refusal established an “adverse inference supporting his guilt,” meaning that they would cite his silence as further proof that their allegations are true.“Despite his lawyers’ rhetoric, any official accused of inciting armed violence against the government of the United States should welcome the chance to testify openly and honestly — that is, if the official had a defense,” Mr. Raskin said in a statement Thursday evening. “We will prove at trial that President Trump’s conduct was indefensible.”Mr. Raskin could still try to subpoena testimony from Mr. Trump during the trial. But doing so would require support from a majority of the Senate and could prompt a messy legal battle over claims of executive privilege that could take weeks or longer to unwind, snarling the agenda of President Biden and Democrats. Members of both parties already pressing for a speedy trial signaled skepticism on Thursday to calling Mr. Trump.“I think it’s a terrible idea,” Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware and one of Mr. Biden’s closest allies, said of Mr. Trump taking the witness stand. Asked to clarify his reasoning, he replied, “Have you met President Trump?”“I don’t think that would be in anybody’s interest,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the president’s allies. “It’s just a nightmare for the country to do this.”Read the Letter Calling on Trump to TestifyIn a letter to former President Donald J. Trump, the lead House impeachment prosecutor said Mr. Trump’s response this week to the House’s charge had challenged “overwhelming evidence” about his conduct as the assault unfolded, and demanded further explanation.The managers said their invitation for Mr. Trump to testify was prompted primarily by his lawyers’ official response to the impeachment charge, filed with the Senate on Tuesday. In it, Mr. Trump’s lawyers flatly denied that he incited the attack or meant to disrupt Congress’s counting of electoral votes, despite Mr. Trump’s clear and stated focus on using the process to overturn the results. They also denied that a speech to a throng of his supporters just before the attack in which Mr. Trump urged the crowd to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” against the election results, suggesting that Republican lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence had the power to change the outcome, “had anything to do with the action at the Capitol.”Mr. Trump’s team argued that the former president could not be culpable for those statements, or for the falsehoods he spread about election fraud, because they were protected by First Amendment rights given that he believes that he was the true winner.In his letter and subsequent statement, Mr. Raskin did not indicate whether he intended to try to subpoena testimony from Mr. Trump or any other witnesses when the trial begins.The question has proved a difficult one for the nine House managers. Because they moved quickly to impeach Mr. Trump only a week after the attack, they did no meaningful fact-finding before charging him, leaving holes in their evidentiary record. One of the most notable has to do with how precisely Mr. Trump conducted himself when it became clear the Capitol was under assault on Jan. 6.The president sent several tweets sympathizing with the mob and calling for peace during that time, but as the House managers made clear in their 80-page trial brief filed with the Senate this week, they possess little more direct evidence of how Mr. Trump responded. Instead they rely on news reports and accounts by lawmakers who desperately tried to reach him to send in National Guard reinforcements, which have suggested that he was “delighted” by the invasion.Testimony by Mr. Trump or other White House or military officials could clarify that. But in this case, a greater understanding would almost certainly prolong the trial by weeks or longer. Republicans are averse to an extended airing of Mr. Trump’s conduct, but for Democrats, the cost would be steep to their ambitions to pass coronavirus relief legislation and install the remainder of Mr. Biden’s cabinet — with very little chance of ultimately changing the verdict of the trial.Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, with whom the decision will most likely rest, has indicated would be comfortable proceeding without witnesses.“We will move forward with a fair and speedy trial,” he said on Thursday. “The House managers will present their case. The former president’s counsel will mount a defense, and senators will have to look deep into their consciences and determine if Donald Trump is guilty, and if so, ever qualified again to enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”The calculus for Mr. Trump’s legal team is far simpler. In addition to alienating Republican senators reluctant to convict a former president who remains so popular in their party, Mr. Trump could put himself in legal jeopardy if he testified. He has a penchant for stating falsehoods, and it is a federal felony to do so before Congress.Mr. Schoen accused Democrats in the House and Senate of running an unfair proceeding. He said they had yet to share even basic rules, like how long the defense would have to present its case.“I don’t think anyone being impeached would show up at the proceedings we firmly believe are unconstitutional,” Mr. Schoen said in a text message.He and Mr. Castor also rejected Mr. Raskin’s reasoning that Mr. Trump’s failure to testify would bolster their argument that he is guilty.“As you certainly know,” they wrote, “there is no such thing as a negative inference in this unconstitutional proceeding.”But the managers also appeared to be appealing, at least in part, to Mr. Trump’s impulse for self-defense, betting that he might defy his lawyers’ guidance not to speak. Throughout Mr. Trump’s presidency — first during the Russia investigation and then in his first impeachment inquiry — he was eager to tell his side of the story, convinced that he was his own best spokesman.During the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Mr. Trump insisted to his legal team that he wanted to sit and answer prosecutors’ questions. That desire unnerved his lawyers, who believed that Mr. Trump would almost certainly make some sort of false statement and face greater legal consequences. One member of his legal team quit over the issue.Ultimately, Mr. Mueller declined to seek a subpoena for Mr. Trump’s testimony and accepted written responses from him that later prompted the special counsel to question whether Mr. Trump had been truthful.Hailey Fuchs More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      ‘The Courage to Put Country Over Party’: Arguments in Trump’s Trial

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyletters‘The Courage to Put Country Over Party’: Arguments in Trump’s TrialReaders call on Republican senators to “do the right thing, not the easy thing” and hold the former president accountable.Feb. 3, 2021, 12:56 p.m. ET“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” Donald J. Trump told his supporters at a rally in Washington on Jan. 6.Credit…Kenny Holston for The New York TimesCapitol Police officers and lawmakers paid their respects to Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick at the Capitol Tuesday evening.Credit…Pool photo by Brendan SmialowskiTo the Editor:Re “House Case Calls Trump ‘Singularly Responsible’ for Rampage at Capitol” (front page, Feb. 3):Open Letter to Republican Senators:As I watch the memorial for Officer Brian Sicknick in the Capitol and reflect on his courage and integrity, I cannot help but think about the lack of courage and integrity that has been on display by Senate Republicans. This brave man gave his life because it was his job to save yours. It wasn’t political. You are alive because Officer Sicknick and the rest of the Capitol Police stepped up to the plate on Jan. 6.Your job now is to honor them by holding Donald Trump accountable for inciting the insurrection that led to Officer Sicknick’s death. It shouldn’t be political. It shouldn’t be about re-election. It shouldn’t be about holding onto support from the same people who stormed the Capitol. It should be about doing the right thing, not the easy thing.My hope is that you take your lead from the 10 House Republicans who had the courage to put country over party.Sharon S. OchsFallston, Md.To the Editor:Let me get this straight.The lies about the election being stolen plus his words that incited his followers to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6 have been publicly broadcast and quoted in print, and even many Republican members of Congress initially acknowledged that the former president bears some responsibility for the riot. But since according to decades-old policy a sitting president cannot be indicted, Donald Trump has faced no legal consequences for his role in the riot.And now for the coming impeachment trial, his defense team is arguing that it is unconstitutional to impeach a former president, a position that many Senate Republicans are rushing to support as a way to let Mr. Trump escape any form of responsibility for what many would claim was domestic terrorism.So it’s looking as if Donald Trump may get away scot-free. All this from the party of law and order?James G. GoodaleFort Myers, Fla.To the Editor:I try to imagine what would have happened if the mob had gotten Mike Pence. Donald Trump’s impeachment and conviction would have been a foregone conclusion. Why should Mr. Pence’s narrow escape lead us to a different conclusion?Michael B. HeckmanPine Bush, N.Y.To the Editor:The Senate trial’s constitutionality may be in question. But that can be answered only by the Supreme Court, not individual senators in the minority claiming the trial to be unconstitutional and therefore moot.Republicans wrap themselves in the Constitution. So walk the walk, senators. Don’t dodge your duty. Vote on the evidence of incitement of insurrection. And if Donald Trump is found guilty, he may resolve the question of constitutionality with an appeal to the Supreme Court.Ned GardnerApex, N.C.To the Editor:Although a great deal of attention has, appropriately, been focused on the trial of the impeachment charges against former President Donald Trump and whether his enablers in the Senate will vote to convict him, the principal focus should be on the criminal investigation and prosecution of serious crimes that endangered (and continue to endanger) our democracy and caused several deaths during the Jan. 6 assault on our Capitol.It is clear from incontrovertible recordings, and other sources, that there is substantial evidence to conclude that Mr. Trump engaged in criminal conduct in violation of both federal and state laws. Grand juries should be impaneled immediately to consider the evidence against him (and his co-conspirators) and take appropriate action.Throughout his life Mr. Trump has avoided responsibility for actions he has undertaken — most recently the immunity from prosecution afforded to presidents while in office. That immunity has expired, and Mr. Trump should be held accountable for his serious crimes.Richard SchaefferRye Brook, N.Y.The writer is a lawyer and former assistant district attorney.To the Editor:To all the Republicans who don’t think that inciting a violent insurrection to overthrow a lawful election is a crime meriting conviction, I would like them to complete the following sentence: “It would be an impeachable offense if Donald Trump _______.” It appears they would never fill in that blank.Laurie WoogWestfield, N.J.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Liz Cheney Chooses Her Own Path, and It’s a Perilous One

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentDivisions in the SenateList of Senators’ StancesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyLiz Cheney Chooses Her Own Path, and It’s a Perilous OnePro-Trump forces in Washington and in her home state of Wyoming view her opposition to Donald Trump as a betrayal. Now she faces a reckoning over her leadership role in the Republican Party.People protested Representative Liz Cheney at a rally in Cheyenne, Wyo., last week.Credit…Daniel Brenner for The New York TimesFeb. 3, 2021, 3:00 a.m. ETCHEYENNE, Wyo. — Liz Cheney was getting so many questions from constituents and colleagues about whether she would vote to affirm the 2020 election results that she responded in a way befitting her background as a State Department diplomat and lawyer: She issued a 21-page memo detailing the constitutional and legal reasons Congress should not interfere with certification.Doing so, she wrote, would set “an exceptionally dangerous precedent” that no Republican should want to be associated with.Ms. Cheney was right about the danger. But she was wrong about the willingness of her fellow Republicans to go along with it. In the House, two-thirds of them voted against certification. A week later, only nine others voted with her to impeach former President Donald J. Trump for encouraging a mob of his supporters to besiege the Capitol on Jan. 6.Now Ms. Cheney, the lone representative for Wyoming and the No. 3-ranking Republican in the House, is the most visible and imperiled target of the pro-Trump majority in the G.O.P., which wants to make actions like hers a disqualifying offense for any party member seeking office. A campaign backed by members of Mr. Trump’s family and some of his allies in Congress threatens to force her out of her position in House leadership. On Wednesday in Washington, she will attend a private House Republican meeting where lawmakers will have the opportunity to confront her in person.At home in Wyoming, the sense of betrayal among Republicans is burning hot at the moment. It’s especially acute among the conservative grass roots and local party activists whose strong presence in the state helped deliver Mr. Trump his largest margin of victory anywhere — beating Joseph R. Biden Jr. with 70 percent of the vote.At least one conservative state lawmaker — who described the impeachment vote as “an ice pick in the back” by Republicans who supported it — has printed “Impeach Liz Cheney!” yard signs and is vowing to challenge her in 2022. Ten county-level Republican Party organizations have voted to censure Ms. Cheney in recent days, and more are expected to follow suit.People close to Ms. Cheney, who insisted on anonymity so they could discuss her private views, said that her break with the pro-Trump faction reflected her belief that many more Republicans share her disgust with how seriously Mr. Trump undermined confidence in the country’s electoral system.As she watched Mr. Trump and his supporters peddle conspiracy theories and promote what she called “the big lie,” Ms. Cheney became deeply unsettled by how many of her colleagues seemed so cavalier about Mr. Trump’s actions, friends and associates said. She was also bothered by the way Republicans cheered and mimicked the kind of behavior she expected of a foreign authoritarian leader but never from an American president.Ms. Cheney was one of 10 House Republicans to support impeaching Donald J. Trump last month.Credit…Anna Moneymaker/The New York TimesIn conversations with colleagues, Ms. Cheney, 54, has said she hopes her example makes more Republicans in and out of public office comfortable acknowledging that they should have pushed back earlier.Her allies said that attempts to punish her were counterproductive at a time when the party should be united in opposition to Democratic control of Washington.“The beneficiaries of Republican fratricide are Democrats,” said Karl Rove, the former Bush strategist, who is close to the Cheney family. “So the more we have purity tests and everyone has to think and act alike, particularly when it comes to former President Trump, it’s only helping Democrats.”But many of her constituents see no problem with making an example of her.A rally outside the State Capitol last week headlined by Matt Gaetz, the Florida congressman and Trump loyalist, drew several hundred people. They chanted “No more Cheney!” and cheered as Mr. Gaetz ripped into “Never Trump” Republicans, calling them relics from a party that Mr. Trump has transformed from its days under the leadership of the Bushes and Ms. Cheney’s father, former Vice President Dick Cheney.“We control the true spirit and identity of America,” said Mr. Gaetz, who is leading the effort to oust Ms. Cheney from the House leadership.After his speech, Teresa Kunkel, a retired state employee, said that she had attended the rally because, as a Christian, she did not believe Ms. Cheney was being an honest representative for Wyoming. “She didn’t represent what we voted for,” Ms. Kunkel said. “She betrayed us — big time.”The second impeachment of Mr. Trump last month, which Ms. Cheney supported, was an injustice, Ms. Kunkel added. “It’s like: ‘I didn’t like what you did, so you’re out. And we’re in the majority, so we can do that.’ That’s cancel culture,” she said.Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida headlined the anti-Cheney rally in Cheyenne last week.Credit…Daniel Brenner for The New York TimesStill, the push for Ms. Cheney’s removal from leadership — a step that lawmakers rarely take against members of their own party — may not foreshadow the end of her political career in Wyoming, where the Cheney family is still widely respected.The fondness with which residents speak of Ms. Cheney’s father, and the esteem he still brings to this state that is home to only 580,000 people, suggest that many voters will grant Ms. Cheney, now entering her third term, a degree of independence from Mr. Trump that other Republicans don’t enjoy.The campaign to censure her has also triggered a very different response from moderate Republicans who feel more at home in the party of the Bushes and the Cheneys than they do in the party of Trump. These Republicans — both elected officials and private citizens — say the ugliness and vitriol that Trump supporters have displayed since the election has led them to have an overdue reckoning.“At first I was really mad at Liz,” said Amy Edmonds, a Republican from Cheyenne who is friendly with Ms. Cheney. “I thought she was rushing it. And I thought the election wasn’t fair.”But after she spoke with Ms. Cheney — and read the 21-page memo at the congresswoman’s insistence — Ms. Edmonds said she came to believe she was dead wrong in believing Mr. Trump’s allegations of election fraud.“I was in some kind of fog,” she said. “I don’t know how else to describe it.”Since her epiphany last month, Ms. Edmonds said, she has apologized to two friends she fought with who had tried to tell her that the election wasn’t rigged. And now she spends time thinking about how to engage other friends who promote false stories and disinformation about election fraud on Facebook.She admits that she hasn’t been very persuasive so far, and finds that when she sends people articles from reliable news sources that debunk Mr. Trump’s false claims, “They’ll write back and say, ‘Well, this is mainstream media.’”That’s a reflection of how durable Mr. Trump’s hold on Republican voters remains — and how difficult it will be for politicians like Ms. Cheney to convince Trump supporters that they have bought into “the big lie” of a stolen election, as she has privately described it to colleagues.Amy Edmonds said that after speaking to Ms. Cheney, she saw how wrong she had been to believe Mr. Trump’s allegations of election fraud. Credit…Daniel Brenner for The New York TimesMs. Cheney is, of course, in a much more difficult position than other Republicans who want their party to move past the most divisive aspects of Mr. Trump’s presidency. Her family legacy makes her, to some, an asset as a symbol of the more traditional conservative Republicanism, and the value it places on career public service, embodied by the Bushes and her father.But that also makes her a target for Trump loyalists who reject that tradition as the very culture that Mr. Trump claimed he would root out from Washington.Kim Small, who attended the rally at the capitol in Cheyenne last week, said of Ms. Cheney, “I honestly feel like she’s what we consider ‘the swamp.’” She said she attended the rally because she felt Ms. Cheney’s criticisms of Mr. Trump “put her at odds with the vast majority of her constituents.’’Ms. Cheney’s allies described her as at peace with the stance she has taken on Mr. Trump. Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, one of the nine other Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump, said that too many of his colleagues were doing the opposite of what Ms. Cheney is.“They’re waiting to see if Trump collapses,” he said. “And then if he does, they’ll be like, ‘I’ve never been with Trump, ever.’” He described the effort to punish Ms. Cheney as “cancel culture on the right.”The more difficult but ultimately meaningful path, Mr. Kinzinger said, is if Republicans signal that they don’t care about the pressure, the hostility and the possibility of political defeat.“I’m willing to not win a re-election over this,” he said. “People need to see examples of others doing this, speaking out. And damn the consequences.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Impeachment Case Argues Trump Was ‘Singularly Responsible’ for Capitol Riot

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentDivisions in the SenateList of Senators’ StancesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyImpeachment Case Argues Trump Was ‘Singularly Responsible’ for Capitol RiotThe House managers cited the Constitution’s framers in urging that Donald J. Trump be convicted and disqualified from holding office. Mr. Trump’s lawyers said the Senate had no jurisdiction.“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,”  Donald J. Trump told his supporters at a rally in Washington on Jan. 6. Credit…Kenny Holston for The New York TimesNicholas Fandos and Feb. 2, 2021Updated 8:35 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — The House impeachment managers on Tuesday laid out their case against Donald J. Trump, asserting that he was “singularly responsible” for the deadly assault on the Capitol last month and must be convicted and barred from holding public office.In an 80-page brief filed on Tuesday, the managers outlined the arguments they planned to make when the Senate opens Mr. Trump’s trial next week, contending that the former president whipped his supporters into a “frenzy” as part of a concerted campaign to cling to power. Spinning a vivid narrative of a harrowing day when lawmakers were forced to flee as a violent pro-Trump mob breached the Capitol, the prosecutors also reached back centuries to bolster their case, invoking George Washington and the Constitutional Convention.“The framers of the Constitution feared a president who would corrupt his office by sparing ‘no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected,’” wrote the nine House Democrats, led by Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, quoting directly from the 1787 debate in Philadelphia. “If provoking an insurrectionary riot against a joint session of Congress after losing an election is not an impeachable offense, it is hard to imagine what would be.”In Mr. Trump’s own shorter filing, specked with typos and stripped of the former president’s usual bombast, his lawyers flatly denied that he had incited the attack and repeatedly argued that the Senate “lacks jurisdiction” to try a former president. They repeatedly urged an immediate dismissal of the single charge against him, “incitement of insurrection.”“The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th president because he holds no public office from which he can be removed, rendering the article of impeachment moot and a non-justiciable question,” the lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen, wrote in their 14-page response to the charge.Their other broad argument was that Mr. Trump’s remarks on Jan. 6 and in the weeks before were constitutionally protected. While they did not argue explicitly that Mr. Trump had won the 2020 election, as some said he wanted his legal team to do, the lawyers sought to shroud his false claims of widespread voter fraud in free-speech arguments.They effectively argued that Mr. Trump believed he “won it by a landslide,” and therefore was within his First Amendment rights to “express his belief that the election results were suspect.” His claims could not be disproved, they added, because there was “insufficient evidence.”President Biden won the election by about seven million votes, according to results certified by every state. Dozens of cases Mr. Trump brought alleging voting fraud or improprieties were tossed out or decided against him, many times by Republican-appointed judges, for lack of evidence.The impeachment filings provided the clearest preview yet of the legal strategies that are likely to shape a politically fraught impeachment trial of Mr. Trump — his second in just over a year — that is scheduled to begin in earnest in the Senate on Tuesday. They indicated that both sides expected drawn-out debates over the constitutionality of a trial, as much as Mr. Trump’s culpability for what took place.Despite their initial criticisms, a majority of Republican senators now appear to be lining up once again to acquit Mr. Trump. But the arguments could determine the difference between a near-party-line verdict like the one that capped the former president’s first trial in 2020 or a more bipartisan rebuke that could constrain any future political ambition he harbors.Though senators have yet to agree to a final set of rules to govern the proceeding, both parties appear to share an interest in an exceedingly swift trial, without new witnesses or fact-finding, that could conclude as soon as Saturday, Feb. 13. That would be far shorter than any presidential impeachment trial in history. But Republicans are eager to turn a page on a divisive former president, and Democrats are impatient to turn to advancing the agenda of the current one.The House impeachment managers, led by Representative Jamie Raskin, right, submitted an 80-page brief blaming Mr. Trump for the violent attack.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesIf Mr. Trump’s lawyers were trying to reassure Republican senators that they could dismiss the case without confronting its merits, the House managers were aiming instead to force them to confront the terror of the Capitol riot with an unusually visceral prosecution. They have compiled hours of footage from Parler, Twitter and elsewhere that they plan to play from the well of the Senate next week to compel Republicans to face Mr. Trump’s conduct head on, rather than retreating behind arguments around the process.The approach was evident in their legal brief, which was more dramatic in parts than a typical courtroom filing. It follows Mr. Trump from his early-summer warnings about a “rigged” election up to his last, futile attempts to target Congress’s Jan. 6 counting session to snatch victory away from President Biden.All the while, the managers argued, Mr. Trump was issuing a “call to mobilize” to his supporters to “stop the steal.” He invited them to come to Washington in early January. Then used a speech on the Ellipse outside the White House just before the attack to urge them to “fight like hell” and march to the Capitol to confront members of Congress and Vice President Mike Pence.The calls incited the mob to action, they argued, citing videos posted on social media in which supporters of Mr. Trump can be heard yelling “invade the Capitol building” after he urges them to “show strength.”“He summoned a mob to Washington, exhorted them into a frenzy, and aimed them like a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue,” the managers wrote.Unlike the first impeachment case against Mr. Trump, which centered on his pressure campaign on Ukraine, this one has bipartisan support and the prosecutors appear poised to make frequent use of Republicans’ own criticisms of Mr. Trump. Their brief quoted Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach, as well as Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, who said publicly that Mr. Trump “provoked” the mob.In making constitutional arguments in favor of Mr. Trump’s conviction, though, they reached hundreds of years further back, arguing that Mr. Trump had not only prompted violence but threatened the tradition of the peaceful transfer of power begun by Washington. They also cited debates by the founders about who would be subject to impeachment and when, as well as a 19th-century impeachment trial of a former war secretary, to assert that the Senate clearly had a right to try Mr. Trump even after he left office.“There is no ‘January exception’ to impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution,” the managers wrote. “A president must answer comprehensively for his conduct in office from his first day in office through his last.”They also insisted that the First Amendment right to free speech could not shield Mr. Trump from responsibility for inciting violence that would seek to do harm to the Constitution, undermining all the rights enshrined there, including free speech.The president’s filing was narrower by design, with a lengthier, more detailed brief due from his lawyers early next week. Still, the contours of their defense were becoming clear.The lawyers said Democrats had misinterpreted Mr. Trump’s actions and his intent, denying that he was responsible for the Capitol riot or that he intended to interfere with Congress’s formalizing of Mr. Biden’s win. They said his words to supporters on Jan. 6 — “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore” — were not meant as a call to violent action, but were “about the need to fight for election security in general.”“It is denied that President Trump incited the crowd to engage in destructive behavior,” they wrote. In another section, they denied that Mr. Trump had “threatened” Georgia’s Republican secretary of state or “acted improperly” when he demanded during a January phone call that the official “find” the votes needed to overturn his loss in that state and vaguely warned of a “criminal offense.”The lawyers reprised an argument against the constitutionality of the trial popular with Republican senators. They asserted that a plain reading of the Constitution — which does not explicitly discuss what to do with an official impeached but not tried before he leaves office — does not permit the Senate to try a former president.But they also said that Mr. Trump “denies the allegation” that his claims that he won the election were false. If that argument plays a central role in the trial, Republican senators could quickly find themselves painfully wedged between a conspiracy theory they fear could do lasting damage to their party and millions of their own voters who believe it.Mr. Trump’s response appeared to be somewhat hastily assembled after the former president shook up his legal team just 48 hours before the brief was due; the response, for example, was addressed to the “Unites States Senate.”In an interview later, Mr. Schoen pointed to another potential argument that could help Mr. Trump: that at least some of the Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol planned their attack in advance, suggesting that the former president was not the inciting force.“I have no reason to believe anyone involved with Trump was in the know,” he said of the violence that unfolded at the Capitol. Still, he conceded the heart of the defense would lie elsewhere.Nicholas Fandos More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Trump's Lawyers Are Unlikely to Focus on Election Fraud Claims

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentDivisions in the SenateList of Senators’ StancesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyTrump’s New Lawyers Not Expected to Focus on False Election Claims in His DefenseWhile Mr. Trump has argued for it, his lawyers will instead echo the argument of many Republicans that the impeachment trial of a former president is unconstitutional.Bruce L. Castor Jr., a former district attorney in Pennsylvania, joined former President Donald J. Trump’s legal team this weekend.Credit…Matt Rourke/Associated PressMaggie Haberman and Feb. 1, 2021Updated 10:02 p.m. ETThe new legal team that former President Donald J. Trump has brought in for his impeachment trial next week is unlikely to focus his defense on his baseless claims of widespread election fraud and instead question whether the trial is even constitutional since he is no longer president, people close to the team said on Monday.Several Trump advisers have told the former president that using his election claims as a defense for his role in the mob attack on the Capitol last month is unwise, according to a person close to the new lawyers, David Schoen and Bruce L. Castor Jr. The person said the former president’s advisers did not expect that it would be part of the arguments they make before the Senate.In an interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Monday, Mr. Schoen confirmed that he would not make that argument. “I’m not in this case for that,” he said.Mr. Schoen, an Atlanta-based criminal defense lawyer, and Mr. Castor, a former district attorney in Pennsylvania, replaced Butch Bowers and four other lawyers working with him after they parted ways with the former president.A person close to Mr. Trump said there was disagreement about the approach to strategy, as he pushed to have the legal team focus on election fraud. The person also said that the former president had no “chemistry” with Mr. Bowers, a South Carolina lawyer recommended to him by Senator Lindsey Graham, one of his most loyal supporters.A second person close to Mr. Trump said that Mr. Bowers had seemed “overwhelmed” by the case and confirmed a report from Axios that the lawyer had sought about $3 million for fees, researchers and other expenses.The new team has to file a brief with the Senate on Tuesday that will provide a first glimpse of how they plan to defend the former president. Mr. Trump never had an opportunity to offer a defense in the House impeachment proceedings because of the speed with which they were conducted.Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, warned Mr. Trump’s team on Monday to stay away from rehashing his inflated grievances and debunked theories about election fraud. Better, he said, to focus on rebutting the particulars of the House’s “incitement of insurrection” charge.“It’s really not material,” Mr. Cornyn told reporters in the Capitol of Mr. Trump’s repeated claims. “As much as there might be a temptation to bring in other matters, I think it would be a disservice to the president’s own defense to get bogged down in things that really aren’t before the Senate.”Many Republicans on Capitol Hill expect the defense team to at least partly rely on their argument that holding a trial of a former president is unconstitutional. People close to the Trump legal team said that would be a main avenue of defense, and Mr. Schoen told The Journal-Constitution that the constitutional question would be key.Mr. Schoen also said he planned to argue that Mr. Trump’s language did not “constitute incitement” of the violence on Jan. 6, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol. But not all of the former president’s advisers share the belief that such an argument should be made; some have said privately that it is unnecessary to debate the key focus of the impeachment articles.The constitutional debate around that issue — many scholars disagree, citing the fact that the Senate has tried a former official in the past — will figure significantly in the trial. In preparation, the Senate has explicitly asked both sides to address in their written briefs “whether Donald John Trump is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of impeachment for acts committed as president of the United States, notwithstanding the expiration of his term in said office.”The House managers are set to file their own, more detailed legal brief on Tuesday. The document should offer the first comprehensive road map of their argument that Mr. Trump sowed baseless claims of election fraud, summoned his supporters to Washington and then directly provoked them to confront Congress as it met in the Capitol to certify his election loss.The brief will also include an argument in favor of holding the trial, with the managers prepared to argue that the framers of the Constitution intended impeachment to apply to officials who had committed offenses while in office.A similar document from Mr. Trump’s team to expand on their initial pleading is due next week before the trial begins on Feb. 9.Some around the former president have suggested arguing against the central accusation in the impeachment article — that he incited an insurrection — and instead focusing more closely on process issues like the constitutionality of the case.While the lawyers were just named, Mr. Schoen has been speaking to Mr. Trump and others around him in an informal capacity for several days, people close to the former president said. Mr. Schoen has represented a range of clients, like mobsters and Mr. Trump’s longtime adviser Roger J. Stone Jr.Mr. Castor is best known for reaching a deal not to prosecute Bill Cosby for sexual assault when he was the district attorney of Montgomery County, Pa. He also briefly served as the state’s acting attorney general.Mr. Castor’s cousin is Stephen R. Castor, the congressional investigator who battled Democrats over Mr. Trump’s attempts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joseph R. Biden Jr. when he was preparing to run against him. A person familiar with the discussions said that Stephen Castor had recommended his cousin to the former president.It is unclear how close the Castor cousins are. Stephen Castor is a veteran of some of Capitol Hill’s most fiercely partisan oversight disputes in the past decade. He worked on investigations into the Obama administration’s handling of an attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, and a gun trafficking program known as Operation Fast and Furious.In the meantime, the nine House impeachment managers have all but gone underground in recent days, favoring private trial preparations to the kind of TV interviews and other public appearances often used in Washington to try to shift public opinion.Democratic leaders are trying to carry out both the president’s lengthy legislative agenda and a major impeachment trial of his predecessor more or less simultaneously. The decision to maintain a low profile was apparently driven by the desire to divert as little attention as possible from Mr. Biden’s push for coronavirus relief legislation, the priority issue of his agenda.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      McCarthy Seeks Thaw With Trump as G.O.P. Rallies Behind Former President

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentDivisions in the SenateList of Senators’ StancesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyMcCarthy Seeks Thaw With Trump as G.O.P. Rallies Behind Former PresidentThe top House Republican met with former President Donald J. Trump, working to mend fences after saying that Mr. Trump bore responsibility for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.Representative Kevin McCarthy tempered his initial criticism, saying that while former President Donald J. Trump bore “some responsibility” for the Capitol assault, so did “everybody across this country.”Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesJan. 28, 2021Updated 6:15 p.m. ETTwo weeks after Representative Kevin McCarthy, the top House Republican, enraged Donald J. Trump by saying that he considered the former president responsible for the violent mob attack at the Capitol, the two men met on Thursday for what aides described as a “good and cordial” meeting, and sought to present a united front.The meeting at Mr. Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Fla., came two weeks after Mr. McCarthy, in a speech on the House floor, said that the former president “bears responsibility” for the events of Jan. 6, when a throng of his supporters stormed the Capitol after a rally in which Mr. Trump urged them to “fight like hell” against his election defeat.It was the latest evidence that top Republicans, many of whom harshly criticized Mr. Trump after the assault, have quickly swung back into line behind him and are courting his support as he faces a second impeachment trial.While Mr. McCarthy, Republican of California, voted against the impeachment article, Mr. Trump was infuriated by the speech that he delivered just before doing so, advisers said.Aides to both men have been trying to broker a thaw between the two ever since, even as Mr. Trump has targeted other Republicans who criticized him more harshly for his role in the Capitol breach and voted in favor of impeaching him. They included Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the No. 3 Republican, who joined nine others in the party who voted in support of impeaching Mr. Trump on a charge of “incitement of insurrection.”Mr. Trump’s advisers have been seeking to highlight his remaining popularity with Republican voters as the Senate trial is set to begin in less than two weeks. All but five Republicans voted on Tuesday to toss out the impeachment case against him as unconstitutional, reflecting how reluctant members of his party are to abandon Mr. Trump even after he has left office.On Thursday, aides released a photograph of Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Trump posing together in one of the ornate rooms at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago club, and issued a statement calling the meeting a “very good and cordial one.” The statement bore the hallmarks of Mr. Trump’s bombastic and often false assertions about himself, incorrectly claiming that his “popularity has never been stronger than it is today.”“His endorsement means more than perhaps any endorsement at any time,” the statement, issued by Mr. Trump’s Save America political action committee, added, saying that Mr. Trump had agreed to work with Mr. McCarthy to try to take back the House majority in 2022.Mr. McCarthy’s own statement was noticeably less focused on Mr. Trump personally and more on the broader effort to win House Republican seats.“Today, President Trump committed to helping elect Republicans in the House and Senate in 2022,” Mr. McCarthy said, adding, “A united conservative movement will strengthen the bonds of our citizens and uphold the freedoms our country was founded on.”Their meeting took place shortly before an ally of Mr. Trump, Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, made an appearance in Wyoming to attack Ms. Cheney for her vote in favor of impeaching Mr. Trump. Mr. McCarthy was already in Florida for a fund-raising trip, and the meeting was added to his schedule, officials said.Mr. McCarthy, people close to him said, has been under attack from nearly every side, as members of his caucus who are allied with Mr. Trump have pushed to fight harder to defend him. After the speech that angered Mr. Trump, Mr. McCarthy tempered his criticism, saying he did not believe that the former president “provoked” the Capitol attack, and that while Mr. Trump bore “some responsibility,” so did “everybody across this country.”Mr. McCarthy has made no secret of his desire to be the speaker, which could happen if Republicans reclaimed the House.And his party is now in the unstable position of having a de facto leader in Mr. Trump, whose approval rating among all Americans is low, but who remains popular with a majority of its voters.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Waver on Convicting Donald J. Trump

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentDivisions in the SenateList of Senators’ StancesTrump ImpeachedHow the House VotedKey QuotesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWith Impeachment Trial Looming, Republicans Waver on Punishing TrumpHouse managers presented the Senate with an article charging Donald J. Trump with “incitement of insurrection.” But Republicans are increasingly indicating they are unlikely to find him guilty.For the second time in just over a year, the House delivered an article of impeachment to the Senate against former President Donald J. Trump, citing “incitement of insurrection.”CreditCredit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesJan. 25, 2021Updated 10:12 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — For the second time in just over a year, the House on Monday sent an article of impeachment against Donald J. Trump to the Senate for trial, thrusting his fate into the hands of 50 Republican senators who for now appear reluctant to convict him.On a day marked more by ceremony than substance, nine House impeachment managers crossed the Capitol to inform the Senate that they were ready to prosecute Mr. Trump for “incitement of insurrection,” a bipartisan charge approved after the former president stirred up a violent mob that stormed the Capitol. But with some of the outrage wrought by the Jan. 6 rampage already dissipating, few Republicans appeared ready to repudiate a leader who maintains broad sway over their party by joining Democrats in convicting him.Senators planned to put off the heart of the trial until Feb. 9. That move will allow President Biden time to win confirmation of crucial cabinet officials and buy breathing room for Republicans to weigh their stances in what amounts to a referendum on their own futures and that of their party as much as on Mr. Trump.Unlike Mr. Trump’s last impeachment, when his party quickly rallied behind him, several Republicans, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, have signaled they are open to convicting the former president after his mendacious campaign to overturn his election loss turned deadly. That would allow the Senate to take a second vote to bar him from ever holding office again. But at least at the trial’s outset, their numbers fell well short of the 17 Republicans needed to join Democrats to secure a conviction.A survey by The New York Times on the eve of the trial found that 27 Republican senators had expressed opposition to charging Mr. Trump or otherwise holding him accountable by impeachment. Sixteen Republicans indicated they were undecided, and seven had no response. Most of those opposed increasingly fell back on process-based objections, rather than defending Mr. Trump.“Why are we doing this?” said Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin. “I can’t think of something more divisive and unhealing than doing an impeachment trial when the president is already gone. It’s just vindictive. It’s ridiculous.”Lawmakers in both parties cautioned that Republicans’ mood could quickly shift in the weeks ahead, if more evidence broke into public view about Mr. Trump’s actions or he provoked them further with his defiant threats of retribution.Already, unflattering new details were surfacing about Mr. Trump’s broader campaign to use his power stay in office at any cost. The Justice Department’s inspector general opened an investigation on Monday into whether current or former officials had tried to use their positions inappropriately to help Mr. Trump overturn the election outcome. The inquiry appeared to be a response to a report in The Times on efforts by a senior Justice Department official working with Mr. Trump to push top law enforcement officials to falsely and publicly use fraud investigations to cast doubt on the election outcome.Although Donald J. Trump has left the White House, he remains popular with Republican voters, and many lawmakers fear crossing him.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesWith so much at stake, senators were moving with little precedent to guide them. Mr. Trump is the only president to have been impeached twice, and the trial will be the first in which the Senate has considered convicting a former president.With few Republicans ready to defend Mr. Trump’s actions, many have turned to arguing that the process itself is flawed because the Constitution does not explicitly say ex-presidents can be tried. Republicans have invited Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, to expound on the argument at Republicans’ luncheon on Tuesday, and some were bracing for Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, to try to force a vote to toss out the case for that reason during Tuesday’s session. Such a vote would fail, but could provide an early gauge of Republicans’ views on the trial.“We will listen to it, but I still have concerns about the constitutionality of this, and the precedent it sets in trying to convict a private citizen,” said Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa.She added: “He exhibited poor leadership, I think we all agree with that. But it was these people that came into the Capitol, they did it knowingly. So they bear the responsibility.”Irked by senators flocking to procedural claims that the trial was unconstitutional or unfair, Democrats warned Republicans that they could not hide from a substantive verdict.“There seems to be some hope that Republicans could oppose the former president’s impeachment on process grounds, rather than grappling with his awful conduct,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader. “Let me be perfectly clear: This is not going to fly.”Mr. Biden, who has been reluctant to comment on the proceeding, told CNN on Monday that the trial “has to happen,” even if will complicate his legislative agenda. But he cast doubt on whether the enough Republicans would vote to convict to sustain the charge.That Republicans were going to such lengths to avoid discussing Mr. Trump’s actions underscored how precarious their political situation was. Few contest that Mr. Trump bears at least some responsibility for the most violent attack on the seat of American government since the War of 1812, and many privately blame him for costing them control of the House, Senate and White House. But he also remains a popular figure among Republican voters, and many lawmakers fear that he could marshal votes to turn them out of office should they cross him.“I guess it depends on what state you’re in and what phase in your career you are,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told reporters with a chuckle when asked what would happen to Republicans who voted to convict..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-1sjr751{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-1sjr751 a:hover{border-bottom:1px solid #dcdcdc;}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1cs27wo{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1cs27wo{padding:20px;}}.css-1cs27wo:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1cs27wo[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}The Trump Impeachment ›From Riot to ImpeachmentThe riot inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, followed a rally at which President Trump made an inflammatory speech to his supporters, questioning the results of the election. Here’s a look at what happened and at the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by Mr. Trump set the stage for the riot.A two hour period was crucial to turning the rally into the riot.Several Trump administration officials, including cabinet members Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao, announced that they were stepping down as a result of the riot.Federal prosecutors have charged more than 70 people, including some who appeared in viral photos and videos of the riot. Officials expect to eventually charge hundreds of others.The House voted to impeach the president on charges of “inciting an insurrection” that led to the rampage by his supporters.Mr. McConnell, who steered the president to acquittal a year ago, has largely left senators to navigate the proceeding on their own this time. He has made clear through advisers and calls with colleagues that he personally views Mr. Trump’s conduct as impeachable and sees the process as a possible way to purge him from the party and rebuild before the 2022 midterm elections. But he has not committed to voting to convict.At least a half-dozen or so Republicans appear ready to join him if he does, but dozens of others appear to be unwilling to break from four years of alliance with Mr. Trump.Carrying a slim blue envelope on Monday, the House managers, led by Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, walked the impeachment article through a Capitol where memories of the siege were still fresh. They started in the House chamber, where lawmakers had ducked for cover and donned gas masks as rioters tried to force their way in; past Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office suite, which was ransacked; through the Rotunda, where officers fired tear gas as they lost control over the throng; and into the well of the Senate chamber, where invaders wearing pro-Trump gear congregated, taking photos on the dais from which the vice president and senators had been forced to evacuate minutes before.House Impeachment Managers Rep. Madeleine Dean and Rep. Jamie Raskin talk after delivering the article of impeachment to the Senate on Capitol Hill.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesAfter Mr. Raskin read the charge in full, the managers departed, leaving the matter to the Senate, which planned to reconvene at 2:30 p.m. Tuesday to issue a summons to Mr. Trump to answer for the charge. Senators were expected to formally agree to a schedule for the coming weeks and swear an impeachment oath dating to the 18th century to do “impartial justice.”Mr. Trump’s new defense lawyer, Butch Bowers, was said to be trying to line up at least one additional lawyer to join him, according to people familiar with the planning. He was also working with Jason Miller, an adviser to Mr. Trump, on a public-relations campaign.Other aspects of the trial began to come into focus on Monday as well. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Senate president pro tempore, said he would preside over the trial, assuming a role filled last year by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.The Constitution states that the chief justice of the United States presides over any impeachment trial of the president or vice president. But it does not explicitly give guidance on who should oversee the proceeding for others, including former presidents. Mr. Schumer said Chief Justice Roberts was uninterested in reprising a time-consuming role that would insert him and the Supreme Court into the political fight over Mr. Trump.The role was largely ceremonial in the first impeachment trial of Mr. Trump a year ago. But as the presiding officer, Mr. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, could issue rulings on key questions around the admissibility of evidence and whether a trial of a former president is even allowed under the Constitution. He will also retain a vote himself.The job could also have gone to Vice President Kamala Harris, in her capacity as president of the Senate. But there were clear drawbacks for Ms. Harris in overseeing a proceeding that is all but certain to be regarded by some as an effort by Democrats to use their newfound power to punish the leader of the rival political party.Mr. Leahy’s presence on the dais could open Democrats to similar charges from the right, particularly if he issues a contentious ruling, but officials said there was no clear alternative without the chief justice. In a statement, Mr. Leahy was adamant he would take “extraordinarily seriously” his trial oath to administer “impartial justice.”Maggie Haberman More