Opinion: Trump’s Senate impeachment trial won’t be a waste of time

[homersapien 11,423]

An excellent and focused analysis by Ruth Marcus.

IMO, this could be an opportunity for either parties.  I wonder what the outcome would be if the senators voted secretly? 

 

Opinion by

Ruth Marcus

Deputy editorial page editor

Feb. 2, 2021

 

The Senate impeachment trial of former president Donald Trump promises to be an event entirely lacking in suspense. The verdict seems clear before the first words have been uttered; Trump will be acquitted because not enough Republicans will vote to make up the two-thirds majority needed for conviction.

This disappointing reality does not mean the trial will be a waste of time or even counterproductive. To the contrary, as the House prosecutors’ brief filed Tuesday underscored, the magnitude of Trump’s misconduct requires that the Senate proceed regardless of the outcome.

In the eyes of history, Trump’s acquittal will convict those who failed to summon the courage to find him guilty. The dodge that the Senate lacks jurisdiction is just that — a dodge, a procedural escape hatch to avoid the politically perilous but morally essential duty to declare that Trump’s crusade to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power constituted the ultimate high crime.

The opening words of the House prosecutors’ brief underscore the gravity of the offense: “This trial arises from President Donald J. Trump’s incitement of insurrection against the Republic he swore to protect,” the nine House members write.

No one, Democrat or Republican, who believes in our constitutional democracy can justify Trump’s behavior. “Since the dawn of the Republic,” the prosecutors write, “no President had ever refused to accept an election result or defied the lawful processes for resolving electoral disputes.” Trump “spent months using his bully pulpit to insist that the Joint Session of Congress was the final act of a vast plot to destroy America.”

As Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) bravely said, Trump “summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.”

Trump was appropriately impeached by the House for this great betrayal. It would be a second great betrayal for the Senate to fail to proceed.

First, the Senate has the power to do so even though Trump is no longer president. Trump’s lawyers, in papers filed Tuesday, describe the proceeding as “a legal nullity that runs patently contrary to the plain language of the Constitution.”

But as the House prosecutors argue, “Presidents do not get a free pass to commit high crimes and misdemeanors near the end of their term. . . . There is no ‘January Exception’ to impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution.” Indeed, one of the animating rationales for including an impeachment remedy in the Constitution was to guard against a president “who would abuse power to remain in office against the will of the electorate.”

The constitutional language is ambiguous at best: The Constitution provides that the remedy in cases of impeachment and conviction “shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy an office of honor.” Trump’s lawyers read the conjunction to mean that both steps must be available.

Others understand it differently. Stanford Law School professor Michael McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge appointed by President George W. Bush, argues that “the clause does not say that both sanctions are required; it says that the judgment may not go beyond imposition of both sanctions.”

In any event, McConnell notes, the Constitution grants the Senate power to try “all” impeachments: “Whether a former officer can be impeached is beside the point. Donald Trump was President of the United States at the time he was impeached by the House of Representatives. . . . Given that the impeachment of Mr. Trump was legitimate, the text makes clear that the Senate has power to try that impeachment.”

Second, the seriousness of the offense mandates that the Senate not merely drop the matter. What Trump did should be set out for all to see and judge — and for the senators to render their individual, recorded verdicts. More from the prosecutors: “Allowing Presidents to subvert elections without consequence would encourage the most dangerous of abuses.” Giving up without making this case would be dereliction of duty.

Yes, there are pitfalls. A trial will distract, somewhat, from the pursuit of President Biden’s agenda. It will inflame already-raw partisan differences without much hope of achieving the just result of preventing Trump from holding future office.

Acquittal, even if it is based on jurisdictional grounds, risks legitimizing Trump’s conduct, setting a precedent detrimental to the rule of law. Conviction, if it were somehow miraculously to occur, would risk turning him into a martyr, allowing him to claim that he was persecuted by political enemies even after he was out of office.

Dropping the matter would be worse. It would represent an enormous collective shrug at Trump’s abuses. “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,” the House impeachment managers write.

If pursuing this offense to trial is not worth the Senate’s time, it is hard to imagine what would be.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-senate-impeachment-trial-wont-be-a-waste-of-time/2021/02/02/ff3c90c6-6588-11eb-8c64-9595888caa15_story.html

 

[I_M4_AU 7,930]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I wonder what the outcome would be if the senators voted secretly? 

Then we would be a communist country.  What a question. SMH.

[I_M4_AU 7,930]

So, the WaPo states “Democracy dies in darkness” and you want a secret ballot for Senators in the impeachment hearing.  I would bury my head too.

[homersapien 11,423]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Then we would be a communist country.  What a question. SMH.

Good grief.  

It was (obviously) a rhetorical question, not a proposal. 

It relates to the questioning of Republican senator's fundamental or base values - if they have any - compared to their "go-along political" expediency values, which we already know they have in abundance.  We know how they intend to vote, which is in deference to the latter.

[I_M4_AU 7,930]

Just now, homersapien said:

Good grief.  

It was (obviously) a rhetorical question, not a proposal. 

It relates to questioning Republican senators fundamental or base values - if they have any - compared to their "go-along political" expediency values, which we already know they have in abundance.  We already know how they intend to vote, which is in deference to the latter.

I have never known you to state something and assume people would take it as rhetorical. The way the left is right now I really can’t assume anything is beyond the pale.  I mean an EO stating men that think they are women can participate in women sports.  Is that what the majority of Americans want or is it just fulfilling donor requests?

[homersapien 11,423]

22 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, the WaPo states “Democracy dies in darkness” and you want a secret ballot for Senators in the impeachment hearing.  I would bury my head too.

Who said they wanted a secret ballot?

Certainly not the WAPO.  The comment came from me. 

And I explained it above. ( Just as if it really needed explaining.  ) 

You are making a fool of yourself.

 

 

[homersapien 11,423]

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I have never known you to state something and assume people would take it as rhetorical. The way the left is right now I really can’t assume anything is beyond the pale.  I mean an EO stating men that think they are women can participate in women sports.  Is that what the majority of Americans want or is it just fulfilling donor requests?

I suggest you start by simply reading carefully, for meaning.  If I say, for example "I wonder"......     It's rhetorical.   duuuuh. 

Furthermore, to wonder - or speculate - how a secret vote would turn out differently when discussing any sort of issue or situation that requires a public vote is a classical rhetorical meme, for obvious reasons.   

 

 

[homersapien 11,423]

Oh, and to interject trans-genderism (?) in female sports is a totally random non-sequitur. 

Just stop and cut your losses.

[1716AU 731]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Then we would be a communist country.  What a question. SMH.

Sometimes, I just am blown away by the ignorance.

[I_M4_AU 7,930]

1 minute ago, 1716AU said:

Sometimes, I just am blown away by the ignorance.

So you don’t think a Senate vote in secret would be something a communist country would do?  He *wondered* what the vote would be, I just answered his question.  Posing that hypothetical in our system of government is ignorant.

[homersapien 11,423]

19 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

So you don’t think a Senate vote in secret would be something a communist country would do?  He *wondered* what the vote would be, I just answered his question.  Posing that hypothetical in our system of government is ignorant.

Don't you wonder what the result would be? 

Or are you just assuming their public vote - the one that panders to Trump because he will know it  - is what they all really feel is the right one? 

After all, this goes to the very essence of who and what the Republican party really is -  are they a political party that supposedly reflects "conservative" values or are they a weird personality cult.  Personally, I think they are spineless examples that will become whatever they need to be to keep their jobs.  It's pathetic.

[I_M4_AU 7,930]

26 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Don't you wonder what the result would be? 

Or are you just assuming their public vote - the one that panders to Trump because he will know it  - is what they all really feel is the right one? 

After all, this goes to the very essence of who and what the Republican party really is -  are they a political party that supposedly reflects "conservative" values or are they a weird personality cult.  Personally, I think they are spineless examples that will become whatever they need to be to keep their jobs.  It's pathetic.

This was your original point for asking the rhetorical question.  You can tell me, as you have for 4+ years, that Trump is the worst human being and the worst President to ever hold the office and you probably feel (speculating here) that the vote should be 100-0 guilty.  This is based just on feelings, not evidence. When the evidence has been presented (Mueller and Impeachment part 1) there was no guilty verdict and the vote basically went down party lines.  

Impeachment 2 was rushed through the house with little defense given only because time was of the essence and the house knew emotions ran high at that point. This time 10 Republicans voted to impeach without a defense allowed to be presented, again due to timing.  The Dems have been trying to impeach Trump since his inauguration according to the WaPo and it really looks petty.  

Is this the type of government you want?  A government that governs by emotion and not fact?  And whose emotions, that of like minded people that you agree with?

The Republican Party is in flux right now, but I dam* sure don’t like what I see from the Democrats right now.

[Leftfield 2,636]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is this the type of government you want?  A government that governs by emotion and not fact?  And whose emotions, that of like minded people that you agree with?

So now you defend Trump by saying the Democrats were acting on emotion, adding to your earlier defense saying he didn't technically incite anyone to riot. Still ignoring the evidence that has been in front of literally everyone for four years, and saying more time for defense in the House should have been given (and knowing the Senate is going to hold a trial allowing a defense, regardless). Yet you accuse others of not paying attention to facts.

It amazes me that you think a secret ballot would be outlandish in this case. First of all, secret ballots are absolutely allowed if enough members of the body approve of it. Secondly, with the hate and threats of violence some have thrown at politicians in the current charged environment there are many who are understandably afraid to cross them, and if you think some politicians aren't saying things in public that contradict their private feelings then you're a fool. 

Let's play another hypothetical: Liz Cheney just kept her leadership position in a 145 to 61 vote. The vote was by secret ballot. If it had been a public vote, do you think Cheney would still have her position?

[homersapien 11,423]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This was your original point for asking the rhetorical question.  You can tell me, as you have for 4+ years, that Trump is the worst human being and the worst President to ever hold the office and you probably feel (speculating here) that the vote should be 100-0 guilty.  This is based just on feelings, not evidence. When the evidence has been presented (Mueller and Impeachment part 1) there was no guilty verdict and the vote basically went down party lines.  

Impeachment 2 was rushed through the house with little defense given only because time was of the essence and the house knew emotions ran high at that point. This time 10 Republicans voted to impeach without a defense allowed to be presented, again due to timing.  The Dems have been trying to impeach Trump since his inauguration according to the WaPo and it really looks petty.  

Is this the type of government you want?  A government that governs by emotion and not fact?  And whose emotions, that of like minded people that you agree with?

The Republican Party is in flux right now, but I dam* sure don’t like what I see from the Democrats right now.

I am talking about Republican congressmen and just how many of them are true cultists vs. cynical politicians simply trying to benefit from the cultism.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[I_M4_AU 7,930]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

So now you defend Trump by saying the Democrats were acting on emotion, adding to your earlier defense saying he didn't technically incite anyone to riot. Still ignoring the evidence that has been in front of literally everyone for four years, and saying more time for defense in the House should have been given (and knowing the Senate is going to hold a trial allowing a defense, regardless). Yet you accuse others of not paying attention to facts.

It amazes me that you think a secret ballot would be outlandish in this case. First of all, secret ballots are absolutely allowed if enough members of the body approve of it. Secondly, with the hate and threats of violence some have thrown at politicians in the current charged environment there are many who are understandably afraid to cross them, and if you think some politicians aren't saying things in public that contradict their private feelings then you're a fool. 

Let's play another hypothetical: Liz Cheney just kept her leadership position in a 145 to 61 vote. The vote was by secret ballot. If it had been a public vote, do you think Cheney would still have her position?

So much wrong with this post.  I’m not defending Trump as much as pointing out the process was rushed and, yes, that was due to emotion.  Trump will get to defend himself and he will probably be acquitted if no other evidence comes to light that Trump had more of a role prior to the 6th.  I don’t know the facts of the case, yet you and so many more already have him convicted.  I’m waiting of the trial to end and see what happens. I’m not going to 2nd guess what Senators might do if they have a secret ballot.

I’m sure politicians say things in public that contradict their private feelings, they are politicians after all.  When you are on a jury, you are suppose to put those things behind you and that is the charge of the Senators.  

A secret ballot would be outlandish in any case.  If you have ever been on a jury you know you cast your ballot and, if the person is convicted, the defense usually asks for a roll call of the jurors.  There is no secret ballot in those proceedings why should there be in this proceeding?  The Liz Chaney hypothetical is ridiculous on it’s face.  How can you compare if a person keeps a leadership position and still keeps her job with the impeachment of a President?  To answer your question; I would hope that the votes would not be any different than what they were.  If an elected official is influenced by death threats, why are they even an elected official?  They need to grow a pair.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,930]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am talking about the Republican congressmen and just how many of them are true cultists vs. cynical politicians trying to ride the wave of cultism.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Your rhetorical question specially stated Senators.  Moving the goal posts or short term memory loss?

[homersapien 11,423]

Trump's role in instigating the insurrection dated before the election in which he insisted the only way he could lose was if the election was fraudulent.  He constantly preached the same point - with help from many others in the party - and ultimately convinced a large number of gullible/cult members it was true. This is what created the seditious insurrection. 

As proof, all Trump had to do at any point was concede he lost and voila, no insurrection.

You really have to be a delusional fool - part of the cult - not to recognize that.

[homersapien 11,423]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Your rhetorical question specially stated Senators.  Moving the goal posts or short term memory loss?

Apparently, you weren't aware that a senator is a member of congress, i.e.: a congressman.

But since it confuses you, I'll change it.

 

[Leftfield 2,636]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

A secret ballot would be outlandish in any case.  If you have ever been on a jury you know you cast your ballot and, if the person is convicted, the defense usually asks for a roll call of the jurors.  There is no secret ballot in those proceedings why should there be in this proceeding? 

For the reason I stated in my post. In order to get a vote on what members of Congress actually believe since they wouldn't have to worry about being intimidated by the lunatic mob. Are you really naive enough to think this is just a run-of-the-mill vote that might tick off some people who may direct angry phone calls to their Representative or Senators office, rather than put them and their families at real risk? 

 

20 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The Liz Chaney hypothetical is ridiculous on it’s face.  How can you compare if a person keeps a leadership position and still keeps her job with the impeachment of a President? 

This has to be a joke.

Is not the point of Impeachment to remove a President from his leadership position? Do you have a team of monkeys typing up these arguments?

 

28 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 To answer your question; I would hope that the votes would not be any different than what they were.  If an elected official is influenced by death threats, why are they even an elected official?  They need to grow a pair.

Very easy to say having never been in that situation. I'm sure you would stand resolute in the face of rabid militia groups threatening your family.

[Leftfield 2,636]

35 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Trump will get to defend himself and he will probably be acquitted if no other evidence comes to light that Trump had more of a role prior to the 6th.  I don’t know the facts of the case, yet you and so many more already have him convicted.  

I have him convicted because, for the 847th time (or so).....THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN RIGHT IN FRONT OF US FOR FOUR YEARS. No other evidence needs to come to light, even though I guarantee whatever additional evidence does come out will be even worse.

 

38 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m not going to 2nd guess what Senators might do if they have a secret ballot.

Of course you won't, because it would jeopardize your argument about secret ballots being a tool of "communists."

[I_M4_AU 7,930]

46 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Is not the point of Impeachment to remove a President from his leadership position?

The point being Liz will still have a position as a Representative and not impeached.  Very similar to being censured.  If Trump was censured I would have no problem with that, it would be appropriate.  I have no monkeys, but I may look into it, thanks. 

[I_M4_AU 7,930]

48 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I have him convicted because, for the 847th time (or so).....THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN RIGHT IN FRONT OF US FOR FOUR YEARS. No other evidence needs to come to light, even though I guarantee whatever additional evidence does come out will be even worse.

This is an example of emotion vs facts.  If you can prove it, prove it.  I think Biden and his whole family are crooks, but I haven’t seen any evidence that will hold up to scrutiny, so I’ll just hope it comes to light.

[Leftfield 2,636]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is an example of emotion vs facts.  If you can prove it, prove it.  I think Biden and his whole family are crooks, but I haven’t seen any evidence that will hold up to scrutiny, so I’ll just hope it comes to light.

So you consider someone pointing to past statements and actions and showing how they built to an obvious conclusion to be emotion?

I asked this in another thread, but I don't think it was ever answered: Do you consider it an impeachable offense to continually undermine our system of elections by making claims of widespread voter fraud while having no evidence whatsoever of that fraud?

[I_M4_AU 7,930]

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

So you consider someone pointing to past statements and actions and showing how they built to an obvious conclusion to be emotion?

Yes, unless you have proof of a conspiracy, in this case, it’s just emotion.

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I asked this in another thread, but I don't think it was ever answered: Do you consider it an impeachable offense to continually undermine our system of elections by making claims of widespread voter fraud while having no evidence whatsoever of that fraud?

Free speech does not include a provision that the speech has to be true.  Trump has little credibility left and was voted out of office for that very reason.  In essence he was already impeached by the citizens of the United States.  Anything else is vindictive politics that will turn around and bite the Dems in the a$$.

I know it was horrifying (emotional) to see the Capitol being stormed, but there is little, if any, proof Trump took part in it by just the words he spoke.

[homersapien 11,423]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I know it was horrifying (emotional) to see the Capitol being stormed, but there is little, if any, proof Trump took part in it by just the words he spoke.

1) Why exactly did MAGA rioters assault the capitol?

2) Who planted this idea in their head (for months and months)?

 

You are a perfect example of a cultist.  Actual reality has no standing when pitted against the "reality" of your delusions.