February 11, 2021
Today the House impeachment managers wrapped their case against former president Donald Trump. Using the words of the insurgents themselves, the managers argued that he incited the insurrection of January 6, spurring an armed and violent mob to storm the Capitol while Congress was counting the certified electoral votes that awarded the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden.
After yesterday’s dramatic illustrated timeline of the insurrection itself, the managers used their time today establishing that Trump was responsible for sparking that insurrection. They showed the insurrectionists repeating his words—one man read one of his tweets through a bullhorn at the Capitol riot—and insisting that they were acting according to the former president’s instructions.
The managers’ case was reinforced by the fact that the Department of Justice this morning filed a memorandum establishing that Jessica Watkins, a member of the right-wing Oath Keepers paramilitary group, delayed her planned assault on Washington, D.C., until she was certain Trump was behind it. “I am concerned this is an elaborate trap,” she texted on November 9, 2020. “Unless the POTUS himself activates us, it’s not legit. The POTUS has the right to activate units too. If Trump asks me to come, I will. Otherwise, I can’t trust it.”
Again and again, the managers tried to distinguish between Trump and his violent supporters, on the one hand, and the lawmakers of both parties who were their prey, on the other. Again and again, they focused on Trump as the perpetrator of the big lie that the election had been rigged and that he, not Biden, was the rightful victor.
They warned that Trump’s attack on our democracy is not over. Even after all that has happened, he has still not conceded that he lost the election. This refusal to abandon the big lie keeps it potent, enabling him to rally supporters with the argument that fighting for Trump means defending American democracy. It is a deadly inversion of reality.
The House impeachment managers have given Republican senators multiple ways to justify a vote for conviction to their constituents. They have shown how Trump began to incite violence even before the election, in plain sight, and how that led to an assault on the Capitol that came close to costing the lives of our elected officials, including Vice President Mike Pence—a Republican—and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the two people next in line for the presidency if Trump were to be removed from office.
The riot threatened the representatives and senators—including them!—their staffers, and many of their family members who were at the Capitol that day. And yet, even as lawmakers begged Trump to call the rioters off, he did the opposite. He attacked Pence in a tweet even as the vice president was being rushed to safety from the mob.
The managers focused, too, on the terrible toll the attack took on Capitol police. Three of them are now dead, with more than 100 wounded physically and others wounded mentally. Senators could vote to convict out of a determination to protect law enforcement officers, something their constituents say is important to them.
Today, the managers emphasized the many Republican lawmakers who condemned Trump in the wake of the insurrection, including the Cabinet members who resigned their posts, the state governors who called him out, and fellow lawmakers who expressed dismay at his incitement of the rioters.
Finally, the managers warned that, unless Trump is stopped, he will absolutely do such a thing again. They pointed out that the riot in Charlottesville, Virginia, after which the president condoned the white supremacists who killed Heather Heyer, was a rehearsal for the attack on the Michigan state house this summer. That, in turn, was a rehearsal for the attack on the Capitol. As manager Diana DeGette (D-CO) said: “In 2017, it was unfathomable to most of us to think that Charlottesville could happen, just as it was unfathomable to most of us that the Capitol could have been breached on January 6…. Frankly, what unfathomable horrors await us if we do not stand up now and say, no, this is not America.”
Senators were apparently shocked to see how close they came to falling into the hands of the rioters, and yet, although many Republican senators concede that the House managers mounted a compelling case, they continue to say that they do not believe they have the power to convict a former president. This suggests they are looking for an excuse, since the Senate’s vote on this question, which should be definitive, passed on Tuesday by a vote of 56-44. At one point today, at least 18 Republican senators were absent from their desks as the managers were making their case.
It’s unlikely that any of the senators want to acquit Trump because they want him to stay in the political scene. Some of them want his voters, but that itself cuts against wanting him to stay around: they want his voters to elect them, not to reelect him or elect his chosen successor. It’s likely they simply hoped he would fade away as he lost his social media presence and became occupied with the financial and legal troubles that are already piling up.
After all, bankers have distanced themselves from the former president, his businesses appear to be losing money, and a $100 million tax dispute with the IRS is now likely to come to a conclusion after being put on hold for four years. Yesterday, District Attorney Fani Willis, Fulton County, Georgia’s top prosecutor, announced that she is launching a wide-ranging criminal investigation into Trump’s January 2 phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a call that lawyers have suggested broke election laws.
But the Senate trial has shown that maybe he’s not going to fade away. The House impeachment managers have laid out a damning case. The scenes from the insurrection were shocking, and they established a pretty strong sense that Trump is deeply involved in an ongoing attempt to overturn our democracy. It looks possible that the Department of Justice might, in fact, go after the former president and perhaps others with the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
After the past two days, senators who were planning to let Trump off the hook might be worrying they will have to answer to constituents furious that they didn’t do their jobs and instead associated the entire party with a criminal president and the rioters that attacked the Capitol. Already the editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has lambasted Missouri Senators Josh Hawley and Roy Blunt: “There is no way to credibly argue that Trump protected and defended the Constitution when video evidence shows him directing a mob to storm the Capitol and interrupt constitutionally mandated proceedings to certify the Electoral College result.”
The senators need Trump’s lawyers to do a good enough job tomorrow to give them cover to acquit, and it seems likely those lawyers are not skilled enough to do so. Tonight, Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) visited Trump’s defense team. Cruz said they were “sharing our thoughts” about their legal strategy: it is of note that Cruz was the Solicitor General of Texas before being elected to the Senate, and Lee was an assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah. Also a lawyer, Graham is the former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The Republican senators who will vote either to convict or acquit the former president must do so knowing that trials associated with the insurrection between now and the next election will keep the story in the news. The question is whether the American people will interpret the story as the impeachment team has framed it, or whether Trump’s lawyers and later Trump himself, if he regains a political foothold, can somehow knock that interpretation aside.
Lead impeachment manager Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who was a constitutional law professor before he went to Congress, seems to understand their dilemma. “Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered,” he told the senators today, quoting political theorist Thomas Paine, “but we have this saving consolation: The more difficult the struggle, the more glorious ... our victory.”
He told them, “Good luck in your deliberations.”
—-
Notes:
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/02/11/04518323725.pdf
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/11/politics/oath-keeper-justice-trump-capitol/index.html
https://www.rollcall.com/2021/02/10/wow-senators-face-unsettling-reality-of-their-close-call/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/11/politics/gop-senators-trump-impeachment-lawyers/index.html
Even moreso than when I posted it yesterday, this quote is the perfect explanation of the Caucus of Cowards:
“It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. It merely required no character.” -- Joseph Heller "Catch 22"
I must return, for a third time this week, to a question that's increasingly hard to answer: Who do Congresspeople actually represent?
"Senators were apparently shocked to see how close they came to falling into the hands of the rioters..."
Trump's presidency suggests Congressional elections are increasingly "bait and switch" transactions, where prospective constituents are sold on one vision only to be replaced by a very different approach once in office. How else can one explain the disconnect from reality that's allowed GOP senators to deny intent after seeing the video of January 6, many admitting it was soul shaking, yet concluding it was insufficient to make a case for conviction?
Despite the 74,000,000 who voted for Trump I find it difficult to believe many, let alone all, would have contemplated intentionally murderous insurrection as the appropriate path to political change in this country.
Many Congresspeople have argued a false equivalence between January 6 and the 2020 riots, in particular, but that position is specious. True, we've had protests that have turned violent - the 1965 Watts riots, resulting in 34 deaths; the 1967 Detroit riots, resulting in 16 deaths and 500 injured; the 1968 Chicago riots, resulting in 11 deaths and hundreds hurt; the Vietnam War protests, in which very few died over about six years; the Ferguson riots of 2014-2015, in which only death was that of the man whose killing sparked the protests: and most recently the 2020 protests following the police killing of George Floyd, in which at least 25 people died. However, it's important to remember that in 2020, as in all these cases, deaths and injuries arose from confrontation between protesters and law enforcement or National Guard. They were calls for change, not attempts to overthrow the government.
I can only conclude the unwillingness to justify Trump's conviction is a function of fear. Fear of losing their jobs, fear of constituents anger, fear of Trump's retribution, and perhaps most troubling, fear of the exposure of their own complicity that led to January 6, 2021. Could 50% of the Senate and nearly 75% of the House GOP truly believe Trump was the best leader for America? Why do so many Republicans noisily oppose abortion rights despite three quarters of Americans support it, although some with restrictions? Are they really representing their districts and states?
No, their fear is grounded in political expedience, well described by HCR this morning: "...Senators who were planning to let Trump off the hook might be worrying they will have to answer to constituents furious that they didn’t do their jobs..." AND "It’s unlikely that any of the senators want to acquit Trump because they want him to stay in the political scene.... they want his voters to elect them, not to reelect him or elect his chosen successor..."
They can't have their cake and eat it too. From today's letter, the "House impeachment managers have given Republican senators multiple ways to justify a vote for conviction to their constituents.... Senators could vote to convict out of a determination to protect law enforcement officers, something their constituents say is important to them."
Unfortunately, despite some feigned outrage in the days following the attack, most Republicans have walked back their earlier contention that Trump was responsible for fomenting insurrection. They still have no proof of election fraud. They're willing to overlook Trump's Twitter assaults and his undermining the statements and actions of even some of his most staunch supporters in Congress and elsewhere. They refute what their eyes and ears witnessed as rioters hammered on doors calling for the deaths - DEATHS - of Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi. The threats were equitable across party lines. Democrats pointed to prominent Republicans, including former Trump chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher, posting terrified tweets and making panicked on-air calls to Fox News in which they begged Trump to “call off” his mob on Jan. 6. Now Gallagher says impeaching Trump is “unconstitutional” and “accomplishes nothing.”
Beyond my dismay, nay, deep anger, at the GOP's persistent denials of the threats the US faced before and up to January 6, some Republicans have shown disrespect and contempt for the proceedings and their Congressional colleagues. On Wednesday, Senators Rubio, Hawley, Scott, and Paul were reading or doodling. Josh Hawley "kicked his feet up to watch Democrats’ opening statement from the Senate gallery instead of joining the rest of his colleagues on the floor." "Rick Scott of Florida, who called Wednesday’s wrenching videos a “complete waste of time.” On Thursday "at least 18 Republican senators were absent from their desks as the managers were making their case."
Do they really think we can forgive and forget the fact that they didn't stand up for their colleagues and their country? Do they believe their contention that the trial somehow violates president Biden's calls for unity and is thus too divisive? Do all of these lawyers think the the framers contemplated offering a free pass to treasonous behavior just because it occurred late in a president's term and because they put off a trial until Trump was out of office just days before? And do they think that Impeachment and a trial specifically enumerated by the Constitution, where they have the authority to define the terms of those actions, is truly unconstitutional?
I have to call BS on that. Their fears have totally sublimated their responsibilities to adhere to their oaths of office. That alone should render them unfit to continue to serve as representatives of the people. They represent no one but themselves and their donors who, with any luck, will withdraw supportb for those who failed to fight for our democratic principles and processes.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-impeachment-trial-video-means-gop-can-t-pretend-former-ncna1257559