The 43 Senate Republicans who
voted to acquit Donald J.
Trump:
Richard Shelby (Alabama)
Tommy Tuberville (Alabama)
Daniel Sullivan (Alaska)
John Boozman (Arkansas)
Tom Cotton (Arkansas)
Marco Rubio (Florida)
Rick Scott (Florida)
Jim Risch (Idaho)
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Mike Braun (Indiana)
Todd Young (Indiana)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Joni Ernst (Iowa)
Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Roger Marshall (Kansas)
Mitch McConnell
(Kentucky)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)
John Neeley Kennedy
(Louisiana)
Cindy Hyde-Smith
(Mississippi)
Roger Wicker
(Mississippi)
Josh Hawley (Missouri)
Roy Blunt (Missouri)
Steve Daines (Montana)
Deb Fischer (Nebraska)
Thom Tillis (North
Carolina)
John Hoeven (North
Dakota)
Kevin Cramer (North
Dakota)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
James Lankford
(Oklahoma)
Jim Inhofe (Oklahoma)
Lindsey Graham (South
Carolina)
Tim Scott (South
Carolina)
John Thune (South
Dakota)
Mike Rounds (South
Dakota)
Bill Hagerty (Tennessee)
Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee)
John Cornyn (Texas)
Ted Cruz (Texas)
Mike Lee (Utah)
Shelley Moore Capito
(West Virginia)
Ronald Harold Johnson
(Wisconsin)
Cynthia Lummis (Wyoming)
John Barasso (Wyoming)
The seven Senate Republicans who
voted to convict Donald J. Trump were Richard
Burr (NC), Bill Cassidy (LA), Susan Collins ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Mitt Romney (UT), Ben Sasse (NE) and Pat Toomey (PA).
"It doesn't matter
how good the Constitution is. It doesn't matter how brilliant the Framers were.
It doesn't matter how good or bad our advocacy in this trial is. It doesn't
matter how well written the oath of impartiality is. If right doesn't matter,
we're lost. If truth doesn't matter, we're lost" -Adam Schiff.
"When our democracy
is threatened from within, we must save it ourselves... Transcending forces of
decay, disinformation, and disunion will not be easy. This is the great
national calling of our time: the North Star that must guide decisions about
ending or enduring disastrous presidencies. There is no quick fix for the
challenges we face. They are surmountable only if each of us resolves anew that
America and democracy are well worth fighting for" -Laurence Tribe.
When people ask, what crime did Trump commit, they are ignorant of these facts
about impeachment: “The very essence of impeachment is political rather than
criminal… Politicians rather than judges hold the impeachment power… Instead,
it serves only to remove political authority from ‘him who would make a bad use
of it’” (Tribe, 13). “Impeachment doesn’t require proof of a crime… Impeachment
and criminal punishment are distinct… (44) The argument that only criminal
offenses are impeachable is deeply and profoundly wrong. It misunderstands the
Constitution, U.S. history, and the nature of criminal law in important ways…
The wrongness of this claim offends us as scholars and troubles us as citizens.
A relentless focus on criminality distorts public dialogue about impeachment.
It also sabotages productive discussion about improper (though noncriminal)
uses of presidential power…” (45).
When a president abuses “the formal powers” of the office of the presidency to secure an election, it is our constitutional system that will not allow him to corrupt our democracy. In the case of Trump, who is a “serial abuser of power,” allowing him to escape the first impeachment “posed a clear danger of grave harm to the constitutional order” (23) and to our national security. As was revealed in the first impeachment, “the corrupt exercise of power in exchange for a personal benefit defines impeachable bribery” (33); moreover, Trump’s myriad attempts to impede justice proved impeachable obstruction as well.
In this second impeachment, the evidence was irrefutable that Trump had engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States. It is a treachery that 43 Republican cowards have failed the American people because “the American people must live forever with the consequences” (28).
We only have to ask the 43 Republican poltroons who acquitted Trump: would they have impeached Obama if he had incited an insurrection?
-Glen Brown
Tribe, Laurence H. and Joshua Matz. To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment. New York: Basic Books, 2018.
"The world sees how democracy in the U.S. can be stolen. My European relatives are also devastated by all of our undemocratic issues we've had since our founding. There was always a strive to uphold truths, fortitude, integrity and the quest for peace, health, education and equal opportunity for each person. But since Reagan, we have resorted to greed, selfishness and deceit more and more. We kind of know the reasons for all this but, nevertheless, we must keep ideas and the self going forward, working always towards honesty because it is still worth it, no matter the outcome. Peace & good will."
ReplyDelete-Rosemary Schroeder
"I presume you heard McConnell's comments essentially confirming the prosecution's case, even in some detail. And yet, not only were his comments too late, he still hung his hat on the process. He did say explicitly that Trump is culpable for all he did in office, the only other positive."
ReplyDelete-Richard Palzer
"In addition to the outrage, this is against law and order, the Constitution, separation of powers, voter enfranchisement, democracy, and decency. This is like spitting in the face of the law enforcement and housekeeping staff who tried to protect, who died, or had to clean up after the riot. This is a dark day for the United States and Democracy and an omen of the future. He will be more emboldened than ever. If he doesn't run, his idiot children may... We now have a threatening future."
ReplyDelete-Marge Sucansky
"Wow! Settle down. We knew this was going to be outcome. There are 80 million people who are equally sad. Those who are up for midterm elections... we have to make sure they are no longer welcomed to DC or their former positions. What's scary is that #45 reads this as an endorsement of his behavior."
ReplyDelete-Hernice Smith
I wrote this on August 24, 2019 about the first impeachment:
ReplyDeleteWhat I believe about the Republican Senate: they will continue the efforts of the Republican House by sabotaging the impeachment process, by not allowing or discrediting witnesses, by employing hyperbolic histrionics, and by confusing the facts and the American people; they will continue to polarize politics through hyper-partisanship, unprincipled partiality, and political stagnation; they will refuse to legitimize the preponderance of evidence before them because of their confirmation bias and their fear of losing Trump's supporters; they will continue their unwavering allegiance to their extensive tribalism, their powerful interests, their dark money, their party caucus, and Trump's base so they are guaranteed campaign funds, committee assignments, and reelection; they will continue their irreparable damage to the constitutional system, democratic institutions, and separation of powers. They will fail to impeach Trump, thus, "leaving the country with a corrupt tyrant and his angry, vengeful supporters." It will be up to the rest of us to preserve our slowly-dying democracy.
From Politico:
ReplyDeleteCatherine J. Ross is professor of law and Fred C. Stevenson research professor at the George Washington University Law School. She is also the author of the forthcoming A Right to Lie? Presidents, Other Liars, and the First Amendment, expected in 2021.
This acquittal sends at least three dangerous messages to future presidents. First, you can with impunity use every weapon in a relentless effort to overturn the results of a free and fair election. Some of these weapons are more legitimate, such as recounts and lawsuits, than others, such as pressuring state officials, ignoring 62 losses in court and seeking intervention by government officials. The acquittal also shows that a president can incite a violent, armed mob to overtake and ransack the Capitol in order to cut short the constitutionally mandated vote certification without accountability. And third, it is now almost impossible to imagine a presidential offense that would lead to conviction in the Senate.
The Supreme Court explained in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that congressional oversight backed by the “threat of impeachment” is the sole means the Constitution provides to “deter presidential abuses of office.” Because they had the aftermath of Watergate in mind—where Republican leaders prevailed on President Richard Nixon to resign—the justices, like the Founders, did not envision the hyper-partisanship that has undermined the impeachment process. For all practical purposes, the majority of Republican senators have vitiated the impeachment, conviction and removal mechanism, throwing our government of co-equal branches completely out of balance. Disabling the fail-safe remedy the Founders bequeathed to us puts the country at grave risk.
‘The exoneration of Trump will inevitably embolden those and their ilk who stormed the Capitol’
From Politico:
ReplyDeleteAllan J. Lichtman is a history professor and author of The Case for Impeachment.
The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump has three distinct audiences: the senators, the American people and the incoming Attorney General Merrick Garland. The first audience was never the most important. The impeachment managers realized that no matter how powerful and compelling their case, most Republican senators had closed minds and would put party and personal political advantage above loyalty to country. Nonetheless, it is notable that for the first time in history, a bipartisan majority of both parties voted to convict an American president, even if the vote fell short of the two-thirds needed for conviction. Trump was not exonerated.
The managers pitched their presentation to the American people. If, as appears certain, Trump emerges diminished in the eyes of most Americans, his political career is over in practice, even if not formally in law. Already, a poll taken on the eve of the trial found that 53 percent of respondents opposed the idea of Trump running again, compared to just 37 percent who said they would support it. Trump also has much to deal with between now and 2024. His businesses, brand and approval ratings are tanking. He has $400+ million in loans coming due and faces an IRS audit. He has lost his Twitter account. He is under criminal investigation by district attorneys in New York and Georgia. He faces civil suits, including one by journalist E. Jean Carroll who claims that Trump raped her in the 1990s and that she has DNA evidence.
Trump’s attorney Bruce Castor suggested, astonishingly, that the remedy for Trump’s alleged incitement is not impeachment, but prosecution. “After he's out of office, you go and arrest him,” Castor said. “There is no opportunity where the president of the United States can run rampant in January at the end of his term and go away scot-free.” Garland will have before him a consequential decision about whether to take up Castor’s challenge and indict the former president on incitement or possible conspiracy charges. He will have to carefully weigh the strength of a potential criminal case against the distraction and uproar that would follow from the charging of a former president.
‘Congress must immediately pass legislation to shore up accountability’
From Democracy Now:
ReplyDeleteAMY GOODMAN: We are joined now by Bruce Fein. He was associate deputy attorney general and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission under President Reagan. He previously served as counsel to Republicans on the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran. He’s a constitutional lawyer who’s testified on countless occasions before Congress and author of the book American Empire Before the Fall.
BRUCE FEIN: First, I think I would recharacterize the nature of the charge. It wasn’t insurrection against the Capitol alone. It was a stab in the back of the United States Constitution and 230 years of unbroken peaceful transitions of presidential power, because the purpose of the storming wasn’t just to defile the Capitol or even threaten lives. It was to prevent Mike Pence, the vice president, from executing his constitutional duty under the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act to count state-certified electoral votes that would pronounce Joe Biden the winner by having captured a majority. It was an effort, basically, to destroy the rule of law and the Constitution itself. It would put us in the same situation that Russians find with Mr. Putin and his elections or President Xi in China. That was what this was about. It wasn’t some kind of garden-variety just riot. It was an effort to undo 230 years of heroic sacrifices of our Founding Fathers, of those who fought at Cemetery Ridge, Omaha Beach and otherwise. That was what was at stake here. And to characterize it as an insurrection is, I think — vastly downplays the importance of the issue.
The second thing that I want to underscore is that it’s conceptually wrong to think of impeachment as an after-the-fact sanction for misconduct. Impeachment was designed as a prophylactic, something that would prevent someone from remaining in office if they created a clear and present danger to our constitutional dispensation. And whatever else you can say about Mr. Trump’s speeches and exhortations, incendiary words, whether or not they in fact caused the insurrection, because there’s certainly evidence of some planning by some in advance, it clearly shows a huge danger to our constitutional system, especially when you think about the background of this president saying on July 23rd, 2019, in the manner of a monarch, “Then, I have Article II, where I have the right to do anything I want as president.” And he was as good as his word. He flouted the Constitution virtually daily. He turned the White House into a crime scene by Hatch Act violations and using government property and employees to promote his 2020 campaign. He flouted hundreds of congressional subpoenas for testimony and information. He issued executive orders in view of legislation. He continued unconstitutional wars. On and on and on. That is not a clear and present danger to our constitutional system, I don’t know what is. And it really is quite frightening that now we have a precedent that says a president has the right to do anything he wants, that he wishes to, without sanction. That is no longer the rule of law…
AMY GOODMAN: …I wanted to ask you about what’s next for Trump. You have a number of possible criminal investigations — the Manhattan DA probe of Trump’s finances; the Atlanta DA probe of Trump election schemes, like interfering with the secretary of state, demanding to find more than 11,000 votes; the Georgia secretary of state’s probe of Trump’s calls. And then you have, in D.C., both the attorney general and the D.C. U.S. attorney possible incitement of violence charge around that very January 6 insurrection. Civilly, you’ve got the New York attorney general investigating the Trump Organization. You’ve got the two defamation suits against Trump for abusing and, in one case, raping women: Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit and Summer Zervos’s defamation lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteBRUCE FEIN: Well, the most, I believe, important is the potential for federal criminal prosecution. Under the incitement of insurrection prohibition — for those who are interested, it’s in Title 18 U.S. Code 2843 — it provides as a punishment for having incited an insurrection to prevent the execution of the laws of the United States, including properly counting electoral votes, a disqualification from holding future office in the United States. And that would be the equivalent of the same punishment that would have ensued if he was convicted of an impeachable offense.
Now, the big issue is going to be the resolution of Joe Biden, his new attorney general, Merrick Garland, to pursue that. This issue of moving forward on Mr. Trump is not going to be made by low-level civil servants in the Department of Justice. It’s going to be made at the highest levels. And I’m worried, because if I think back about President Obama coming in on the heels of Mr. Bush and stating, and his attorney general stating, “Oh, yes, the enhanced interrogation program was torture,” which is an international law crime, as well as a crime under U.S. law, and they did absolutely nothing to pursue those who openly and notoriously conceded they were doing waterboarding hundreds of times, that was defined by Mr. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder as torture.
And the politics is going to — at least it threatens to interfere with the obligation to do justice, which I think would be a tragedy, because, after all, the law lives by precedence. And if we don’t have accountability for this terrible, terrible gentleman, Mr. Trump, who basically wanted to turn the country back to a monarchy, then that precedent will lie around like a loaded weapon ready to be used by any other successor in the White House to destroy the country completely and say, “Well, I’m just doing what Mr. Trump did. He got away with it. No double standards for me.” They have to look beyond the politics of the moment to our posterity, so they can inherit freedom, liberty, government by the consent of the governed, as we did because our forefathers also made sacrifices for the long term, rather than their immediate self-interest.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Bruce Fein, the AP reports bipartisan support appears to be growing for an independent, September 11-style commission into the deadly insurrection that took place at the U.S. Capitol. And let’s just say, seven people died. Not only the police officer, the Capitol Police officer, Sicknick, but two officers also took their own lives afterwards. That’s the total seven. But what about this independent commission and what that would mean?
ReplyDeleteBRUCE FEIN: Well, there’s nothing in concept that I would oppose about an independent commission. But I think it’s too slow. And moreover, the Constitution creates the independent commissions. It’s called the Congress of the United States, where every member is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. We didn’t need an independent commission to investigate Watergate. It was able to be done fairly. The American people saw it. We saw the witnesses. They have the subpoena power. They have more authority than an independent commission, because Congress, unknown to most members and the American people, has the authority to detain people if they don’t appear in response to subpoenas. They can find people. They don’t need to go to court and wait hour after year, day after day, year after year, in litigation. And the Watergate is the model.
We need to have the Congress — they need to be accountable for the decisions, the witnesses. We’ve gone too long where Congress runs, flees away from any decision that requires them to be accountable for their actions, just as we witnessed on the impeachment vote, where we had some members, like Senator Thom Tillis, saying, “Well, he should be convicted because he committed a crime, but I didn’t want to vote, because I don’t want to have to confront the voters.” That’s not acceptable. If you don’t want to comply with your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, don’t serve in Congress.
AMY GOODMAN: Though I said “finally,” one more: Is it possible that still the Congress could vote to prevent Donald Trump from running for federal office? It was always said, after the Senate trial, if he were convicted by two-thirds vote, which he wasn’t — he was short by — they were short 10 votes — then a majority could vote to strip him of the right to run. But is there still a chance they could invoke the 14th Amendment and do that?
BRUCE FEIN: No. You’re referencing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That clearly would be a bill of attainder. The precise issue that you’ve described, Amy, was raised right after the Civil War, and it’s a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Ex parte Garland, where the Congress sought to prevent anyone who had engaged in the Confederate States against the Union from practicing law. And the Supreme Court said, “You’re clearly trying to impose punishment. That can be only done with the trappings of due process in a court of law. It can’t be done by legislative decree.” The Constitution’s prohibition of bill of attainder would prohibit going down that path.
“If impeachment is rendered useless in the U.S., as it was in Britain two centuries ago, the Constitution does offer another remedy: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
ReplyDelete“Originally intended to prevent former Confederates from returning to power after the Civil War, Section 3 bars people who have ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion’ against the U.S. from serving in state or federal governments, including in Congress or as president or vice president.
“The language in the amendment could justify barring Trump from future office – and the resolution to do so may require only a majority vote in both houses of Congress, though enforcement would likely also need a ruling from a judge”—Eliga Gould, Professor of History, University of New Hampshire.