The Wrong Way to Impeach Trump
By: Jonathan Bernstein (Bloomberg Opinion)
The impeachment has already gone past its expiration date. Charges of conspiracy among the rioters means the attack was planned before Trump made any speeches and it will be difficult to prove that Trump was involved in the conspiracy. And the limited charge in the Articles of Impeachment really doesn't justify a prolonged fishing expedition.
The opinion expressed in the Bloomberg article lays the onus of impeachment on the Senate. But the facts are the House rushed through the Articles of Impeachment without doing the investigative work called for in the Bloomberg opinion. The House is responsible for collecting evidence and preparing the case for impeachment; not the Senate. The House, under Nancy Pelosi's leadership, has precluded conducting the impeachment the right way. The Bloomberg opinion is calling for the Senate to do what Nancy Pelosi failed to do. The fact-finding called for in the Bloomberg opinion was Nancy Pelosi's responsibility.
The impeachment is on track for being nothing more than political theater. Democrats will line up and spew Orange Man Bad demagoguery followed by a quick vote of acquittal based on the opinion that impeaching a President after leaving office is unconstitutional. And the public won't care because the public is more concerned over getting vaccinated.
Most of the public has moved on to more important issues. Trump simply isn't that important any longer. The public focus is on Biden and what Biden will do to speed vaccination (not much is possible) and push through another relief package (a political mine field). And Biden is quickly running out of campaign promises since he is issuing Executive Orders at warp speed.
Nancy Pelosi has really screwed things up this time. It may be possible for the media to confuse and distract the public. But Congressional Democrats know the score and Pelosi isn't coming out ahead on points. Pelosi may be sequestered from the press just as Biden has been.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Senate has three choices for how to organize the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Two of them make sense.
The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent lays out the case for one of the sensible plans: Begin the impeachment in committee. As Sargent explains, that would offer an opportunity to present the evidence in depth, and to put it on the public record — all without threatening the ability of the full Senate to get things done. Remember, this isn’t just about the events of Jan. 6. The article of impeachment covers Trump’s entire scheme to undermine the legitimate election results, eventually including inciting insurrection. Some of those details are well known, such as Trump’s call to Georgia’s secretary of state asking him to “find” votes. Some of them are just emerging now. Some of the key players haven’t talked for the record at all, and certainly not under oath.
The second good option? The Senate could do what it did in Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. Back then, the Senate took depositions from witnesses, and then the House managers and Clinton’s lawyers were able to play video excerpts during the trial. A fully transparent committee would be better, but at least the Senate in this scenario could do the necessary fact-finding outside of the formal trial setting.
The worst option, unfortunately, appears to be where we’re headed. That would be rushing through a trial that has no new fact-finding process and does very little to illuminate how the assault on the Capitol actually happened.
Yes, 45 Republicans have already gone on record to say that Trump can’t be convicted in an impeachment trial after leaving office. (Technically, they voted against tabling — or stopping consideration of — Senator Rand Paul’s point of order, and haven’t yet voted directly on the underlying claim.) That makes conviction unlikely. But that’s all the more reason to construct a very public, and reasonably detailed, record of exactly what Trump did wrong.
After all, there’s no real rush to complete this process, as long as the procedures can be arranged so that it doesn’t interfere with the other important business of Congress. And it shouldn’t. Remember: The Constitution is clear that both chambers make their own rules. Given that the subject of impeachment is in large part the former president’s role in sparking an assault on those chambers, it’s only proper that they create processes that fulfill their interests — and the interests of the United States.
The Senate should slow down and get it right.
Tags
Who is online
65 visitors
Unprecedented. Historic. And very few really care.
Democrats are going to run out of things to motive turnout for the midterms.
Biden has already botched vaccine distribution by setting up 100 Federal centers that won't be conveniently located for out-state residents. Republicans are going to be motivated to turn out.
Trump has already been impeached, twice...
Does that mean Trump is better at impeachment than any other President in history? Trump being acquitted twice will set a record, too.
Who cares? People want to be vaccinated. Why is Congress expending less effort on the pandemic than on impeaching Trump?
It really is a disservice to the country if the Senate is going to be fully distracted by this drama. There are so many important things they could be doing.
The most that can happen here is that they can disqualify Trump from running in 2024. He'll be 78 by then and may not even be interested anymore. Plus he already lost in reelection, so it's not as if we need the Senate to keep him out of the White House. The people already took care of that.
It would be great if they could do most of the fact-finding in committee, but at the trial, all the Senators need to be there and focused on the trial - so they are precluded from doing other business. Democrats in Washington are therefore telling us that this arguably unnecessary political move is more urgent than all their other business. That's a hard one to swallow.
I'm guessing a lot of people will be asking 'what's the point?'
Censuring Trump would have as much impact as impeachment. Democrats would still have time at the podium to go through the Orange Man Bad demagoguery. And Trump wouldn't have an opportunity to defend himself.
Kneejerk Nancy really screwed things up this time.
I think there are a few points.
First, they are still trying to win a fight that is over. They have been trying to undo the election of 2016 since the day it happened. Trump may be out of office, but expelling him was the only thing on their minds for four years and they haven't figured out how to turn off that mindset.
Second, is disqualification from holding further office, and they want control of the outcome. At this point, the more sensible thing would be to let the DOJ investigate the matter and prosecute Trump, if they feel it's warranted. If he is convicted of insurrection, then he would automatically be disqualified from further office under the 14th Amendment. But the standards of relevant evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial (not to mention probable cause required for indictment) are much higher than they would be in the Senate, and the senators control no part of that process. So, impeachment is a better bet for them.
Third, this stokes partisan anger and enthusiasm on their side, which seems to be all the political parties live for these days, anyway. Outrage and fear send people to the polls. If they start building an atmosphere of unity and consensus now, they fear they will lose their grip on the psyche of voters.
Finally, it deflects from any screwups in the early part of the Biden administration. Whatever he might do wrong, or whatever else Congress does (or more commonly, fails to do), it's not nearly as bad as that nasty orange man being impeached.
Can't disagree with that assessment.
IMO, Democrats didn't seem to have planned for Trump losing the election. Or for Democrats to obtain control over the White House, Senate, and House. Democrats seem to have been caught flat footed with little idea what to do next.