2nd Trump Senate Trial and the January 6 commission

[alfred russel]

I was almost alone in arguing that the trial should not have been held in February 2021 before the covid relief bill passed or before key members of the Biden cabinet were confirmed because in part the trial would have to be rushed - during the length of the trial other senate business would be delayed. I was assured that wouldn't happen but then house managers wanted to present witnesses and democratic senators got them to back down, and then the Jan. 6 commission has come up with a bunch of compelling stuff so I dunno.

Seems like we are spending a lot of time investigating a crime after the primary suspect was acquitted which seems like either a waste of time or that the trial was held before all the relevant facts were brought to light.

[Barrister]

Null vote.

There was sufficient evidence before the Senate.  The fact that the Senate did not, would never, vote to remove Trump was a known fact.

While there was sufficient evidence known immediately after Jan 6, the Jan 6 commission has done nteresting work to fill out a lot more details.  They have increased all of the details about Jan 6 which has made it worthwhile (and may result in criminal charges against Trump or his associates).

[Jacob]

That's a pretty poorly worded poll. Null vote.

[crazy canuck]

You forgot to include an option which is correct

[The Brain]

This seems only tangentially related to 9/11.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Neither option is accurate in any meaningful sense. I don't know a single person who thought the Senate trial would result in a conviction--nor could it ever result in a conviction. The decision to hold the trial or not has nothing to do with the decision to further investigate Trump, no amount of investigation would ever have resulted in a conviction--even if the trial uncovered a video of Trump on the phone ordering January 6th rioters to kill congress people.

There is an argument that the Senate trial was meaningless and pointless, but that is entirely unrelated to the January 6th committee. The Senate trial's meaningfulness would not be altered at all by waiting. If the Senate trial can be said to have served any purpose, it was that it forced Republicans to reveal they do not care about the rule of law, and never will care about the rule of law. It is debatable if that justified holding the trial, I personally don't think the Senate trial made much of a meaningful difference in society either way.

The committee format was the only meaningful way to actually investigate January 6th to begin with, and that needed to happen regardless of whether or not the Senate put Trump on trial for 1/6.

[alfred russel]

The fact that the Senate did not, would never, vote to remove Trump was a known fact.

That is revisionist history. Yes it was always unlikely, but I looked up the wagering markets and on January 19 the odds of conviction were at 28%.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7054/How-many-Senators-will-vote-to-convict-Donald-Trump-on-incitement-by-Apr-29

[alfred russel]

Neither option is accurate in any meaningful sense. I don't know a single person who thought the Senate trial would result in a conviction--nor could it ever result in a conviction. The decision to hold the trial or not has nothing to do with the decision to further investigate Trump, no amount of investigation would ever have resulted in a conviction--even if the trial uncovered a video of Trump on the phone ordering January 6th rioters to kill congress people.

There is an argument that the Senate trial was meaningless and pointless, but that is entirely unrelated to the January 6th committee. The Senate trial's meaningfulness would not be altered at all by waiting. If the Senate trial can be said to have served any purpose, it was that it forced Republicans to reveal they do not care about the rule of law, and never will care about the rule of law. It is debatable if that justified holding the trial, I personally don't think the Senate trial made much of a meaningful difference in society either way.

The committee format was the only meaningful way to actually investigate January 6th to begin with, and that needed to happen regardless of whether or not the Senate put Trump on trial for 1/6.

The main reason for not holding the trial in February was that whatever the purpose of the trial, it would not be served in holding a trial in an extremely rushed manner and it certainly was bad optics to do so before covid relief or getting key cabinet officials in place.

If you wanted to hold republican senators accountable for voting not to convict someone obviously guilty, you could have done that a lot better with the witnesses the house managers were planning to call up vs. cutting the trial short so the new administration could be put in place.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The fact that the Senate did not, would never, vote to remove Trump was a known fact.

That is revisionist history. Yes it was always unlikely, but I looked up the wagering markets and on January 19 the odds of conviction were at 28%.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7054/How-many-Senators-will-vote-to-convict-Donald-Trump-on-incitement-by-Apr-29

The wagering markets are not evidence of anything, particularly ones like PI where you can resale your position, they just mean some people thought they could make money flipping one side of the question.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Neither option is accurate in any meaningful sense. I don't know a single person who thought the Senate trial would result in a conviction--nor could it ever result in a conviction. The decision to hold the trial or not has nothing to do with the decision to further investigate Trump, no amount of investigation would ever have resulted in a conviction--even if the trial uncovered a video of Trump on the phone ordering January 6th rioters to kill congress people.

There is an argument that the Senate trial was meaningless and pointless, but that is entirely unrelated to the January 6th committee. The Senate trial's meaningfulness would not be altered at all by waiting. If the Senate trial can be said to have served any purpose, it was that it forced Republicans to reveal they do not care about the rule of law, and never will care about the rule of law. It is debatable if that justified holding the trial, I personally don't think the Senate trial made much of a meaningful difference in society either way.

The committee format was the only meaningful way to actually investigate January 6th to begin with, and that needed to happen regardless of whether or not the Senate put Trump on trial for 1/6.

The main reason for not holding the trial in February was that whatever the purpose of the trial, it would not be served in holding a trial in an extremely rushed manner and it certainly was bad optics to do so before covid relief or getting key cabinet officials in place.

If you wanted to hold republican senators accountable for voting not to convict someone obviously guilty, you could have done that a lot better with the witnesses the house managers were planning to call up vs. cutting the trial short so the new administration could be put in place.

I disagree that "not rushing it" or "building a better case" (two things which were irrelevant to the trial) would have changed anything whatsoever, and thus the idea that it matters that it was held when it does is not accurate in my mind. There is an argument to be made holding an impeachment trial at all was pointless for an ex-President, there is no real argument that holding it in February of 2021 was bad and holding it in October of 2022 would be better.

[Grey Fox]

No, you don't get no credit for the only instance, in this pandemic era, where you showed patience. No.

[Barrister]

The main reason for not holding the trial in February was that whatever the purpose of the trial, it would not be served in holding a trial in an extremely rushed manner and it certainly was bad optics to do so before covid relief or getting key cabinet officials in place.

If you wanted to hold republican senators accountable for voting not to convict someone obviously guilty, you could have done that a lot better with the witnesses the house managers were planning to call up vs. cutting the trial short so the new administration could be put in place.

I'm sorry I think history has born out the importance of a quick trial.

In February 2021 you had Republicans vote against removal, but they were at least sheepish and still denounced Jan 6 itself.

If you were to hold a vote on barring Trump from office Summer 2022 half the Republican senators would be lauding the rioters as freedom fighters.

[Admiral Yi]

What Biscuit said.

[Valmy]

I'm sorry I think history has born out the importance of a quick trial.

In February 2021 you had Republicans vote against removal, but they were at least sheepish and still denounced Jan 6 itself.

If you were to hold a vote on barring Trump from office Summer 2022 half the Republican senators would be lauding the rioters as freedom fighters.

Yeah I agree 100%. If there was any shot at convicting Donald it needed to be done ASAP while the terror of the Jan 6 attack was still fresh. The longer time passed it would be less likely. Hell when the Republicans get back into power again they might build a commemorative statue celebrating Jan 6th.

Now granted maybe that wasn't as obvious in February 2021 as it is now, but I do think doing it ASAP makes sense in retrospect.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The main reason for not holding the trial in February was that whatever the purpose of the trial, it would not be served in holding a trial in an extremely rushed manner and it certainly was bad optics to do so before covid relief or getting key cabinet officials in place.

If you wanted to hold republican senators accountable for voting not to convict someone obviously guilty, you could have done that a lot better with the witnesses the house managers were planning to call up vs. cutting the trial short so the new administration could be put in place.

I'm sorry I think history has born out the importance of a quick trial.

In February 2021 you had Republicans vote against removal, but they were at least sheepish and still denounced Jan 6 itself.

If you were to hold a vote on barring Trump from office Summer 2022 half the Republican senators would be lauding the rioters as freedom fighters.

This is an angle I did not consider and I think Beeb is right--if anything if you were going to hold a trial, it actually was probably best to hold it when they did. It was fairly predictable that just like the right wing infosphere coalesced to defend things like Trump's praise of white supremacists after the Charlottesville murder, the Access Hollywood tape etc, that given a few months time they would successfully recast the 1/6 riot as either a positive thing or "exaggerated, and not a big deal compared to the Black lives matter people burning shops down." If there was any time to strike it was likely back when they did.

My personal belief is the idea of an impeachment trial of an already out of office President probably didn't make a ton of sense, and whatever good it could do could (and is) being done by the committee process. But if you hold that a trial should have happened, earlier was probably better.