The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

[Solmyr]

He might actually be found guilty for the phone call. If it was included in impeachment then it would be ignored just like everything else there.

[The Minsky Moment]

You can do both; a impeachment is not a criminal charge and there aren't double jeopardy implications.
My understanding was that the tactics were to keep it to a single easily provable count due to the time constraints.

[Sheilbh]

But how is it linked to the January 6 events?

It's not.  So what?

And do you think it would make any difference to the result?

Probably not.  But I think the riot is easier to defend, since (AFAIK) Trump never said "go and kill some cops and zip tie Nancy Pelosi."

So I think it works better to keep it very focused once they decided what the charge was. One of the issues with the Russia and Ukraine charges was that they were so wide that it almost became nebulous.

There's three purposes to this, I think, from a Democratic perspective. One is, if they can, to convince some Republicans to vote for this. That's very unlikely. My take is it will work better if it's based on the shock and danger of the insurrection which will hit home more with Trump supporters rather than the type of conversation I imagine Trump has had with every Republican Senator at some point (wanting corrupt acts or quid-pro-quos) - I don't think that will shock them and it may distract from the main thrust. It's the same with the Zelensky call - I don't think that hits home with Republicans because they'll have all seen that or something similar a million times with Trump.

The second important purpose is to fix the narrative. I think this one again works better because it's basically saying that Trump's entire "stop the steal" rhetoric to de-legitimise the election had violent and dangerous consequences. His attempt to actually steal the election at the same time had fewer consequences and caused less damage I'd say to America's institutions and were less de-legitimising of the election. They were both linked but I think it is more important to focus on undermining the results because the other bit depends on the states and I think they are the institutions that have held up best over the last 4 years.

The third point could go for either which is just to show if impeachment has a purpose in the constitution then it has to be used for a case like this.

[Admiral Yi]

@Shelf: I mean, you know, like, that is to say, I totally disagree about Ukraine.  "Lie about Biden and you can have this aid."  Wham bam thank you ma'am.

I understand your point about the consequences of "stop the steal."  I just don't find it as compelling as you.

[Sheilbh]

@Shelf: I mean, you know, like, that is to say, I totally disagree about Ukraine.  "Lie about Biden and you can have this aid."  Wham bam thank you ma'am.

I totally agree with you that it's open and shut.

But the presentation was bad - there was too much detail too much extraneous stuff that Schiff included. So there's lots of stuff to poke holes in, or focus on, or talk about, or distract from the core of the argument.

And if you can't present it well and every person watching on TV doesn't leave knowing what your fundamental point was, then you've fucked up and might as well have done nothing. I think this approach is better, personally.

I understand your point about the consequences of "stop the steal."  I just don't find it as compelling as you.

Fair.

[Admiral Yi]

I totally agree with you that it's open and shut.

But the presentation was bad - there was too much detail too much extraneous stuff that Schiff included. So there's lots of stuff to poke holes in, or focus on, or talk about, or distract from the core of the argument.

And if you can't present it well and every person watching on TV doesn't leave knowing what your fundamental point was, then you've fucked up and might as well have done nothing. I think this approach is better, personally.

Yup.  I complained at the time that they totally fucked up by not making the point that the AG was a dirtbag.

And presentation wise it seemed they thought they had to cram in as many witnesses as possible, all making the same goddamn point that Trump made the call.

[alfred russel]

You guys are analyzing this from the wrong perspective. It is a trial they are trying to get over with as quickly as possible because:

a) the outcome is not in doubt - they aren't getting enough republican votes to convict,
b) if it stretches out too long it will delay covid relief, because this is the senate floor activity rather than anything else,
c) only 7 biden nominees have been approved and no more will be until this concludes (see b). Even the delayed start to the trial was a compromise with the Biden administration so at least those 7 could get in.

They could have waited a few months and held a proper trial, or even better just waited on a criminal trial to take place and effectively piggy back the results. Probably the only way to convict Trump in the Senate was to have Trump already convicted in a court of law and sitting in a jail cell.

A Senate acquittal may actually undermine a criminal case.

[crazy canuck]

I think you mean people who foolishly laid bets on confirmations want this over early

[alfred russel]

I think you mean people who foolishly laid bets on confirmations want this over early

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/08/politics/joe-biden-impeachment-agenda/index.html

Some highlights from this article, "Biden hopes Trump's impeachment won't derail agenda".

Confronting Trump's role in the insurrection attempt last month was always set to consume at least part of Biden's opening days. With an acquittal all but certain, White House officials hope the trial moves quickly and doesn't distract from the urgent imperative of combating the coronavirus pandemic or confirming Biden's Cabinet nominees.

....

Biden has never had much of an appetite for a second impeachment trial, particularly one that interrupts the confirmation of his Cabinet nominees and delays the passage of his Covid-19 relief bill. But advisers say he reached the calculation weeks ago that trying to coax Democrats in the House away from impeaching Trump would not only be unsuccessful, it could also do something even more detrimental to his agenda: dividing his party.

....

The White House has worked closely with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on the scheduling of the impeachment proceedings, urging him to keep things moving along as swiftly as possible. Still, the trial is all but certain to stretch into next week after one of Trump's lawyers asked for a halt to proceedings to observe the Sabbath on Friday evening and Saturday.

...

The goal is for all the panels to pass their portions and send it to the Budget Committee by February 16, where the larger bill can be packaged together, passed and put on the floor the following week. Biden hopes for the bill to pass by mid-March, when federal unemployment benefits expire. Any delay caused by the impeachment trial could complicate the timeline, though officials have long insisted the Senate is capable of doing both at once.

"The Senate's going to do all three things next week. We're going to do our constitutional responsibility and hold a trial. It won't last very long. We are going to move forward nominees and we are going to continue to push forward Covid relief legislation. The Senate can do all of those things, and we will," Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, said on "Fox News Sunday."

...

White House officials had insisted it was up to the Senate to determine when the trial would take place, though Biden himself revealed off-the-cuff he would prefer some of his pressing business before the chamber be completed before it did.
"The more time we have to get up and running and meet these crises, the-- the better," he said two days after taking office.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, exactly, the President isn't pushing this but leaving it up to the Senate.  Read the whole article, not just the bits that make you feel less bad about making those bets.

[Barrister]

A Senate acquittal may actually undermine a criminal case.

I can't see how.

As to your other points - they're fairly made, but the problem was if you go "well we'll have an impeachment hearing eventually, but meanwhile we sure have to get the Secretary of agriculture confirmed!" kind of takes away the argument that January 6 was such a huge deal.

[alfred russel]

Yeah, exactly, the President isn't pushing this but leaving it up to the Senate.  Read the whole article, not just the bits that make you feel less bad about making those bets.

Congressional democrats and the president compromised on this timeline.

I'm just telling you guys why there aren't witnesses, and why there isn't more and different types of evidence being presented. There are currently 3 things the democrats are trying to get through the senate asap: the impeachment trial, nominations, and covid relief. The first priority is covid relief, and thus the impeachment trial is going to get squeezed and some nominations are going to get pushed.

[Sheilbh]

I can't see how.

As to your other points - they're fairly made, but the problem was if you go "well we'll have an impeachment hearing eventually, but meanwhile we sure have to get the Secretary of agriculture confirmed!" kind of takes away the argument that January 6 was such a huge deal.

And I think it ignores the political aspect of impeachment. There's zero benefit to trying to do a trial "properly" because ultimately it'll live or die on the politics whenever you do it and however much evidence you accrue. I also think it's politically beneficial to push this while it's still fresh in people's memory - I think it resonates more, and, similar to your point I think if you did this in March there'd no doubt be some obstacles Biden had faced and it would look like a distraction.

[Caliga]

I think you mean people who foolishly laid bets on confirmations want this over early

[alfred russel]

I can't see how.

As to your other points - they're fairly made, but the problem was if you go "well we'll have an impeachment hearing eventually, but meanwhile we sure have to get the Secretary of agriculture confirmed!" kind of takes away the argument that January 6 was such a huge deal.

But they already did delay: we had a compromise to hold the trial after 7 nominees were confirmed and you got the first vote through on covid relief (getting the work back to the house). The nominees confirmed were the biggest ones: Homeland Security, State, Defense, National Intelligence and Treasury. There was also Transportation and the VA, which while less important are politically sensitive (Buttigieg was for Transportation).

Covid relief is supposed to come back to the Senate two weeks after they first approved, which limits the trial to ~11 working days, unless covid relief is going to be delayed for the conclusion of the trial.

I know you are being flip about the Secretary of Agriculture, but you also don't have approvals for some important posts like the Attorney General, Commerce, Energy, the EPA, Education, Health and Human Services (while we are in a pandemic), etc.