US Senate

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Impeachment trial: Trump accused of inflaming insurrection while defense insists it was free speech – live

      by

      Key events

      Show

      4.10pm EST16:10
      Trump lawyer appears to warn of more violence if impeachment trial continues

      3.36pm EST15:36
      Trump’s defense team warns against punishing political speech

      3.07pm EST15:07
      Trump’s legal team argues impeachment trial is unconstitutional

      2.46pm EST14:46
      Raskin provides emotional account of January 6 insurrection

      1.25pm EST13:25
      Impeachment managers play videos from Capitol insurrection

      1.03pm EST13:03
      Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump begins

      12.51pm EST12:51
      Community health centers to receive one million vaccine doses, White House says

      Live feed

      Show

      4.44pm EST16:44

      Some viewers of the impeachment trial wondered why David Schoen, one of Donald Trump’s defense lawyers, kept resting his hand on his head as he took a sip of water while making his opening argument.
      Daniel Goldman, the lead counsel of the House inquiry during Trump’s first impeachment, explained it was because Schoen is an observant Jew and must cover his head and say a blessing when he drinks a sip of water.

      Daniel Goldman
      (@danielsgoldman)
      Mr. Schoen is an observant Jew who must cover his head when he takes a sip of water and quietly says a blessing. Since he is not wearing a kippah, he therefore covers his head with his hand.

      February 9, 2021

      4.35pm EST16:35

      David Schoen, one of Donald Trump’s lawyers, argued that House Democrats inappropriately delayed the impeachment trial by holding back the article of impeachment.
      But it was then-Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell who said he would not bring the chamber back early from recess to start the trial, despite Democratic leader Chuck Schumer’s requests for an emergency session to immediately begin the proceedings.
      So it is not accurate to blame Democrats for the delayed start date of the impeachment trial.

      4.26pm EST16:26

      Congresswoman Ilhan Omar pushed back against the arguments presented by Donald Trump’s defense team in the impeachment trial.
      Omar sent a tweet about the proceedings shortly after the defense team played a video showing Democrats, including Omar, calling for the impeachment of Trump as early as 2017.
      “Let’s be clear, we might have all done and said things we regret, but only Trump and the #seditioncaucus words and actions have let to an insurrection of our nation’s Capital, death and bodily harm,” the Democratic congresswoman said. “Don’t let them confuse you.”

      Ilhan Omar
      (@IlhanMN)
      Let’s be clear, we might have all done and said things we regret, but only Trump and the #seditioncaucus words and actions have let to an insurrection of our nation’s Capital, death and bodily harm. Don’t let them confuse you.

      February 9, 2021

      4.21pm EST16:21

      Lauren Aratani

      Bruce Castor’s bizarre opening argument in defense of Donald Trump could be part of the team’s “deliberative strategy,” a Trump ally is telling reporters, including the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman and NBC’s Peter Alexander.

      Peter Alexander
      (@PeterAlexander)
      A Trump source, just now, describes Castor’s argument as a “very clear, deliberative strategy.”Says defense is “lowering the temperature… before dropping the hammer on the unconstitutional nature of this impeachment witch hunt.”

      February 9, 2021

      It seems that the defense team was trying to tamper emotions after the House’s impeachment managers appeared in front of the Senate. Castor was “lowering the temperature” before the team went on to “dropping the hammer on the unconstitutional nature of this impeachment witch hunt,” according to an anonymous Trump ally who spoke to Alexander.
      It is unclear what part of Castor’s statement was part of this strategy given that he acknowledged moments ago on the Senate floor that the team “changed what we were going to do on account that we thought the House managers presentation was well done.” Perhaps the admission was part of the “deliberative strategy”?

      4.13pm EST16:13

      David Schoen criticized the House impeachment managers for playing “movies” to make their case for Donald Trump’s conviction.
      The impeachment managers opened their arguments today by playing a video showing the violence and destruction at the Capitol on January 6.

      Shortly after Schoen issued his criticism, he played his own video, showing Democrats calling for the impeachment of Trump as early as 2017.
      Schoen’s video opened with a clip of Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager, as menacing music played in the background.

      4.10pm EST16:10

      Trump lawyer appears to warn of more violence if impeachment trial continues

      David Schoen, a member of Donald Trump’s legal team, accused Democrats of abusing the impeachment power to gain a political advantage.
      The former president’s lawyer argued Democrats are pursuing impeachment because they are still mad about the results of the 2016 election. (The impeachment managers’ opening argument focused exclusively on the violent insurrection at the Capitol last month, which Trump incited.)
      “I promise you that if these proceedings go forward, everyone will look bad,” Schoen said, warning that the trial would “open up new and bigger wounds across the nation”.
      Schoen then appeared to suggest that the impeachment trial could spark another civil war, saying, “This trial will tear this country apart, perhaps like we have only seen once before in American history.”

      Updated
      at 4.10pm EST

      4.01pm EST16:01

      As he concluded his opening comments, Bruce Castor also bizarrely seemed to suggest Donald Trump should be arrested if the allegations at the heart of the impeachment trial are true.
      “A high crime is a felony, and a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor,” Castor said. “After he’s out of office, you go and arrest him. … The department of justice does know what to do with such people. And so far, I haven’t seen any activity in that direction.”

      Aaron Rupar
      (@atrupar)
      Castor winds down his very bizarre speech by daring the DOJ to arrest Trump pic.twitter.com/jmoxdIU6Pm

      February 9, 2021

      3.55pm EST15:55

      Bruce Castor closed his opening comments by acknowledging that Donald Trump’s defense team was caught off guard by the strength of the House impeachment managers’ presentation.
      The former president’s lawyer said the defense team reshuffled because they thought the managers’ presentation would focus only on the question of Senate jurisdiction rather than recounting the violence and destruction of the January 6 insurrection.
      “We have counter-arguments to literally everything they have raised, and you will hear them later in the case,” Castor said.
      And with that, he handed things over to another member of Trump’s defense team, David Schoen.

      3.47pm EST15:47

      Alan Dershowitz, who served as a member of Donald Trump’s defense team during his first impeachment trial, criticized Bruce Castor’s rambling opening presentation.
      “There is no argument. I have no idea what he is doing,” Dershowitz told the conservative outlet Newsmax. “I have no idea why he’s saying what he’s saying.”

      Newsmax
      (@newsmax)
      ‘There is no argument – I have no idea what he is doing,’ @AlanDersh on Trump’s defense lawyer Bruce Castor ‘talking nice’ to U.S. Senators – via Newsmax TV’s ‘American Agenda.’ https://t.co/VlT7z8drtO pic.twitter.com/7P7uVk5X19

      February 9, 2021

      Dershowitz said Castor was too focused on “talking nice” to senators rather than making a “constitutional argument” for why the impeachment trial should be dismissed.
      “I have no idea what he’s doing. Maybe he’ll bring it home, but right now it doesn’t appear to be effective advocacy,” Dershowitz said. “Boy, it’s not the kind of argument I would have made. I’ll tell you that.”

      3.36pm EST15:36

      Trump’s defense team warns against punishing political speech

      About 20 minutes into his speech, Bruce Castor addressed the January 6 insurrection, pointing to a First Amendment defense for Donald Trump inciting the violence.
      “We can’t possibly be suggesting that we punish people for political speech in this country,” the former president’s lawyer told senators.
      The impeachment managers preemptively addressed this argument in their final pre-trial brief, which they filed earlier today.
      “The First Amendment does not immunize President Trump from impeachment or limit the Senate’s power to protect the Nation from an unfit leader,” the managers wrote in their brief.
      They added, “And even assuming the First Amendment applied, it would certainly not protect President Trump’s speech on January 6, which incited lawless action.”

      Updated
      at 3.36pm EST

      3.28pm EST15:28

      Bruce Castor, who is leading Donald Trump’s defense team, opened his presentation by praising senator as “patriots” and mentioning that he still gets lost in the Capitol sometimes.
      Castor did not directly address the president’s actions on January 6 or argue against the constitutionality of the impeachment trial.
      Reporters compared the former president’s lawyer to a college student who did not do the reading before class, joking that Castor would be fired by tweet if Trump still had access to his Twitter account.

      Abby D. Phillip
      (@abbydphillip)
      I have been in this government class before, where someone hasn’t done the reading, napped through the first half of class, gets called on and just riffs for 15 minutes.

      February 9, 2021

      James Hohmann
      (@jameshohmann)
      Bruce Castor’s opening speech feels a little like this. pic.twitter.com/D2j5soQ6s8

      February 9, 2021

      Seung Min Kim
      (@seungminkim)
      If Trump still had his Twitter account, he may Tweet-fire this lawyer on the spot.

      February 9, 2021

      3.17pm EST15:17

      The beginning of Bruce Castor’s presentation seemed to be mostly him rambling, which did not escape the attention of those watching the impeachment trial.

      Susan Glasser
      (@sbg1)
      Yes. https://t.co/tOAiYJFRCH

      February 9, 2021

      Castor, who is leading Donald Trump’s defense team, spent several minutes explaining how senators are different than other Americans. It was very unclear how that issue relates to whether the impeachment trial is constitutional.
      The contrast to House impeachment managers’ presentation, which started with a video showing the violence and destruction of the January 6 insurrection, was quite stark.

      Dave Weigel
      (@daveweigel)
      This is a “My Cousin Vinny”-level mismatch of opening statements so far

      February 9, 2021

      3.07pm EST15:07

      Trump’s legal team argues impeachment trial is unconstitutional

      The impeachment trial has now resumed, and Donald Trump’s legal team has started delivering its argument that the trial is unconstitutional.
      Lawyer Bruce Castor opened his remarks by acknowledging the “outstanding presentation” offered by the impeachment managers.
      Castor also emphasized that he and Trump’s other lawyers denounced the violence at the Capitol on January 6, saying they believed all the insurrectionists involved in the attack should be prosecuted. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Senator Raskin breaks down recounting Capitol breach – video

      by

      Democrat senator Jamie Raskin fought back tears as he recounted his experience of the Capitol breach which happened the day after the death of his son.
      Raskin’s 24-year-old daughter and his son-in-law were hiding in his office during the attack. ‘People died that day,’ the senator continued, ‘this cannot be our future’
      Trump second impeachment: live updates More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Analysis: Democrats use Trump impeachment to show sometimes symbolism is the point

      by

      Sign up for the Guardian’s First Thing newsletterThe Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin stood at the lectern, faced 100 senators and removed his black face mask to begin the historic second impeachment trial of former president Donald John Trump.Don’t worry, Raskin assured them with a disarming note of humour on Tuesday. He might have been a constitutional law professor for three decades but he would not be lecturing them on the Federalist Papers. “A professor is someone who talks in someone else’s sleep,” he quoted from the poet W H Auden.Instead Raskin promised “cold, hard facts” and he was as good as his word. He let the murderous mob do the talking. The congressman stood aside to a play a brutal, raw, shocking video of the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January.For the senators riveted to their seats, forced to relive the nightmarish quality of that day, there was something especially spooky about watching the mob rampaging through the very building where they were sitting, smashing windows, crushing police officers in doors, waving far-right regalia and chanting “Fight for Trump!”For Republicans, it must have been uniquely stomach-churning to see what their champion had unleashed – knowing that most of them will continue to defend them during this trial for fear of angering his “base”. Never can they have been so relieved to have been wearing masks that concealed their expressions from the press gallery.The video ended with a tweet from Trump from that day insisting this is what happens when an election is stolen (it wasn’t stolen). He told his fans: “Go home with love & peace! Remember this day forever!”The montage was an early indication that, whereas Trump’s first impeachment trial a year ago – which turned on a phone call seeking political favours from Ukraine – was like a white-collar criminal case, this time is more akin to a mob trial with Trump cast as the instigator of violent thugs.It was a dramatic, roaring start to the trial that promises to plant a giant exclamation mark at the end of the Trump presidency. Raskin and his eight fellow House impeachment managers want to make sure that 6 January will become the operatic climax of America’s four years of living dangerously.They also want to send a message. They are aware that the world’s faith in America has been badly shaken by the election and presidency of a reality TV star who thrives on petty insults and breaking rules. And they are aware that the 6 January riot may have been breaking point for some.Peggy Noonan, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, told the MSNBC network on Tuesday: “I have spoken to many people in foreign affairs, including ambassadors and others representing other countries, and since the events following the November election and the president’s attempt to overturn it, they have been not been disappointed, they have been anguished by this, by the sense that America is dropping the ball and can no longer function as the thing you are aiming at.”But Joe Biden likes to say that betting against America is always a bad bet. His election and orderly inauguration last month sent a signal to the world that it should not write off the young republic yet.Democrats are aware that the trial outcome is a foregone conclusion – another Trump acquittal, barring sensational new evidence – and that the stakes are lower because he has already left office. But sometimes symbolism is the point. The impeachment trial is a test of accountability, stability and rule of law before a global audience.So in a Capitol building where some windows remain cracked, they observed the solemn rituals and traditions, filing into the Senate chamber beneath the busts of 20 former vice-presidents gazing down from marble plinths in alcoves. This time there were no members of the public in the gallery because of coronavirus precautions.Just before 1pm, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate minority leader, walked in a little unsteadily and stood at his desk. He was approached by Susan Collins, who is expected to vote against Trump and spoke to him animatedly. Then came Tom Cotton, who is expected to vote for Trump’s acquittal, for another deep conversation.McConnell remains the pivotal figure at the trial and in the coming years. For a few days after the attack on the Capitol he seemed to be ready to cut Trump loose, and persuade many colleagues to do likewise, yet he then voted to support the notion that this trial is unconstitutional. His future actions will offer clues as to whether the Republican party can shake off Trumpism without having to learn the hard way at the ballot box.Marco Rubio sat at his desk writing with a quill pen. Bernie Sanders had an iPad resting on a folder. Some seats were empty for the opening pledge of allegiance and prayer.The Senate president pro tempore, Patrick Leahy, presiding over the proceedings, led the chamber in reciting the pledge and gaveled in the Senate as a court of impeachment.The prayer, from Chaplain Barry Black, included a pointed quotation from the poet James Russell Lowell: “Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, / In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side.”Then, after a procedural vote, Raskin began his argument that the trial is indeed constitutional – a former president can be tried even after leaving office. To deny this, he said, would create a “brand new January exception”, meaning that an outgoing president could act with impunity during his final weeks in the White House.Once such technical arguments are out of the way, Democrats were expected on Wednesday to prosecute the case like a criminal trial with more compelling videos and graphic descriptions of that day.But they didn’t want to overdo it. Trump is gone and Biden is facing the most daunting presidential inheritance since Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. While this trial plays out, the new president is trying to win support for a $1.9tn rescue package and tackle the coronavirus, economic, racial justice and climate crises.As Biden tries spinning these plates, the last thing he needs is a rancorous impeachment trial to bring it all crashing down. But Democrats insist they can get it done. If you had a dollar or pound for every time a member of Congress insists they can “walk and chew gum at the same time”, you would be very wealthy indeed.Like a criminal lawyer, Democrats are seeking to appeal to not only the head but also the heart. They are not only prosecutors but also survivors of the rampage, a point brought home with visceral force by Raskin in a closing argument that had the chamber silent and spellbound on Wednesday.“And then there was a sound I will never forget,” he recalled. “The sound of pounding on the door like a battering ram. The most haunting sound I ever heard and I will never forget it.”Raskin’s 25-year-old son, Tommy, a Harvard law student who struggled with depression, took his own life on New Year’s Eve. A day after Tommy was buried on 5 January, the congressman had brought his daughter and a son-in-law to the Capitol for the ratification of Biden’s victory.He had assured them it would be safe but, after the mob stormed the building, they were hiding under a desk in a barricaded congressional office sending what they thought were final text messages to loved ones. More than an hour later, they were rescued by Capitol police.Raskin, fighting back tears, said of his 24-year-old daughter: “I told her how sorry I was and I promised her that it would not be like this again the next time she came back to the Capitol with me. And you know what she said? She said, ‘Dad, I don’t want to come back to the Capitol.’”At that Raskin broke down for a moment, putting fingers to his eyes before regaining his composure. “Of all the terrible, brutal things I saw and I heard on that day and since then, that one hit me the hardest. That and watching someone use an American flag pole, the flag still on it, to spear and pummel one of our police officers – ruthlessly, mercilessly tortured by a pole with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump's impeachment trial starts with graphic Capitol assault footage – video

      by

      Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial opened in the Senate with graphic video of the attack on the Capitol on 6 January and his comments that spurred a rally crowd to become a mob.
      The lead House prosecutor told senators the case would present ‘cold, hard facts’ against Trump, who is charged with inciting the siege of the Capitol to overturn the election he lost to Joe Biden
      Trump second impeachment: live updates More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      'Jim Crow relic': Senate filibuster stands in way of Democratic voting rights push

      by

      As states around the country advance a wave of measures that would make it harder to vote, Democrats in Washington are planning the most sweeping voting rights protections in decades. But to pass those protections, Democrats will have to overcome a huge barrier.Shortly after taking control of the US Senate last month, Democrats made it clear that they wanted to move quickly to advance a version of the massive voting rights bill that passed the US House last year. The measure would require every state to offer automatic, same-day and online voter registration. It would require states to let anyone vote by mail if they wish and implement new guidelines to prevent states from being overly aggressive in how they purge their vote rolls. It would also strip state lawmakers of their power to redraw congressional districts every 10 years, curbing their ability to draw lines that virtually guarantee re-election.Democrats are also considering separate legislation to restore a key provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act that would require states with a history of discriminating against voters to get any voting changes approved by the federal government before they go into effect.Though they control both chambers of Congress and the White House, Democrats won’t be able to pass either measure unless they get rid of the filibuster, a procedural maneuver the minority party in the Senate can use to block legislation that doesn’t have the support of 60 senators.Democrats are divided on whether to get rid of the filibuster, and it’s unclear whether they will ultimately do so. Those who favor scrapping the procedure argue that it is impeding a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect the right to vote. Not doing so, they say, would amount to giving Republicans a free pass to continue a brazen effort to restrict voting rights and entrench their power amid a shifting electorate that appears less likely to favor the GOP.The filibuster should not block Democrats from passing a major voting rights bill and a new voting rights act, Eric Holder, who served as US attorney general from 2009 to 2015, said in a statement to the Guardian. Both measures, he added, were “badly needed corrections and reforms that will strengthen our democracy”.“The reality is that too many in the Republican party have grown comfortable manipulating our political system for partisan advantage,” added Holder, who is leading the Democratic effort to combat excessive partisan gerrymandering. “The Senate should not allow the filibuster, which was once used to stop civil rights legislation, to now stop critical bills that would protect and strengthen our democratic system.”Stacey Abrams, the former former Georgia gubernatorial candidate who helped flip her state blue in 2020, also urged Democrats in Washington to go full throttle to protect voting rights.“Democrats in Congress must fully embrace their mandate to fast-track democracy reforms that give voters a fair fight, rather than allowing undemocratic systems to be used as tools and excuses to perpetuate that same system,” she wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in which she endorsed getting rid of the filibuster.“This is a moment of both historic imperative and, with unified Democratic control of the White House and Congress, historic opportunity.”The last few weeks have crystallized the need for those protections as states that saw record turnout have taken up bills that would make it harder to vote. In Georgia, where Democrats won for the first time in decades amid record turnout, Republicans are weighing measures to require voters to submit ID during the mail-in ballot process and to get rid of no-excuse absentee voting. Republicans in Arizona, another state Democrats flipped in 2020, are considering legislation to make it easier to remove voters from a permanent vote-by-mail list and to require mail-in ballots be notarized.Across the country, at least 165 bills in 33 states would make it harder to vote, according to a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice.Danielle Lang, a voting rights attorney at the Campaign Legal Center, noted that lawmakers who campaigned on strengthening America’s voting laws now had an obligation to see it through.“Failure to act is not an option,” she wrote in an email. “While we averted democracy disaster in 2020 – due to the sheer willpower of election officials, organizers, and voters nationwide – it would be folly to ignore the warning sirens it set off.”The filibuster has a long history of impeding civil rights legislation in America and has been deployed to try to block civil rights protections, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. When Barack Obama spoke at the funeral for John Lewis, the civil rights icon who died last year, he called the filibuster a “Jim Crow relic” that should be eliminated to pass sweeping voting rights legislation.The filibuster also essentially allows a small minority of senators to exercise outsize influence over legislation, thwarting the will of the majority. “It’s supremely ironic that something that gives rural, sparsely populated states so much power already would further kind of entrench minority rule and further make it difficult to access the ballot box,” said Stephen Spaulding, senior counsel for public policy and government affairs at Common Cause, a government watchdog group.Keeping the filibuster in place and not passing sweeping voting reforms would have “profound downstream effects”, Spaulding added.“The American people chose new leaders; they want a responsive government,” he said. “To have essentially a minority of senators exercising veto power over the entire legislative process is just not gonna be tenable.” More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Senate leaders announce Trump impeachment trial rules – video

      by

      On the eve of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial on a charge of inciting the deadly US Capitol attack, Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority and minority leaders, have laid out the framework for the trial. ’All parties have agreed to a structure that will ensure a fair and honest Senate impeachment trial of the former president,’ Schumer said. Each side will have 16 hours to present their arguments and the trial will break on Friday afternoon and resume on Sunday afternoon
      Trump impeachment: Schumer says agreement reached on rules for trial – live More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats to open Trump impeachment trial by recounting Capitol attack

      by

      House impeachment managers will open their prosecution of Donald Trump for “incitement of insurrection” by recounting the deadly assault on the US Capitol in harrowing and cinematic detail, rekindling for senators the chaos and trauma they experienced on 6 January.The historic second impeachment trial will open on Tuesday, on the Senate floor that was invaded by rioters, with a debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings. In a brief filed on Monday, Trump’s lawyers assailed the case as “political theater” and argued that the Senate “lacks the constitutional jurisdiction” to try a former president after he has left office – an argument Democrats promptly rejected.Exactly one week after the Capitol assault, Trump became the first president to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives. This week, he will become the first former president to stand trial. It would take 17 Republicans joining all Democrats in the Senate to find Trump guilty, making conviction highly unlikely.Nevertheless, when opening arguments begin later this week, House Democrats will try to force senators to see the assault on the Capitol as the culmination of Trump’s long campaign to overturn the result of the election he lost to Joe Biden. Relying on video and audio recordings, impeachment managers, led by the Maryland congressman Jamie Raskin, will try to marshal the anger and outrage many members of Congress expressed in the aftermath of the riot, which sought to prevent them from counting electoral college votes and thereby to disrupt the transition of power.In a 78-page brief submitted to the Senate on Monday, Trump’s lawyers laid out a two-pronged rebuttal, also arguing that his rhetoric was in no way responsible for the Capitol attack.The senators will grapple with the constitutional question on Tuesday, when they are expected to debate and vote on the matter. Though scholars and a majority of senators say they believe the trial is constitutional, many Republicans have seized on the technical argument that a former president cannot be tried for “high crimes and misdemeanors” as a way to justify support for acquitting Trump without appearing to condone his behavior.In their own pre-trial filing on Monday, the House managers dismissed the arguments laid out by Trump’s lawyers and vowed to hold Trump accountable for the “most grievous constitutional crime ever committed by a president”.“Presidents swear a sacred oath that binds them from their first day in office through their very last,” they wrote. “There is no ‘January Exception’ to the constitution that allows presidents to abuse power in their final days without accountability.”In a vote last month, all but five Republican senators voted to dismiss the trial as unconstitutional. Yet Charles Cooper, a leading conservative lawyer, rejected that view in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published on Sunday.Because the constitution also allows the Senate to disqualify former federal officials from ever again holding public office, Cooper wrote, “it defies logic to suggest that the Senate is prohibited from trying and convicting former officeholders”.The trial begins just more than a year after Trump was first impeached, for pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s family. He was acquitted by the Senate.Americans are now more supportive of convicting Trump, according to an ABC News/Ipsos poll released on Sunday. It found that 56% of Americans believe the Senate should convict Trump and bar him from future office.Though the exact framework of the trial remains uncertain, subject to negotiations between the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, and the chamber’s Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, it is expected to move much faster than Trump’s first trial.Under a draft agreement between the leaders, obtained by the New York Times, opening arguments would begin on Wednesday, with up to 16 hours for each side. At the request of Trump’s attorneys, the proceedings will break on Friday evening for the Jewish Sabbath and resume on Sunday.The House managers are expected to forgo calling witnesses, a major point of contention during Trump’s first trial. The former president declined their request to testify, a decision Raskin said “speaks volumes and plainly establishes an adverse inference supporting his guilt”.The managers have indicated that they intend to lay out a comprehensive case, tracing Trump’s extraordinary efforts to reverse his defeat, including a call in which he pressured the Georgia secretary of state to “find” enough votes to overturn Biden’s victory there. When it became clear that all other paths were closed, they will argue, Trump turned his attention to the certification vote on Capitol Hill, encouraging supporters to attend a rally held to protest against the result.At that event, Trump implored them to “fight like hell” and march to the Capitol to register their discontent – words his defense team will argue are protected under the first amendment.The House managers contend that “it is impossible to imagine the events of 6 January occurring without President Trump creating a powder keg, striking a match, and then seeking personal advantage from the ensuing havoc”. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The crucial differences in Trump’s second impeachment trial

      by

      It might be tempting to call it the trial of the century but it is just as likely to invoke a sense of deja vu. This week Donald Trump faces an impeachment trial in the US Senate. Yes, another one.Trump stands accused of inciting an insurrection when he urged supporters to “fight” his election defeat before they stormed the US Capitol in Washington on 6 January, clashed with police and left five people dead.In some ways it will be a replay of his first impeachment trial a year ago. Again Trump himself will not be present and again the outcome, given his subjugation of the Republican party, has an air of inevitability – acquittal.But there are crucial differences the second time around. Trump is now a former president, the first to be tried by the Senate after leaving office. For this reason the sessions will be presided over not by John Roberts, the chief justice of the supreme court, but 80-year-old Patrick Leahy, the longest-serving Democratic senator.Whereas Trump offered running commentary on the first trial via Twitter, he has now been banned from the platform for incendiary statements. And whereas his first trial, on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress, turned on whether phone records and paper trails showed that he pressured the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, the sequel promises to be more raw and visceral.Proceedings will unfold at the scene of the crime: the hallowed Senate chamber that was invaded by rioters including white supremacist groups. The nine Democratic impeachment managers are expected to present new video footage and eyewitness testimony that will vividly evoke the terror felt by members of Congress as they barricaded themselves inside offices and feared for their lives.“If the Democrats do what’s being reported and present the visual evidence, it will be nothing a Senate trial has ever seen before,” said Charlie Sykes, founder and editor-at-large of the Bulwark website. “It’s going to be a graphic narrative of the build-up and the attack and the violence and the scope of the threat and it’s going to be very difficult to minimise that, especially because every one of those senators was a witness to it in some way.“So I actually think that it’s going to be more powerful than some people expect. The result is preordained – I don’t have any illusions about that – but, because the evidence has been mounting over the last several weeks, I am expecting it to be dramatic.”There have only been four presidential impeachments in American history and Trump owns half of them: his second came last month in a vote by the House of Representatives, with all Democrats and 10 Republicans charging him with inciting violence against the US government.That set the stage for Tuesday’s Senate trial where legal briefs filed by both sides offer a preview of the territory that will be contested. House prosecutors argue that that Trump was “singularly responsible” for the sacking of the Capitol – where Biden’s election win was being certified – by “creating a powder keg, striking a match, and then seeking personal advantage from the ensuing havoc”.If the Democrats do what’s being reported and present the visual evidence, it will be nothing a Senate trial has ever seen beforeIt is “impossible” to imagine the attack taking place as it did without Trump whipping up the crowd into a “frenzy”, they argue, citing the same view expressed by the Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney, a Republican who defied the party line by voting for impeachment.But in a 14-page brief that uses the word “denied” or “denies” some 29 times, Trump’s hastily assembled legal team contend that he cannot be blamed because he never incited anyone to “engage in destructive behavior”. The people “responsible” for the attack are being investigated and prosecuted, they add.But the Democrats’ brief carries detail of the horror felt by politicians and their staff during the mayhem. “Some Members called loved ones for fear that they would not survive the assault by President Trump’s insurrectionist mob,” they write.The anguish was on vivid display in recent days as members such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib recalled the traumatic events of 6 January during speeches on the House floor. Tlaib broke down in tears as she pleaded with colleagues: “Please, please take what happened on January 6 seriously. It will lead to more death, and we can do better.”Trump’s conduct not only “endangered the life of every single member of Congress”, the impeachment managers say, but also “jeopardized the peaceful transition of power and line of succession”.Their brief details threats to Mike Pence, the then vice-president, and Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, as the pro-Trump mob rampaged through the building and “specifically hunted” them. Some chanted “Hang Mike Pence!” and branded him a traitor for refusing to overturn the election result, video footage shows.But how ever emotive the evidence, Trump’s team denies that the Senate has the authority to hear the case because he is now a private citizen and no longer in office. Democrats reject this, pointing to the example of William Belknap, a war secretary whose resignation in 1876 did not prevent him being impeached by the House and tried the Senate.They also argue that the constitution explicitly allows the Senate to disqualify a convicted former official from holding office in the future, a vital consideration given that Trump has not ruled out running for president again in 2024.The defence’s challenge to the constitutionality of the trial, however, looks certain to clinch Trump’s acquittal. Already 45 out of 50 Senate Republicans, including the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, voted on that basis in an effort to end the trial before it began.A two-thirds majority of the 100-member Senate would be required to support the charge to convict Trump, meaning that 17 Republicans would need to join all 50 Democrats. Most Republicans have repeatedly shown they are loyal to Trump and wary of retribution from his base.Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, predicted: “You may be able to get seven or eight Republicans at the end of the day voting to convict but they’re weak and afraid that they may lose their little precious seat. ‘So the country be damned, I’m still going to be a senator, I have to get re-elected.’“That’s the most important thing for them. If their mama were on trial, they would sacrifice their mama if they get to keep their seat: that’s what it boils down to. Tell me, what are you willing to sacrifice your re-election for, if not the country?”Even so, there is still some suspense around whether Trump will pressure his legal team to push “the big lie” of a stolen election. Over two months his bogus claims of election fraud were rejected by courts, state officials and his own attorney general.What are you willing to sacrifice your re-election for, if not the country?The defence’s legal brief points to the first amendment, which protects freedom of speech, to assert that Trump was entitled to “express his belief that the election results were suspect”. Pushing this hard at the trial could prove a spectacular own goal that will make it harder for Republicans to defend him.Steele added: “If they present that as an argument, they’ll get laughed out of the out of the chamber. They would actually be lying. They would be presenting false evidence because they could make the allegation and, if I’m a senator, ‘Show me the proof. You mean to tell me you have proof that 60 courts and the supreme court didn’t have?’”A key figure in the trial will be Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor who, despite being a relatively new member of the House, has risen to prominence as lead impeachment manager. His 25-year-old son, Tommy, a Harvard law student who struggled with depression, took his own life on New Year’s Eve. Raskin told CNN last month: “I’m not going to lose my son at the end of 2020 and lose my country and my republic in 2021.”Raskin requested that Trump, now living at his luxury estate in Florida, testify under oath at the trial but the ex-president’s lawyers, Bruce Castor and David Schoen, rejected the idea as a “public relations stunt”. It remains unclear whether the prosecutors will be able to call other witnesses, such as police officers still recovering from serious injuries.Impeachment is inescapably a political process and the fact that Leahy, a Democrat, is presiding rather than the neutral chief justice is only like the fuel the partisan fires among senators who always have an eye on the next election.Wendy Schiller, a political science professor at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said: “The key audience for this trial, if it exists, is suburban voters. They defected from the Republicans at the presidential level and defected from them in Georgia at the Senate level in the runoff.“If the Democrats can gain with suburban voters by tying the incumbent Republican senators to Donald Trump for the next two years, it helps them keep the Senate and that’s the whole reason this trial is happening.”Schiller added: “You can see why the House impeached Donald Trump: a, he was still in office and b, it was to safeguard the country against any abuses of power that he might commit in the 10 days between impeachment and January 20. [But] It’s very hard to make the argument that this trial is meaningful.” More