Democrats torn on impeachment trial timing
By: Alexander Bolton (MSN)
Rock and a hard place. There is one reason and one reason only for this circus. Preventing Trump from running again for ANY federal office and to send a warning shot to future "outsiders" running for POTUS. Don't do it or you will pay for upsetting the apple cart.
There is some interesting commentary in the body of the article. Read it prior to commenting and please, think prior to posting............about the whole of the ramifications going forward.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Democrats torn on impeachment trial timing
Senate Democrats are torn on the timing of an impeachment trial for President Trump, worried it could delay President-elect Joe Biden's agenda for a week or longer.
Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) has proposed that the Senate could work on a dual track by processing Biden's Cabinet picks in the morning while holding a speedy impeachment trial for Trump in the afternoon, but Republicans don't seem interested in the idea and can easily block it.
This puts Democrats in the tricky spot of deciding whether to prioritize a second impeachment trial for Trump, which wouldn't begin until after he leaves office. This prospect of holding a trial after Trump becomes a private citizen is already drawing objections from Republicans who are questioning whether doing so is even constitutional.
Several Democrats argue that Biden's agenda should take first priority while others wonder if an impeachment trial, which could further poison the well of Senate collegiality, is even worth it at a time when they need Republican support to move Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief proposal.
"My clear preference is to create room for nominations and legislation. I'll defer to leadership but I don't know that we have to start the trial right after the inauguration," said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) called another impeachment trial of Trump a "moot question" because he's leaving office on Wednesday.
"I think it's a moot question. This president is leaving office so it won't have any practical application. But whatever happens is fine with me," she said.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a key centrist who represents a state easily won by Trump in last year's election, said earlier this month that an impeachment trial after Trump leaves office "doesn't make any common sense whatsoever."
Manchin on Tuesday said, "I was concerned about having the impeachment at the time we needed to put our government back together and build confidence back in our government."
Manchin said that Biden "needs to put that stability back and build confidence back," noting the number of acting secretaries currently holding key executive branch positions.
Schumer on Tuesday, however, argued that a trial is necessary to bar Trump from running for the White House again in 2024, even though it's uncertain that Trump, who is highly unpopular, would do it.
Gallup measured Trump's final job approval rating in office at 34 percent, the worst of his presidency. The poll was conducted from Jan. 4 to Jan. 15.
Schumer argued on the Senate floor that the Senate "has a solemn responsibility to try and hold Donald Trump accountable for the most serious charge ever levied against a president: the incitement of an insurrection against the United States of America."
Schumer indicated that Democratic leaders have already decided to move forward with the impeachment trial although he didn't comment on its timing.
"There will be an impeachment trial in the United States Senate. There will be a vote on convicting the president for high crimes and misdemeanors. And if the president is convicted, there will be a vote on barring him from running again," he said.
He expressed hope that Republicans would agree to move Biden's nominees quickly.
"With cooperation, we can confirm key national security nominees at State, the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, Treasury, and the Intelligence Community," he said.
"The health and economic challenges our nation faces - the need to get vaccines out quickly -also require having key health officials and key economic nominees confirmed and on the job as soon as possible," he added.
But Republicans are already shooting the idea of moving Biden's nominees while holding an impeachment trial at the same time.
"That's [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi's [D-Calif.] choice because once she sends the articles of impeachment over it displaces all of their business," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters Tuesday.
"So if she wants to delay the confirmation of President Biden's nominees to Cabinet positions and prevent President Biden from asking for and receiving additional COVID-19 relief that would be one way to do it," he added. "So they have a big decision to make."
Asked about the prospect of moving Biden's Cabinet picks and an impeachment trial on a dual track, Cornyn said: "That's not going to be possible."
Complicating the picture for Democrats is the lack of a power-sharing agreement for the Senate once three newly-elected Democrats are sworn in - Sens.-elect Jon Ossoff (Ga.), Raphael Warnock (Ga.) and Alex Padilla (Calif.). Padilla is filling the seat vacated by Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.
Without a power-sharing agreement, Schumer will not be able to set the committee ratios and appoint new Democratic members to the committees. That's important because the Senate cannot vote on Biden's Cabinet choices until they are discharged out of committee.
McConnell in a memo to colleagues said that he wants Schumer to agree to keep the legislative filibuster, which requires most controversial bills to muster 60 votes to advance, as part of a power-sharing agreement. That demand could delay action on Biden's nominees and agenda.
Holding an impeachment trial while the power-sharing agreement is in limbo could delay it even longer as a trial would inflame partisan tensions.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), a member of McConnell's leadership team, on Tuesday accused Democrats of trying to divide her party by holding a trial for Trump after he leaves office.
She doesn't think it's constitutional to hold an impeachment trial of a former office holder.
"I've read arguments on both sides but he's not our president after tomorrow so the only reason I can see is that Democrats want to further divide the nation and [I'm] asking President-elect Joe Biden, 'Please, let's move forward,'" Ernst said.
Some Democrats have expressed hope for a speedy trial.
"We could conduct a trial in a very, relatively, short time," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said last week.
"This article of impeachment is nothing like the previous articles of impeachment, which were highly complex, relied on multiple witnesses, multiple documents," she said.
But Republicans are pouring water on the idea that the trial can be wrapped up in a couple days.
"The Senate has held three presidential impeachment trials. They have lasted 83 days, 37 days, and 21 days respectively," McConnell said last week.
Tags
Who is online
83 visitors
And so the priority shift begins..........................
no accountability = no unity. have the impeachment trial and let those that wish to defend the trump insurrection list their names on the ledger of history. every american deserves to know what members of congress aided and abetted the activities of the domestic terrorists on 1/6/21. even if trump isn't convicted, the house can use the 14th amendment to fuck him up and shut him out, permanently. "he really didn't mean it" isn't going to fly this time. trump needs to lose all of his post presidential benefits.
Didn't mean what exactly? Please provide the verbiage you want to use counselor...............
sorry, you must have me confused with a trump-speak interpreter.
That's what I thought. And the defense rests............................
okay then, explain why trump was strongly urged by his legal counsel to not pardon any of the insurrectionists or members of congress that had requested them in the last 2 weeks of his administration.
I find it interesting that you in particular aren't bothered by members of congress having direct contact and possibly participating with insurrectionists.
In all seriousness, the conviction of Donald Trump should take one day. Everyone knows what happened, they dont need days or weeks of testimony and legal pleadings.
Set one or two days to do the whole thing, and do it. THAT would be a good signal for the future.
Are you sure you want to set a precedent like that? Although I think that question is somewhat rhetorical. We all know how you and others here feel. Because Trump.
What precedent? Impeachment in a very abrupt way of a president that promoted insurrection against his own government. Of course.
Somehow I think this one will go to the SCOTUS for a final determination. As I said above, this is for one reason and one reason only. To keep Trump and others similar from the office. Unfortunately, Trump, disliked by many, spoke before the previously planned demonstration turned riot. So they think they have a hard and fast case. In the words of the Wizard of Oz, "Not so fast, NOT SO FAST".
No John, he never did that. Quit spreading untruths
Greg, he is being impeached for just that. Snap back to reality.
That's the "charge" that is keeping this alive. There is no direct correlation to his words in it.
Perhaps Mitch McConnell can say it in a way to help you better understand.
Senator Mitch McConnell flatly blamed President Trump on Tuesday for the violent rampage at the Capitol on Jan. 6 , saying that the mob that stormed the building had been “fed lies” and “provoked by the president” to carry out its assault.
Mr. McConnell’s remarks, on the eve of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s inauguration , were the clearest signal yet from the most powerful Republican left in Washington that after four years of excusing and enabling Mr. Trump, he has come to regard the departing president as a force who could drag down the party if he is not firmly excised by its leaders.
Source
In other words, no discussion, no hearing and no trial - just a vote based on your twisted interpretation of what he said?
And the left claims to revere the sanctity of the Constitution, law and order, the presumption of innocence, and due process
You are talking about the old fashioned liberals. To the modern day progressive it is just an obstacle, especially now that they don't have as many like mided judges to run to.
exactly, the impeachment process ...
It is interesting that some here on NT are ready to put Biden's appointments and policy agenda off to inflict this last act of revenge on the man they hate.
Something even Nancy Pelosi is unwilling to do!
Oh, of course one thought the way around it was to debase the Constitution in order to do both.
a bit surprising coming from someone that since the election has stressed trump was entitled to all legal devices available to question the results of an election he lost. please explain why the constitutional process should benefit one side but not the other? I want to know which members of congress asked for legal protection by the hand of trump before the end of his presidency. trumpsters can call it revenge, but for the rest of america it's called due process and justice.
It doesn't. The law is the same for all.
I want to know which members of congress asked for legal protection by the hand of trump
There is no law I know of preventing anyone from asking for a pardon.
there's no law that prevents me from considering those that participated in the insurrection, guilty. totally failing in their oaths to defend the constitution, and finally, as complicit traitors to america.
Correct. There shouldn't be any law preventing people from holding opinions.
... and we both know why you don't want to know the names of those that were complicit. too bad, eventually the truth will prevail. everyone connected with the big lie will be punished. sooner or later, one way or another.
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”.....Lavrentiy Beria
trumpsters want all of the insurrectionists to get a pass. that will never happen.
Americans only want due process. This is not China.
citizen trump is entitled to due process. an impeachment trial is due process.
Impeachment is to remove a president. Article 1 section 3
sorry, insurrectionists can't be saved by the bell. there's already legal precedent.
Not via impeachment.
Impeaching Trump for this is a no brainer. Lets see if congress has any brains anyway.
You just want him to run again. He will be a beaten down 78 year old in 2024, disgraced and run around by a dozen courts. Is that really want you want again as a candidate?
Biden is 78 and will feel the wear and tear of the office. I wonder how many realize that this is actually the inauguration for Ms. Harris?
What's your point...........well other than you would love to see him bashed continually from here to eternity.
I grant you Trump will be the same age in 2024 that Biden is now, but in four years Trump will still be disgraced, and will have been put through multiple court cases that will reveal very embarrassing things about him, assuming he avoids jail.
Biden has no such baggage.
Hold on to that and enjoy Obama 3.0. I know you will.
No I don't.
He will be a beaten down 78 year old in 2024, disgraced and run around by a dozen courts.
He may not have the energy then. He aged considerably in the past 4 years. We have no idea what the next 4 years brings.
Is that really want you want again as a candidate?
I want somebody who is well polished, preferably Hispanic, with the same agenda and hopefully as much courage.
John, it's time for both of us to say good by to him.
Today belongs to Biden, remember?
I agree, who could possibly believe a 78 year old man should run for President. Scary to picture someone that old just starting a term as President.
This is your seed. Do you actually expect people to agree with you that Trump should not be impeached?
When Feinstein says it's moot, as do some others, that should be enough. Again, you just want to see him beaten down like a junkyard dog. He's gone. Let it go
You need 17 Republican Senators to agree. I'm assuming every democrat votes to convict as instructed. If you can get that you'll have made a martyr out of him, but first you need Nancy Pelosi to hand it over. She is unwilling to set Biden's picks & agenda aside. The longer she holds it, the less credible it becomes.
Ethnicity should not be a factor, but I think that otherwise you have articulated a fine R objective. Now, if it is possible to salvage the sycophants who continue to defend / support Trump and get them to think clearly, maybe the R party will have a chance in 2024. Those who stupidly continue to carry Trump's water with this 'Stop the Steal' nonsense, etc. are extending the damage that Trump has inflicted on the R party.
The nation needs an informed, rational electorate. We do not have one. Without such an electorate we will not secure good candidates for offices ... especially the office of PotUS.
Maybe one who rides a Peloton instead of a golf cart.
I'm glad to hear it! Nor should race or gender!
but I think that otherwise you have articulated a fine R objective.
That is a tall order. I hope we can find someone. Then we might finally get the best of both worlds. These last two elections have left us in a bit of a paradox. Either we get someone who has an abrasive personality with good policies for America or a persona that generates calm yet brings terrible policies with him.
Now, if it is possible to salvage the sycophants who continue to defend / support Trump and get them to think clearly, maybe the R party will have a chance in 2024.
Telling them to say they were wrong, shut up and accept their fate isn't going to do it. They need the same hearing that was granted to those who called for defunding the police.
Those who stupidly continue to carry Trump's water with this 'Stop the Steal' nonsense, etc. are extending the damage that Trump has inflicted on the R party.
H.R. 1 will keep that alive.
The nation needs an informed, rational electorate.
With a national media that has constantly lied to them? They aren't going anywhere.
I dont give a damn about making a martyr out of him , he made a criminal out of himself.
Go for it, John!
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 3
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office , and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial , Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
yep.. that's why I stated my opinion back when this first started after the 6th that I didn't feel like impeachment was the best approach for the country. As there was no way they were going to get a trial started in the Senate before noon today, President Trump would be out of office already at the start. It's not clear if an impeachment trial in this case is even constitutional, we have seen so-called experts from both sides argue both sides. I predicted that the question would probably need to go to SCOTUS before a trial could even get underway.
Pelosi had stated on the 7th that President Trump was such an immediate danger to the country that they had to immediately move for impeachment. If he was that much of an immediate danger why has the article of impeachment not been taken over to the Senate?
So now the verbage is that President Trump needs to be held accountable for what he did AND he must then be prevented from ever running for office again. That's why I said back on the 7th that I thought a better approach would have been for the leadership to get together and craft him a deal that would have ended this process and included him agreeing in writing to never run for high office again. I felt that would have been better for the country. Unfortunately too many people are not concerned with looking at what might be better for the country and are more interested in retribution.
I'm worried that the next two years will be very bitter and partisan.
You are absolutely right, That is why I put those words in bold print.
Pelosi had stated on the 7th that President Trump was such an immediate danger to the country that they had to immediately move for impeachment. If he was that much of an immediate danger why has the article of impeachment not been taken over to the Senate?
IMO, she hated him so much that she wanted to hang the second impeachment on him. Notice that she acted quickly to put out the narrative and hold what she called a "snap impeachment without so much as a hearing, before any facts came out. No reference to the Trump speech. She knew there was that big problem of Biden getting his appointments and policy agenda, so she held it at the last minute, as many of us knew she would.
So now the verbage is that President Trump needs to be held accountable for what he did AND he must then be prevented from ever running for office again. That's why I said back on the 7th that I thought a better approach would have been for the leadership to get together and craft him a deal that would have ended this process and included him agreeing in writing to never run for high office again. I felt that would have been better for the country. Unfortunately too many people are not concerned with looking at what might be better for the country and are more interested in retribution.
That would have been a reasoned approach, but there was too much hate for the man.
I'm worried that the next two years will be very bitter and partisan.
That is a certainty. You need look no further than the comments right here on NT. Some wanted to leave Biden adrift, so long as they could drive a final stake through the heart of Donald Trump.
Why didn't you put that line in bold? The Senate cannot vote to disqualify Trump from holding any future office without going through the trial and convicting him. At that point a simple majority can vote to keep him from holding "any office of honor, trust or profit". It is only fitting to take such a step against the cancer that inspired his rabid supporters to attack our Capital and attempt an insurrection.
It is OBVIOUS that Trump should be convicted in the Senate of incitement to insurrection and banned from national politics. OBVIOUS.
The very fact that people dispute this and keep trying to mitigate any negative reactions to Trump is telling. "Unity" is off in the distance.
Because you can't get there without defying the purpose of impeachment - to remove a sitting president.
Pelosi wouldn't hand it over. You think it will be taken seriously 100 days from now?
John, you don't need to talk about us with him. We used to get tickets for that!
It is OBVIOUS that Trump should be convicted in the Senate of incitement to insurrection and banned from national politics. OBVIOUS.
Then why isn't Pelosi pulling the trigger?
No one mentioned your name. Guilty conscience?
(deleted)
Vic, sometimes I get a ticket if I say boo to one of you guys. There is no dual standard working against you.
Democrats are attempting to divide the Republican Party and, thereby, reshape the Republican Party. Neo-liberal Democrats want neo-liberal Republicans to control the party. The impeachment is intended to force American politics back toward a Euro-centric world view based upon neo-liberalism. In essence, Democrats are attempting to revive Henry Kissinger's model of international governance.
Trump doesn't have anything to lose. Biden doesn't have anything to gain. The only thing an impeachment can accomplish would be bolstering the political power of those who subscribe to neo-liberal ideology. The United States, under Trump, has been an impediment for advancing the goals of achieving One World government according to neo-liberal ideology. The underlying charge against Trump is that he has been a threat to the world order.
Ummm no. Rational Republicans are trying to take back control of the Party from the Trump humping populists.
The rest of your word salad is sounds like the beginnings of a good conspiracy theory.
Forfeiting national sovereignty is not a rational policy. All of this is really about reviving the Wilson doctrine to establish an international system of governance.
The insurgency within the Democratic Party is raising the same sort of concerns and complaints that were made when the Democratic Party turned neo-liberal. Remember? Why are we in Vietnam? Why are we wasting money on a moon program when people are suffering in the United States? Why are we wasting money on atomic bombs and allowing our communities to disintegrate? Why is the United States looking outward and ignoring problems at home?
Neo-liberal Democrats are going to need neo-liberal Republican allies if they are going to thwart the growing demands for addressing problems in the United States. Reparations for slavery doesn't fit into the international world order; reparations are a nativist and populist demand. Will the Black population share civil rights with the migrant population flooding the country? Was Martin Luther King fighting for rights of economic refugees? Don't ignore that BLM is a nationalist political movement competing with international demands.
Seems to me, the republicans are doing a bang up job of that all on their own.
The Republican Party was divided in 2008. McCain selected Sarah Palin for VP in an attempt to unify the Republican Party and tamp down the growing insurgency within the party. George W. Bush had pursued neo-liberal nation building and claimed that Iraqi blue fingers was a success that increased stability of the world order. The Republican insurgents were asking why the Republican Party cared more about Iraqis than citizens of the United States.
America First politics can be traced to Bush's neo-liberal nation building foreign policy and McCain selecting Sarah Palin for VP.
What concerns neo-liberals is that the Republican Party has been coalescing around America First politics for over a decade. Republicans are no longer conforming to the William F. Buckley supply-side free market tripe; nationalism and populism attracts more support than does neo-liberal ideology about maintaining the world order. A Buckley conservative may praise Mitt Romney as an American success story but the Republican base won't accept that with enthusiasm. In today's Republican Party neo-liberals are traitors.
Republicans are more unified than the left biased press would have us believe. And Democrats are more divided than the left biased press will acknowledge.
Both the Republican Party and Democratic Party are moving towards nationalist and populist politics. Otherwise Kamala Harris would not have been selected as VP.
It does seem that at this point, there is only minimal benefit to be had of a trial, and it would hurt the country in a number of ways.
It hasn’t been adjudicated, and I kind of think the Supreme Court would pass on deciding it because it seems like a political question. There is precedent for it (set by Congress in this case) in the impeachment of judges or other appointees who no longer held their office, but not specifically as to the president.
The basic purpose of impeachment is to remove someone from office. In that context, an impeachment trial now seems to defy common sense. If all they want is to disqualify Trump from being elected again, I think this is kind of a cowardly way to go about it. The Democrats just won an election against Trump. Do they really think they couldn’t do it again?
If accountability is the concern, that is still available without an impeachment trial. If some prosecutor somewhere really thinks President Trump committed a crime, they should just charge him. The Constitution already allows that once a president is no longer in office, he could still be held criminally accountable in an ordinary criminal court.
Meanwhile, Congress should get back to the needs of the country.
Say those desperate to hide their dear leaders crimes. Any patriotic law abiding citizen should want justice to be done and a full investigation of any who may have aided and abetted the attack on the capital and the attempted insurrection.
Some will defend Trump to the end, and beyond.
Did you miss the part where I said he could be criminally prosecuted? Or did you just decide to be dishonest and pretend it wasn't there?
As a matter of simple common sense, there is pretty much zero justice in voting to remove a person from office who isn't even in office anymore. But if that's all it takes to satisfy you, then have at it. The rest of us will just remember that you thought it was more important for Congress to spin its wheels pointlessly rather than addressing the needs of the people.
And some will whine about him to the end and beyone. Some people can't read, or they just need to keep patting themselves on the back while telling themselves they are more anti-Trump than anyone else. It's pointless posturing.
How come it's ok for Biden to get a military parade?
Anyone know?
Because they are glad that Trump is gone?
Should I flag that for trolling?
Or is that a joke?
Yes, Vic. That was a joke.
You have to ask?
I'm still getting to know you.
There was no "military parade", no tanks, no thousands of troops marching in lock step. There were the national guard as there always are at inaugurations, though this year quite a few more and without the large crowds that usually gather, due to right wing seditionist Trump supporters recent attack on our capital.
Anyone know why some on the right are so desperate to find any fault within minutes of Biden taking office no matter how ridiculous or delusional the claim may sound?
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration (all times local):
2:15 p.m.
President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have taken part in the traditional inaugural military tradition of “Pass in Review.”
Biden, Harris and their spouses stood Wednesday on the East Front steps of the U.S. Capitol to observe the procession of ceremonial military regiments.
Several groupings passed by the steps, with military members saluting the newly minted president and musicians playing traditional patriotic tunes.
Did you miss that part? Like I said, they are "always at inaugurations". There was nothing unusual about it other than the lack of crowds due to covid and the recent right wing attempted insurrection.
Oh the memories of those that can't go back four years........................and more and remember. Russia, Ukraine, Emoluments, Porny Daniels, ...............
No, I didn't. Last night I watched JFK's inauguration "Pass in Review" on C-Span. Maybe you should watch it. Oh, that's right - it's not us anymore.