Impeachment

Make Impeachment as Bipartisan as Possible

Impeachment can only succeed if it has substantial bipartisan support. Here are some ways to help make that happen.

|

The House of Representatives will almost certainly vote to impeach Donald Trump today. But for this effort to succeed in the goal of convicting Trump in the Senate and barring him from seeking office in the future, it will require substantial bipartisan support. Even after the Senate shifts to a 50-50 split, with the seating of the senators elected in the Georgia runoff election, conviction will require at least 17 votes from GOP senators.

In order for impeachment to have the desired effect of discrediting Trump and deterring similar misconduct by future presidents, it would also help if it had broad support from independents and Republicans in the general public. Making the process bipartisan can help with that, as well.

Some important progress towards building the necessary bipartisan coalition has already been achieved. Several House Republicans plan to vote for impeachment, most notably Rep. Liz Cheney, the third-ranking member of the House GOP leadership. Numerous conservative and libertarian legal scholars and political commentators are also backing impeachment (I give examples here and here, and there are plenty of others, such as Ramesh Ponnuru, Henry Olsen, and Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calabresi). Perhaps most importantly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is reported to be supportive of impeachment, believing that it might serve the longterm interests of his party.

Nonetheless, more can be done to build a broad coalition for convicting Trump and barring him from future office-holding. In a previous post, I mentioned that congressional Republicans who oppose impeachment because of concerns that it might cause conflict or disunity can address that problem through the simple expedient of supporting impeachment themselves. In this one, I outline some steps congressional Democrats can take.

First, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should recognize that she made a mistake by naming an all-Democratic team of impeachment managers to argue the case before the Senate. She should replace at least one of them (preferably two or three) with House Republicans who voted for impeachment, such as Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. The reason is not that Cheney or Kinzinger would necessarily do a better job of arguing the issues than a Democrat would. Rather, Pelosi should take this step because of its enormous potential symbolic value—conveying the message that impeachment is not just another iteration of partisan politics as usual.

Second, if the Senate trial will include witnesses testifying about the legal issues involved, the impeachment managers should make sure to call one or two of the many conservative and libertarian legal scholars who have advocated impeachment. That could have considerable symbolic value, as well, and would be a contrast with the Democrats' reliance on purely liberal expert witnesses during the last impeachment process.

Legal scholars Noah Feldman, Michael Gerhardt, and Pamela Karlan did a great job the last time around, in my view. But the Democrats would have done well to call at least one non-liberal witness on these issues. That would have given their efforts greater credibility with informed opinion on the right and center of the political spectrum. If expert witnesses are used this time around, the Democrats would do well to remedy that mistake.

To avoid misunderstanding, I should emphasize I am not suggesting that I should be a witness myself. To the extent Democratic leaders care what I think (unlikely, I know), I would recommend Steve Calabresi, Michael Stokes Paulsen, and VC co-bloggers Jonathan Adler and Keith Whittington for  their consideration. Any of them would be clearly better choices than me. Calabresi, in particular, would be an outstanding selection, because of his longtime role as a leader of the conservative legal movement.

These are probably not the only ways that the Democrats can do more to involve conservative and libertarian supporters of impeachment in the process.  I hope other commentators will come up with additional, and perhaps better, suggestions. The key point is to build as broad a coalition as possible, and to send a message of inclusion.

NEXT: Classes #1 - Origin of Free Speech Doctrine and From Nature to Commons

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ok impeach Trump if we can also impeach Pelosi and Harris,

    Is that uniting enough?

    One difference is that Trump explicity said to be peaceful whereas Pelosi didn’t and Harris actively supported the riots and funded bail for the rioters.

    1. What specifically did Harris and Pelosi do that you consider impeachable?

      1. Harris actively aided those arrested for actual violent acts that are far more seditious than what Trump’s words would qualify as.

        1. She helped raise bail for those who had been arrested, which last time I looked was protected by the Sixth Amendment. And a lot of those arrested weren’t rioting. Next.

          1. And Trump’s speech is protected by the First Amendment.

            1. He isn’t being arrested or charged with a crime, so what issue is the First Amendment?

              1. If we don’t restrict removal from office to legal issues then we adopt the process of removing people for social issues.

                If we adopt that, only the socially acceptable are allowed to wield power. And once that happens then only those in power get to decide what is socially acceptable… which is far beyond their prerogative and should be an obviously dangerous practice.

                1. It’s a political remedy… that’s exactly what its for.

                  “If we adopt that, only the socially acceptable are allowed to wield power.”

                  Do you not realize we vote for our representatives or what?

                2. Speaking of the process of removing people for social issues…

                  ” The Senate could pass a resolution tomorrow listing all or some of the persons eligible to become Senators in the next national election. That they do not do so is a matter of convenience, not constitutional power.”

                  I’m guessing he meant “[in]eligible”, but either way, that’s exactly what he’s asserting. Without the slightest horror at the prospect.

                  1. The check against that power, Brett, is the requirement for 2/3 of the Senate, among others.

                    1. Nope, he’s talking about ordinary enabling legislation under Section 3 of the 14th amendment. Only a simple majority required.

                  2. “that’s exactly what he’s asserting. Without the slightest horror at the prospect.”

                    The people who wanted the state legislators or the VP to throw out electoral votes now see horror….Better late than never I guess.

                3. If we don’t restrict removal from office to legal issues then we adopt the process of removing people for social issues.

                  It’s not a criminal issue…but violation of an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” is a legal issue. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

                  The Constitution calls for Congress to count the Electoral Votes on January 6th. Donald Trump sent a mob of his supporters to disrupt that process.

                  When he knew the mob *of his supporters* breached the Capitol and threatened members of Congress sufficiently that the members of Congress had to stop the counting of Electoral Votes, he did nothing to stop the mob, when he easily could have sent a Twitter message and broadcast video telling them they should leave the Capitol immediately.

                  If we adopt that, only the socially acceptable are allowed to wield power.

                  It’s people that will follow their oaths of office that should be allowed to wield power. It’s absolutely clear that Donald Trump would not follow his oath if he was re-elected, so he should not be given the chance to be re-elected.

                  Republicans can find someone else among the 100+ million eligible people in the U.S. to nominate for president in 2024 and 2028.

                  1. The can, but they’re a cult now. The Must. Have. Him. He said it himself, “I alone can fix it.” Ben, Brett, and the rest have to line up for the cult leader, he alone who can fix the many ills they see in the world.

                    A non-cultist would be embarrassed to defend this kind of guy. But a cult member would rush to do so. Mark them.

              2. By like argument, Harris should seek no protection from the Sixth Amendment.

                1. Michael P, sparkstable, et al: If you absolutely, positively have to engage in what aboutism, at least find some what aboutism that is actually on point. I made the mistake of taking your word for what the facts were. I’ve now checked it out. Kamala Harris DID NOT raise bail for rioters. She raised funds for an organization that helps low income people make bail, which is something else entirely:

                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/03/kamala-harris-tweeted-support-bail-fund-money-didnt-just-assist-protestors/

                  Your continued what aboutism is tiresome, but in this case, she didn’t even do what you’re claiming she did.

                  1. That fact check literally says MFF bailed out someone charged with attempted murder for shooting at uniformed police during a protest. The next person mentioned in the fact check was charged with third-degree assault after the fund bailed him out. A more honest reporter asked MFF how many protesters they bailed out — at least a dozen, as of no later than August 10 (https://www.fox9.com/news/minnesota-nonprofit-with-35m-bails-out-those-accused-of-violent-crimes). Somehow, the WaPoo didn’t include that, even though they mentioned the August 14th third-degree assault arrest.

                    I am not sure why you think that redeems what Harris did.

                    1. Because I’ve done enough poverty law over the years to know that if you help people, a certain percentage of the people you help will turn out to be bums. And if someone doesn’t like you they naturally will focus on the bums you helped rather than all the good people you helped. It’s a cost of helping people.

                      The organization she fundraised for is overall a good organization. So again, if what abouting is what you do, at least try to find something actually on point.

                    2. I’m not sure why you think that what Harris did needs to be redeemed. Is there something wrong with providing bail money for someone accused of a crime?

                      The right has some very strange ideas about the concept of bail.

                  2. Here’s the exact statement Harris made on Twitter.

                    “If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota”

                    IE…supporting the “protesters” who were ARRESTED in Minnesota…
                    Why would “protesters” be arrested? Probably for illegal actions, no?

                    1. not necessarily. I was arrested for helping register black voters in Arkansas in 1972. And again for marching for gay rights in Texas in 1975. I wasn’t doing anything illegal either time. I’m not going to assume that everyone who was arrested over the summer was actually breaking the law.

                    2. Yeah, Minnesota in 2020 wasn’t exactly Arkansas in 1972.

                      There was a whole lot of “burning down police stations” in Minnesota….

                    3. But when you have widespread protests with lots of arrests a certain number of innocent people are going to get caught up in the dragnet. If that’s all you’ve got against Kamala Harris give it up already.

                    4. Krychek,

                      If Trump had said the almost exact same thing DURING and immediately after the DC Protest, you would’ve crucified him for supporting the rioters.

                      If he had tweeted the following

                      “If you’re able to, chip in now to the Trump Freedom Fund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in DC!” what would you have thought?

                    5. If that had been all he had said, I’d have been fine with it. But that’s not all he said.

                      I’m fine with helping people, even bad people, navigate the legal system, including helping them with bail. If the pro-Trump side wants to donate to a bail fund for those arrested, that’s fine. If Trump wants to pay their bail out of his own pocket, that’s fine.
                      But what Trump did was to incite people to action. You’d have a far closer case if Kamala Harris had said, “You need to march to the police stations and take back our streets from the cops, because you are never going to take back power from the cops by being weak.” That would be a far closer analogy.

                      So I’ll say what I said earlier: If you absolutely, positively must engage in what-aboutism, try to at least find something that’s on point.

                    6. Krychek: If you were arrested in 1972, you’ll remember People’s Park in Berkeley. And maybe you’ll remember Dan Siegel, the SDS guy who made a speech in Sproul Plaza urging the crowd to march down peacefully and take the park. It was remarkably similar to Trump’s speech urging the crowd to march down peacefully and take the Capitol. The march to take the park ended badly, like the march to take the Capitol, and Siegel was charged with inciting a riot. But the jury acquitted him, and when he applied for admission to the California Bar, the California Supreme Court held that his conduct was not morally turpitudinous, and admitted him.
                      I think Trump would also be acquitted on charges of inciting a riot, if he had a decent defense attorney. If you read the speech carefully, he stays just short of inciting anything. And I’m not wild about the idea of impeaching him. While he may well have wanted a coup, it’s hard to know for sure, although he clearly demonstrated extremely poor judgment. And a Senate trial after he has left office, the constitutionality of which is uncertain and which is unlikely to be supported by 2/3 of the Senate, will continue the divisiveness and polarization that he has created. I would have preferred a motion to censure him, which might well have garnered widespread support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

                    7. “If he had tweeted the following”

                      What if he had tweeted “we love you?”

                      The bad faith here reeks.

                    8. California Dreamer, I do remember People’s Park, and I agree that if Trump were to be criminally indicted for sedition he might well be acquitted. But that’s not the standard for impeachment. If 2/3 of the Senate (which remains to be seen) believes that he violated his oath of office, that’s grounds for removal.

                      Also, there’s a fairly critical difference between People’s Park, in that then it was the police who were being violent.

                    9. What would the Left say, if on 1/7/2021, Trump tweeted:

                      “If you’re able to, chip in now to the @DCFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Washington DC”

            2. There is a decent argument that Trump´s speech is not First Amendment protected. He is a government employee charged with the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The speech was in the discharge of his official duties (even if the content was a perversion of the take care clause). Under Garcetti v. Ceballos a government employee´s speech in the exercise of official responsibilities is unprotected by the First Amendment.

              1. So is Harris a government employee. So much for that argument.

                1. Except she didn’t incite people; he did.

                  1. She aided and abetted.

                  2. Kamala Harris said, of BLM protests, many of which had including rioting, looting, arson and other violence:

                    “This is a movement, I’m telling you,” “They’re not going to stop. And everyone beware, because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And that should be — everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they’re not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not.”

            3. They don’t care about free speech. Only about exacting vengeance on Americans.

          2. Then “why were they arrested”? eh?

            1. Then “why were they arrested”? eh?

              So your opinion is that anyone who gets arrested is guilty of whatever they are arrested for?

              Is that right?

          3. You’re an idiot.

          4. And a lot of those arrested weren’t rioting.

            Sorry — not buying it. With those providing money for bail, was there any attempt to make a distinction between those accused of felony violence and looting vs others?

            When she said “This won’t stop and it shouldn’t stop”, was she careful to add that of course she meant only peaceful protests, not those attacking government buildings, bashing in store windows, looting, setting fires, attacking shop owners, etc?

        2. More seditious?? I don´t think that word means what you think it means.

      2. Don’t know about Harris, but Pelosi said that she was surprised there weren’t uprisings all over the country. Back during the family separation thing.

        What she said is arguably every bit as bad as what Trump said. You know, explicitly using the word “uprising”.

        No consequences of course.

        1. I’m not familiar with the quotation, but assuming you’re quoting her accurately, not being surprised about something is not quite the same thing as actively encouraging it.

          1. Krychek, I’m a non-partisan who dislikes both Trump and Pelosi so no reason to misquote. Saw it on a video today.

            It’s really damn close to the same. Uprising is pretty explicit.

            But whatever. Trying to persuade on this stuff is not possible.

            1. Yeah, Bevis. You’re totally non-partisan. If we ignore 98.3% of everything you’ve posted here, over a long period of time.
              What kind of gaslighting bullshit is this? I get that Trump thinks his own supporters are morons…it’s not like they’ve ever shown that they are not. But why on Earth would you assume that no one he would point out that you’re a million miles from ‘non-partisan?’

        2. Not saying that was a great move by her, but that causal line is vastly more attenuated than Trump’s is here.

          Plus the Floyd stuff wasn’t the direct assault on our democracy that Trump pulled.

          1. I don’t want to get into the which is worse argument. One or the other is worse depending on which parameter matters most to the decider.

          2. The destruction of federal courthouses and police stations isn’t an “assault on our democracy”?

            Please go on.

            1. It’s qualitatively different because the Capitol riot was an attempt to overturn a democratic election. And everyone who isn’t a Trump partisan gets that.

              1. Please. How on earth was it going to “overturn a democratic election”?

                You’re going to honestly tell me that all you need in order to “overturn a democratic election” in the United States is to take physical control of the Capital for a day? And then “Whoops, I guess they have the capital. Election overturned!” Really? Honestly?

                The idea is absurd.

                1. Of course the idea is absurd. That doesn’t mean at least some of the rioters didn’t believe it. The issue is what they intended, not what they accomplished.

                  1. Now you’ve gone beyond absurd into thoughtcrime.

                    Do you really believe that just “intending” to “overturn a democratic election” is criminal sedition?

                    1. No, but attempting it is.

                    2. You are saying that intention or motive don’t play a role in the classification of a crime? Say manslaughter versus murder, as an example? Do you consider the intention to murder someone a “thoughtcrime?” Attempted murder is also a crime, so intention and lack of success are not defenses there either.

                2. The idea is absurd.

                  Yet that’s what they thought.

                  You have no idea how stupid Trumpists are.

                  1. Leftist slurs Americans and calls them “stupid”.

                    Leftists don’t like Americans.

                    1. Ben equates Trumpists with Americans.

                      Cultists gonna cult.

                  2. You’ve said before you are on the board of directors of a software company.

                    You think you should be slurring Americans like that? I wonder if any American ever applied for a job at that company and didn’t get hired? Their attorneys might be interested to hear more about your views on Americans.

                    1. Ben, are you familiar with the logical fallacy of undistributed middle? It works like this:

                      Hitler was German
                      Hitler did bad things
                      Therefore, Germans are bad people.

                      And you just did the same thing:

                      Ben says Trumpists are stupid
                      Trumpists are Americans
                      Therefore Ben says Americans are stupid

                      Like I said, it’s a logical fallacy. You might want to look into it.

        3. Pelosi thinks every semi-retarded Guatemalan has a right to U.S. citizenship.

          1. You of all people should be grateful the constitutional protections you hold in such contempt aren’t doled out on a merit system. You’d be so out of here.

          2. Ben is surely concerned deeply about this divisive comment.

        4. Do you think there might be a difference between a comment and a months long consistent campaign?

      3. Pelosi apparently knew that there was a plot (known by both the FBI and NYPD) to violently attack the building and refused to permit the Capitol Police to get Guard assistance. See: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/three-critical-questions-about-capitol-siege-remain-unanswered

        Hence she (1) failed to permit the Capitol to be secure, (2) lied to the American people, and (3) impeached an innocent man.

        1. Could you point to the part of that article that says that Pelosi apparently knew there was a plot and refused anything at all?

          1. Are you saying that Dr. Ed would misrepresent the truth? Is water also wet?

            Of course, even if it said that, it’s from the vanity site of the guy who got fired from The Hill for printing Russian propaganda, after they realized his posts were so bad that even calling them opinion wasn’t enough to salvage them.

            And it relies on complete disingenuousness about the concept of incitement. (“If some people came there intending to do violence, how could Trump have incited the crowd?”)

    2. Amazing. The really don’t see what was wrong with anything he did…Cultists gonna cult.

    3. If you think you can impeach a member of Congress you should probably go back to remedial con law.

  2. As long as you can get one member of the opposition, it’s bipartisan.

  3. Yes by all means let’s make this farce as inclusive as possible to cover up the fact that it is a baseless witch hunt designed to get Trump because he hurt some feelings.

    1. Hamberder is a forbidden word, and you really should stop apologizing for it’s use.

    2. Witch hunt…Gotta love the script!

  4. Breaking news: law professor doesn’t have anything productive to do.

    And this just in: Partisans in Washington care about exacting vengeance against Americans, don’t much care about accomplishing anything else at all.

    More news to come as the exact details of the vengeance and lust for totalitarian power are revealed. One thing is for sure: nothing will be done in Washington to help anyone in America for the foreseeable future.

    1. Yes. A more apt title might have been: “Make Somin’s blog posts as tedious and single-track as possible”.

      1. It is truly awful that people keep making you read a blog that you hate. Someone deserves to be punished for that.

    2. “Partisans in Washington care about exacting vengeance against Americans, don’t much care about accomplishing anything else at all.”

      Remember Ben complaining about Trump’s four year push to prosecute Biden, his son, Hillary, etc? They weren’t doing the people’s business, just going about vengance?

      Yeah, I don’t either. This guy is as false positive pregnancy test for a male manatee.

      1. No one remembers it. None of that happened. No one cared about Biden in 2017 or 2018.

        Everyone knows you just blatantly make up lies now.

        1. ” None of that happened. No one cared about Biden in 2017 or 2018.”

          Lol, Trump certainly cared about Biden once he was shown beating him in the polls. Then he, as President, started calling foreign leaders and asking for investigations.

          Ben of course as a non-partisan shill and hack was so upset over that.

          Oh, of course he wasn’t, because he’s a total partisan shill and hack. What he says today is just partisan script. He not only doesn’t back it, he doesn’t understand it.

  5. Bipartisan, eh? <a href="https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-declare-unity-mandatory"<Babylon Bee's got you covered.

    1. Fuck.

  6. I think you’re fantasizing that this can be (Meaningfully) bipartisan. According to the latest polling, 84% of Democrats and 15% of Republicans think Trump should be impeached. (Note, well over 50% of Democrats have thought he should be impeached since literally before he took office.)

    With those sorts of numbers the only Republican members who can afford to support impeachment are those who plan on retiring.

    It would be different if there were some objective facts here to change people’s minds, like intercepted communications between Trump and the rioters. But so far as I know there’s nothing like that, there’s just people who don’t like Trump interpreting stuff he did negatively, and people who do like Trump rolling their eyes at them.

    Trump’s defense is likely to be bipartisan, too; I understand that Dershowitz has offered his help.

    1. Wanna bet Liz Cheney wants a Biden post?

      1. Oh, of course. Because she opposed Trump’s attempts to overturn the election results and supports impeachment. Which means she must be a partisan Democrat, even though she’s a lifelong Republican and part of the Republican leadership in the House. See, it’s still all Democrats!

        1. For these people a RINO is any Republican who doesn’t support Trump in things like ‘finding’ the requisite number of votes, throwing out democratically chosen electors, etc., Cultists gonna cult, and Trump knows it:

          “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay?”

          How embarrassing it must be intellectually to have to defend this creature.

      2. Liz Cheney wants to bomb brown people and Biden will grant her wish.

    2. Populism works both ways, Brett.

      Leaders can calm down their dumbass constituents as well as incite them.

      1. But failure to calm is not the same as incite. The defense of Trump in this particular is not that he did calm people in accordance to a purely imaginary principle that demands it. The argument is that he did not, actually or factually, incite in accordance to the established precepts of justice as adopted by the justice system. To say that doesn’t matter is to argue that justice be damned… you just want to condemn for the hell of it.

        1. Not an argument that I’m making.

          Brett is saying that looking at the polls, impeachment will not be bipartisan. I’m pointing out that voters and representatives are different things.

          1. Yes, voters and representatives are different things. But the “representatives” are supposed to “represent” the voters, and while that is often observed in the breach, the more conspicuous the vote, and the more politically polarized the issue, the higher the political consequences of failure to represent.

            I’m not saying the Republican Representatives and Senators wouldn’t, in their hearts, want to impeach Trump. Actually, I’m pretty sure they would, he is NOT a popular guy with the GOP establishment.

            I’m saying actually doing so is unlikely to be politically survivable, so only the members who were intending to retire from elective office would be likely to do so.

            The reasoning is perfectly symmetric, of course: Even Democratic members who think this whole thing is bullshit don’t dare vote against it.

            1. We don’t have a direct democracy for a reason.

              Part of the Founders’ plan was the idea of elites elevated by the people and leading by example.

              1. I’m not making a moral argument here, Sarcastro. I’m just saying that the impeachment won’t be meaningfully bipartisan because voting for it is political suicide for almost any Republican member of Congress, so only members expecting to retire would do it.

                1. It’s slight of hand to talk about the voters when they are not the actors here.

                  1. No, they’re the threat hanging over the heads of the actors here. If they didn’t exist, Trump would have already been convicted.

                    But they do exist, as much as the effects of that irk you.

                    1. And I think we’re really talking about the primary voters here and not the general election voters, which tend to be more moderate than those motivated to vote in primary elections.

      2. Hence why the lefties should be held accountable for stoking race riots this summer. Lets start out with conspiracy to violate civil rights for all the dem mayors who failed to quell actual riots and condoned all types of crimes and violence.

        1. Race riots now.

          1. Well, we riots all last year, and it’s not like they actually stopped. But I’m not sure it’s fair to characterize them as “race” riots, the rioters mostly seem to be white Antifa.

            1. As they rioted ONLY for black victims and discounted the more numerous white victims? Race riots.

            2. When rioters assault people for saying “all lives matter”, they are race riots.

              1. It’s almost like dog whistles aren’t silent…

      3. Sarcastr0 calls Americans “dumbass constituents”.

        Leftists don’t like Americans much.

        1. Remember all the times Ben lamented Trump’s broad attacks on ‘Democrats?’

          Yeah, you don’t, because he’s always trucking in bad faith.

          1. Post the quote where Trump said Democrats were dumbasses. I don’t think it exists.

            Sarcastr0’s is right here.

            1. ” I don’t think it exists.”

              Gotta love how he hedges. He’s dimly aware that Trump regularly castigated ‘Democrats’ (I’m sure he’s lamenting the division there!) in a wide variety of ways, so he has to hedge and say ‘I don’t *think* it exists.’ The bad faith from Ben is palpable.

              1. No Trump quote. You don’t think he said it either. You’re just a liar

              2. Democrats openly identify themselves as Democrats. How is it disrespectful to call them that?

                On the other hand, calling your opponents “dumbasses” can only be intended as a disrespectful personal attack, and it is usually (as here) detached from and actual argument that would support the epithet. This isn’t rocket science.

        2. Hot take: some Americans are dumbasses.

          Very Ben’s fainting couch,

    3. Brett Bellmore : It would be different if there were some objective facts here to change people’s minds

      I was reading an account yesterday of Trump’s actions during his riot. Members of Congress (such as the House Minority Leader) were trying to reach him by phone, calling Jared, Ivanka, and other aides. Trump ignored all these attempt as he watched his riot play out on television. Aides begged him to do something and – after pleading & cajoling – finally convinced DJT to issue an appeal to his rioters to withdraw. Even then, they had to double-down with even more pleading to get DJT to include a milquetoast call for the protester to act “peaceful”. Trump didn’t want to. Those were his guys rampaging on TV.

      I’m reading this and thinking won’t it be fascinating when people in that room testify at the trial. Their description of Trump cheerfully watching the mayhem he incited, shunning calls from victims trapped in the Capitol, and stubbornly refusing to address his rioters will really tell a tale. Hell, I bet that description alone will change a lot of people’s mind. Remember, Brett’s shtick depends of it being (at least) theoretically plausible violence wasn’t Trump’s intention. His reaction to that violence speaks to that.

      And there’ll be a lot of other witnesses too. I hope the trial includes those Michigan state legislators summoned to the White House. It will be interesting to hear them testify under oaths about Trump’s dealing & demands. I expect by trial-time we’ll know of many more illegal / improper approaches to state officials to alter vote results. Hell, maybe we’ll even see Mike Pence testify. Perhaps he’ll decided that’s the proper choice to make him a patriot vs pussy.

      1. “I was reading an account yesterday of Trump’s actions during his riot.”

        An anonymous account, of course. Haven’t you had your fill of anonymous accounts yet?

        1. Uh huh. Feel very safe those people won’t testify Brett?

          1. Pretty confident, yeah. Seriously, how many times have we seen these anonymous sources? And how often do they actually prove out?

            Remember him supposedly dissing the troops in Germany, according to an anonymous source? And everybody who was actually present went on the record saying it didn’t happen?

            And the media stuck with their anonymous source.

            These days, when a news report says “anonymous source”, I read “we pulled it out of our asses”.

            Remember a couple years ago, when Trump said he knew who that whistleblower was, everybody did, and the media said he was lying? Turned out everybody DID know who he was, the media were just censoring any public mention of his name.

            They lie to you, haven’t you noticed that yet?

            1. Remember him supposedly dissing the troops in Germany, according to an anonymous source? And everybody who was actually present went on the record saying it didn’t happen?

              That’s not an accurate description, but assuming it was, why would you assume that people would be more likely to tell the truth when speaking on the record rather than anonymously?

      2. Brett always ignores the many attempts by Trump to lean on election officials, he wants to come back to the incitement every time because legally incitement is, as a criminal matter (which is not the issue here of course) very difficult to prove. He’s a good cult member.

        1. No, what I do is refuse to mischaracterize his leaning on election officials. He did lean on them, he leaned on them a lot.

          He leaned on them to permit actual investigations, which he thought would prove enough fraud and irregularities to change the election outcome.

          1. He leaned on them to produce the results he wanted.

            A President leaning on state governments to overturn a result unseating him, culminating in an actual assault on Congress as it validates the result that unseats him is about as pointed an assault on our republic as you can get.

  7. “Rep. Liz Cheney, the third-ranking member of the House GOP leadership”

    FORMER third-ranking and now lame-duck member…

    Cheney or not, she WILL be primaried, and there was a conservative running against her the first time.

    1. That’s not what the term “lame duck” means.

      Or “former,” for that matter.

  8. Meanwhile as the circus continues, serious news is afoot:
    “Iran Is Assembling Gear Able to Produce Key Nuclear-Weapons Material ” WSJ today

    1. Well, you can thank Tom Cotton for that. Obama had worked out a deal with Iran that provided for inspections to ensure that they weren’t building nuclear weapons. Cotton (and Trump) decided they’d rather throw their weight around, so there now is no deal and no inspectors.

      1. That’s cute thinking they ever stopped working on it.

        The “deal” was just appeasement oiled by pallets of cash.

        1. By the way, Sec. Moniz worked out the deal, but he was not acceptable to Biden who preferred politician granholme to the best person ever to hold the post.

        2. The UN inspectors who were there before the deal was scrapped all seemed to think they had. Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary?

          1. Well, there was that little matter of providing the advance notice the deal said they didn’t have to give, and refraining from inspecting any place the Iranians said not to ask about.

            You can hide an awful lot from the ‘cops’ if they agree in advance not to look anywhere or anywhen you object to.

            1. Totally agree. You *can* hide a lot of evidence if you’re able to use your authority to prevent the cops from gaining access to information and personnel. Odd to be complaining about executive privilege now, though.

        3. Bob from Ohio : That’s cute thinking they ever stopped working on it.

          “Cute thinking” shared by the Trump White House. They were required by law to certify bi-yearly whether Iran was following its obligations under the deal. Multiple time before Trump sabotaged the pact his own people declared Iran’s nuclear program was completely shut-down. The mullah’s were obeying the deal.

          Of course Bob has no evidence otherwise. If you’re a Bob or Brett you only have two choices : First, admit Trump bungling opened the path to a nuclear Iran – without the slightest idea of strategy or tactic to avoid the obvious consequence of his decisions. Or (second) pretend Trump’s actions made no difference whatsoever.

          As usual with Trump supporters, pretense wins out over facts….

      2. Why look backwards? Who cares?
        The only thing that matters is what is to be done going forward.

        1. Sorry ma’am. We caught the guy but since he killed your daughter yesterday it doesn’t matter. We let him go. After all… “at this point, what difference does it make?” your daughter is still dead.

      3. A “deal” that would have “delayed” Iran’s by 10 years, while allowing them replace all their 1970s centrifuges with state-of-the-art 21st century German ones – which would give them a much larger boost to production of uranium than a mere 10 years with old fashioned junk (that the US had already sabotaged) would have.
        And then there was the missile program, I mean, “space program” that the deal allowed Iran to use to develop ballistic missiles. During the open period, Iran imported a lot of space tech that actually let them launch a satellite into orbit – an achievement harder than building a nuke. But nope, these rockets were totally developed peacefully, just for Iranians to launch a payload vaguely towards the Moon and return it safely to Earth in Tel Aviv.

        Not to mention the massive boost to the Iranian economy that would have allowed Iran to spend far more money on its military, terrorism, and proxy fighters, all without drawing away from the increased spending on “peaceful” nuclear technologies.

        All in all, JCPOA was a terrible piece of shit ‘deal’ that only looked good to Iranian supporters that wanted peace in their time. The reimposed sanctions have done more to cripple Iran and limit their activities than everything in the JCPOA combined.

        1. Pay attention to Toranth’s weaseling here. Unlike Bob, he’s determined to stay within shouting distance of factual reality, so he carefully avoids any hint that (a) The pact wasn’t working, (b) The Iranians weren’t obeying the deal, or (c) Their nuclear program wasn’t shut down.

          Instead it’s the Iranian missile program (not covered by the nuclear deal), or Iranian conventional forces, or Iran’s mischief in the region, or Iran’s economy. Anything & everything except Iran’s threat as a developing nuclear power. Iran’s A-bomb program used to be considered an existential threat back in Obama’s presidency. Now it’s barely worth a mention by the likes of Toranth.

          All because that’s the only way to excuse Trump’s bungling.

    2. Good for them. Seriously. Iran not only has the right, it arguably has the duty to develop a nuke. It’s the only proven way to keep from being “liberated” by the American empire.

      1. I wouldn’t go that far. I would be curious as to how Second Amendment absolutists explain that Iran lacks the right to keep and bear arms.

        1. Iranian 2nd Amendment rights? When did Iran become part of the US?

          1. So nations don’t have the right to self defense?

            1. Nations that signed the NNPT don’t have the right to develop nuclear weapons.

        2. I thought most of us were agreed that the Second Amendment doesn’t extend to a putative right to nuclear weapons. Do you believe it does?

            1. Right next to the place that limits speech for things like incitement to violence, I’d imagine.

              Although I always thought it odd that originalists didn’t argue that because the authors of the Second Amendment didn’t understand or imagine things like nuclear weapons, that the Amendment couldn’t cover such things.

              [IANAL]

      2. “it arguably has the duty to develop a nuke. It’s the only proven way to keep from being “liberated” by the American empire.”

        The patriotic left!

        1. It’s an observation not a value judgement.

          1. Come on, you’re better than that.

            1. It’s realpolitik but not unamerican.

              1. The unamarican-ness is a free bonus

                1. Explain what is unamerican.

        2. I mean, I’ve never claimed the mantle of patriotism, but there’s nothing unpatriotic about Iran having a nuke. It’s not like it could or would use it on US soil. The most it would do is deter US aggression and meddling, which some (and certainly anyone who claims to care about the original understanding of the constitution) would argue is patriotic in and of itself.

          1. ‘It’s not like it could or would use it on US soil” – and that is because…what? You think a country capable of developing a missile with a range of 1600 Km couldn’t develop one with intercontinental range?

          2. Warheads aren’t magically tethered to their home countries. They can be placed on boats and planes and even beasts of burden. While it may not be easy to move highly radioactive material through some of our ports and transportation hubs, the material can be shielded and there are umpteen thousands of miles of shoreline available with major population centers located nearby.

  9. Everything I’ve seen outside the Beltway/Twitter Bluecheckmarksphere indicates impeachment is seen as silly/waste of time even by those who dislike Drumpf.

    The media/Dems are trying to diffuse the unpopularity of a 11:59 ‘removal’ on both parties and at the same time cause infighting among the GOP. Any Republican who supports this is absolutely dumb as rocks even if they care only about themselves.

    1. Personally I think that censure would make more sense, given the short time before the end of his term. But you have to realize that Trump has turned into the GOP’s Hillary Clinton (with no disrespect to Clinton or Trump supporters). The simple truth is that it has become politically obvious that Trump has become toxic to the Republican brand. Sure, he has enthusiastic supporters (remember the “PUMA’s” –“Party Unity My Ass”–the anti-Obama Clintonites who vowed not to vote for Obama), but as Georgia and the general election showed, he is a turnout generator for Dems in a way their own candidates are not. Moreover, he has a proven ability to flip GOP voters to the Dem column. Just as Hillary lost the “blue wall” (while flipping Obama voters to Trump) and was therefore sent to political Coventry, Trump blew Georgia and Arizona and now needs to go away. If he won’t do so voluntarily (as Hillary did), the GOP needs to help him along and distance themselves from the stink, just as McCarthy (let’s censure, not impeach), McConnell, and Murdoch’s WSJ are doing. In other words, it seems to me that those expressing unalloyed support for Trump are the ones who might be “dumb as rocks” in the long haul. A party where the likes of Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Brian Kemp, Bill Barr, the Supreme Court, GOP state legislators and officials are painted as traitors or cowards is not a party that will become tired of winning any time soon.

      To me, impeachment at this point is just the equivalent of a strong censure, which is certainly warranted. From a purely cynical political point of view, it is no more a “waste of time” than the Benghazi hearings which, notwithstanding their shaky premise and inconclusive results, set the table for Clinton’s loss in 2016.

      1. Censure of a member of Congress has at least some teeth to it; they lose committee appointments. But censure of the president, especially this one, is pretty much an empty gesture. It’s meaningless. Whereas, impeachment has at least two benefits that I can think of:
        1) The Senate can vote to prevent Trump from running for election again. (which is the biggest benefit, IMHO, for both parties)
        2) Pelosi can force GOP Senators to take a side and either declare themselves as supporters of Trump or not. And as long as there are mounting consequences for supporting the President who incited insurrection in order to overthrow a fair election that he lost, that places GOP senators between a rock and a hard place. You can already see this with people like Graham wriggling back and forth in an attempt to appease both sides at the same time to save his own neck.

  10. It isn’t force, violence, or socialism when everyone freely accepts bondage. See how easy it is to avoid conflict!?

  11. Liz Cheney as manager?

    She stuck her neck out supporting it, do you want to chop it off?

    For now, she is in leadership, she might get away with supporting it, but being a prosecutor, never.

    1. Pelosi should certainly make the offer. I think we all agree that having all Dems as the face of the Senate trial would be monumentally stupid, given the 10 chances to add at least one R. And if Cheney (et al) refused, at least Dems would be able to persuasively argue that they tried to make it a bipartisan prosecution.

      1. “They tried”. What a dumb excuse. You are proposing that the Democrats put together a prosecution that cannot earn the participation of a single Republican, but they should get “persuasive” credit for making a pro forma request. Has Ilya Somin actually tried to unify anyone, or has he only put a facially more polite on Rev. ALK’s insistence that people will be forced to comply by their betters? “They tried”!

  12. I’ll lay aside the snark and suggest building unity as follows: applying the same standards to politicians of any faction who encourage rioting, and holding them all accountable, whoever the rioters may be, and whatever their political affiliation.

    1. You’d have to arrest the entire Democrat Party, 90% of the media, and a good chunk of Corporate America in that case.

    2. False equivalence.
      How about “any faction who encourage insurrection/sedition?”
      Also, FOX News defines “riot” as “protesting while black” and “patriots” as “erecting a noose and chanting ‘hang Mike Pence’ while invading Congress and stopping election proceedings.”

      1. I don’t think the sides are *equivalent.*

  13. The last Trump impeachment trial had no witnesses. That’s what Mitch and the GOP wanted. They said it was a waste of time because they weren’t going to vote to remove no matter what evidence was turned up.

    Everyone knew what Trump did then, just as they know what he did this time. It was explicitly stated last year that the decision to convict/acquit was solely based on the political will of the senators who voted. Not facts or evidence.

    And it isn’t as if the Trump mobs care either.

    So I fail to see why this time we should maneuver to have witnesses and debate which ones would be the “best” to have. The word of The Republicans that have already said they will vote to convict is good or it is not. So convene the trial, hold the vote, and then break for lunch.

    1. The House is voting to convict entirely on the political will of the Representatives who voted, not based on evidence or law, so why should the Senate waste their time with a higher standard? Just in hopes that some Democrats will accept facts rather than be primaried from the left or have their campaign offices burned out by Black Bloc?

    2. The record actually shows that Trump wanted a full blown trial with witnesses, as he figured the case against him was such a joke it would clear his name.

      It was McConnell who objected to holding a real trial.

      1. Brett Bellmore : The record actually shows that Trump wanted a full blown trial with witnesses

        For every dupe there is a “record”.

        1. What is it with you guys denying recorded events?

          Trump on impeachment: ‘I want a trial’

          “President Trump said Friday that he wants an impeachment trial in the Senate if the House votes to impeach him.

          “I want a trial,” Trump said during an interview on “Fox & Friends” Friday morning. “There’s nothing there.”

          Trump said Friday that he wanted Schiff, a California Democrat and one of the president’s fiercest critics in Congress, to testify at an impeachment trial as well as the anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint raising concerns about his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

          Trump also said he wanted Hunter Biden, whom he asked Ukraine to investigate on the July 25 call with Zelensky, to testify.

          “Well, there’s only one person I want more than Where’s Hunter,” Trump said, mocking Vice President Joe Biden’s son. “And that person is Adam Schiff.”

          “I want to see Adam Schiff testify about the whistleblower who was a fake whistleblower,” Trump said, adding that the whistleblower complaint “bore no relationship to his call.”

          “The whistleblower in my opinion is a political operative,” Trump continued, without providing specific evidence to back up his claims. Trump said he knew the identity of the whistleblower, who remains anonymous, and asserted “everybody knows it.””

          In fact, he was right about that. It’s just that, the media refused to admit it, and if you mentioned his name on social media your post would be taken down.

          It was McConnell who wanted no trial, not Trump. Trump wanted a long, televised trial, in which he could call and cross examine witnesses.

          1. Oh, and in confirmation of everybody knowing the whistleblower’s name:

            <a href="https://issuesinsights.com/2019/11/01/now-we-know-why-the-media-wont-expose-trumps-whistleblower/&quot;Now We Know Why The Media Won’t Expose Trump’s ‘Whistleblower’

            His name was, in fact, widely known at the time, but most media out lets and social media platforms were censoring any attempt to mention it, and publicly claiming it wasn’t known.

            I remember testing it myself at the time: Posted “The whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella” on Facebook, and down it came.

            In retrospect, this really creepy media conspiracy was just the first taste of what was coming.

          2. It was McConnell who wanted no trial, not Trump. Trump wanted a long, televised trial, in which he could call and cross examine witnesses.

            You didn’t read what you quoted. He wanted a TV show in which he could attack his enemies. Not a trial where he could examine witnesses. We know that, because neither Adam Schiff nor Hunter Biden were witnesses to what Trump had done.

  14. Ilya is going to go blind if he keeps flogging his post like this.

    Prof. Volokh: Is it possible to get a URL that can be used to exclude certain bloggers, by name?

    1. We gotta put up with Blackman, you get the vastly less spamy Somin. And still you complain.

      No safe spaces.

      1. Wait S0,
        Blackman is merely a bore.
        Somin is self-righteous and overbearing.

        1. Is this a joke?

      2. You don’t want to be able to exclude Blackman?
        Really, this sounds like a win-win deal for all parties.

  15. OK, so what do you call it when the Speaker of the House telling the military (over which she has ZERO authority) to secure nuclear codes from the President?

    Sounds like treason to me.

    1. Get a hearing aid.

      She didn’t order anybody to do anything. She asked Milley some questions about procedures.

      1. Leftist double-standards to the rescue!

    2. Darth Chocolate : “….. Speaker of the House telling the military … (etc)

      Nope. Just a sign of the times. Before Trump’s seditious attempt to overturn an election by every means including violence directed against Congress, would the below be necessary? From yesterday’s news :

      “In an extraordinary letter Tuesday to the U.S. military, the nation’s top commanders condemned last week’s acts of “sedition and insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol, while acknowledging Joe Biden’s election victory. The message did not mention President Donald Trump by name, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff, led by U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley, made it clear that the military intends to stand by the constitutional transfer of power to the next administration”

      Whatya wanna guess that Trump tried his bungling mafioso bullshit on some of the military top brass as well? Well, it will probably come out in the trial, so we’ll see.

      1. Whatya wanna guess that Trump tried his bungling mafioso bullshit on some of the military top brass as well? Well, it will probably come out in the trial, so we’ll see.

        He almost certainly did, which is why every living former SecDef, Republican and Democrat (Ashton Carter, Dick Cheney, William Cohen, Mark Esper, Robert Gates, Chuck Hagel, James Mattis, Leon Panetta, William Perry and Donald Rumsfeld) put out a joint statement last week saying that the military had no role in the election.

  16. Ilya strikes me as the type of “decent man” of the 19th Century who would lynch a Black man whom they didn’t like and then joined their family for a picnic under the swinging corpse.

    Ilya doesn’t like Trump. Water is wet and it is dark after sunset.
    But enough is ENOUGH. This is a lynching, nothing less, and those advocating it need to be held morally culpable.

    “[S]ome of the almost 4,000 blacks who were lynched between 1882 and 1962 were lynched in settings that are appropriately described as picnic-like. Phillip Dray, a historian, stated: “Lynching was an undeniable part of daily life, as distinctly American as baseball games and church suppers. Men brought their wives and children to the events, posed for commemorative photographs, and purchased souvenirs of the occasion as if they had been at a company picnic.””

    http://www.afrikanheritage.com/blacks-picnics-and-lynchings/

    1. You continue to seek out new lows.

      This is a lynching, nothing less, and those advocating it need to be held morally culpable.

      Apparently, you have no idea what a lynching is. Not really surprising.

      1. A lynching was an attack on an individual to terrify and silence a group — to keep the group “in their place.”

        I think the analogy is quite appropriate.

        1. What group is being warned to stay in what place?

          I’m not keen on the impeachment because I think it’s a waste of time and resources, but whatever. It’s directed at one guy because people are pissed at what he did.

          Comparing this to a lynching is as stupid as comparing Trump to Hitler. Quit being dumb if you can.

          1. According to Marc Levin, the FBI warned everyone *except* Trump that they knew there would be trouble. Cops for some reason ignored this — and it’s the Cops fault, not Trump’s…

    2. Blacks have killed 100 times as many whites as whites lynched blacks.

  17. Sure, make it as bipartisan as possible so that the American people can see that there’s no possible way to challenge the establishment and promote the interests of the working class by working within the system. What could possibly go wrong?

    1. The way to challenge the establishment and promote the interests you want to promote by working within the system is to actually win elections. That’s the system.

      1. Your very very close to realizing why people are so up in arms about blatant violation of election laws and hosting an election in the most easily corruptible way possible short of letting one of the candidates count the votes in his office.

        1. Are you sure that wasn’t done?

        2. “People” aren’t up in arms about that. Very stupid and gullible people who believe what a sociopathic liar told them are. Intelligent people know there were no such violations.

      2. It might also help to vote for someone who isn’t a sociopathic multimillionaire who neither understands the interests of the working class nor could give a shit about the interests of the working class.

  18. Vote done in House. 10 GOP yes votes. Bipartisan!

    Over or under 4 in the Senate to convict?

    1. If McConnell was smart and the jury is still out about that he’d hold as speedy a trial as possible so the Dems will have to start a third impeachment after Trump leaves office.

      1. “If McConnell was smart ”
        Since that is a counterfactual, the proper grammar is
        “If McConnell were smart …”

    2. 10 RINOS get primaried in 15 months…

      1. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, John Katko of New York, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Fred Upton of Michigan, Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington, Dan Newhouse of Washington, Peter Meijer of Michigan and Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio.

      2. I expect Trump will see to it that they all have well funded primary opponents.

        1. It’s not even well funded, and the RINOs don’t understand this.
          Campaigns are about energy, and Team Trump can provide that.

        2. If he has any money left.

          1. Back to the Trump isn’t rich fantasies?

  19. I agree adding some Republicans to the manager team would be preferable, both in optics and in persuading GOP senators, but I’m not sure Pelosi had a choice.

    GOP politicians have already been getting death threats, I’m not sure any of the 10 GOP members who voted for impeachment would have been willing to take that high profile a stand.

    1. That we’re even here talking about optics proves this is not a popular move and any republican who goes along with the Dems is stupid.

      1. You could have saved a few words and just said:

        “That we’re even here talking about optics proves this is not a popular move and any republican […]is stupid.”

        They spent eight years defining themselves as against whatever Obama was for and then Obama went surfing in Hawaii or wherever the hell he’s been and they didn’t have a focus or a purpose or anything. They agreed that Obamacare was totally bad and spent years tearing it down, but when it was time to show up with their “something better” plan… they forgot to write it down? or something and never quite got around to offering a competing plan. Then, rather than do anything that might accidentally address the problem of the number of unlawful immigrants there are in the country, they came up with the brilliant idea of taking money appropriate to build schools for the children of American military members and using it to build an “unclimbable” wall on the border that turned out to be readily climbable by anyone motivated enough and also insufficiently resistant to ordinary power tools of the sort widely available, even in Mexico, and meanwhile, people kept flying into the US on valid visas, and then staying here after they expired. But at least they have their priorities straight, and got another Catholic onto the Supreme Court!

  20. You really want to make impeachment a bipartisan effort? Then impeach Obama for making illegal and unconstitutional wars. Then send both impeachments over to the Senate in a package.

  21. Second, if the Senate trial will include witnesses testifying about the legal issues involved, the impeachment managers should make sure to call one or two of the many conservative and libertarian legal scholars who have advocated impeachment

    No. Scholars have absolutely no say about impeachment. It was clearly placed in the hands of politicians because the decision would be ultimately political. Politicians are not expected to listen to scholars- they use scholars the way a drunk uses a lamppost, for support, not illumination.

    What Congress should do is tell scholars their services are not needed, and will never be needed in any impeachment. Legal scholars can’t stand the idea that there are political questions out there where their opinions are more useful as bathroom tissue than for any substantive purpose, but that’s because of their egos and the narcissistic injury they suffer from not being consulted, not because the Constitution gives them any role.

  22. Impeachment of Donald Trump (disambiguation)

    1. lol…after everything is this the thing that causes anybody’s opinion of Trump to shift all? All you guys accomplished was trivializing the system even more.

      1. We’ll see in time.

      2. The impeachment won’t. The events that gave rise to the impeachment already have. Just look at what’s happened to his businesses.

        1. His business was plunked the second he got elected.

          1. Shopify was still willing to sell his merchandise.
            Deutsche Bank was still willing to lend to him.
            Signature Bank was still willing to hold his accounts.
            New York City was still willing to have him run their golf course.
            The PGA and the British Open were still willing to hold events at his golf courses.

            All of that changed in the last few days.

            1. An alternative, rather more plausible, explanation is that those reactions are a preference cascade that reveals who is a totalitarian at heart.

            2. Lol, yeah…that is the straw that put him in the black. Lets accept your entire premise. This is the thing that totally wrecked Trump who is headed the door in a few days. What the number at the bottom of his balance sheet is in the future will have zero effect on the fortunes of any of the major political forces on either side.

              Congratulations, you and the Dems have achieved a measure of personal vengeance today instead of a few years ago against someone who is now pretty much just another random individual in exchange for making yourself look silly and weakening the system. *slow clap*

              1. “in exchange for making yourself look silly and weakening the system”

                No, that was the guy who spent the last six months claiming that election would be, and then was, rigged, and egging his followers into literally attacking Congress in an attempt to overturn his own electoral loss.

                1. Riiight…on Jan 1st if I were to tap you or any other typical Dem/MSM guy on the shoulder for a quiz on personal feelings in the midst of another spittle flinging paroxysm of AntiTrump rage about Russians/election/pee tapes whatever. You’d/they’d sit up straight and teary eyed saying ‘Why Yes! I do maintain a tiny bit of Respect for Our President as long as he doesn’t do one more thing’ lol.

                  1. I’m unclear what point you’re trying to make. I formed my opinion of Trump when he kicked off his political career by ranting about Obama’s birth certificate on twitter; so what?

                    1. I think you forgot what you were arguing about. I said this impeachment was pointless since it didn’t shift anyones opinions on a guy who is leaving anyway. You contradicted me specifically arguing that it did but now are agreeing with me. So great…

                    2. I’m not the one whose opinion has changed. Deutsche Bank, Signature, Shopify, the PGA, the Royal & Ancient, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube: _their_ opinions changed. Mine has nothing to do with it.

                    3. Nothing changed about their opinions, all that changed is that they had an excuse and a pile on to join.

                2. ” that was the guy who spent the last six months claiming that election would be, and then was, rigged”

                  It WAS rigged, and Chump would know, he was rigging it. But as with so many other things, actually accomplishing success turned out to be harder than he thought it would be.

              2. Nobody’s opinions changed by this. They’ve either hated trump from the beginning and always planned on kicking him at the first opportunity ie twitter. Or virtuesignaling based on what they perceive is popular rather than any other metric…ie most other companies that curiously didn’t get around to deplatforming anyone during the BLM riots.

                1. An intelligent person might conclude that this shows that the so-called “BLM riots” were very different than the 1/6 coup attempt. AmosArch did not conclude this.

                2. “planned on kicking him at the first opportunity ie twitter.”

                  Speaking of twits, Twitter could have terminated Mr. Chump’s access to their services at any point in the last four years.

          2. “His business was plunked the second he got elected.”

            they were doomed to failure as soon as he started them. He doesn’t have a strong record of success in business, he has a strong record of taking credit for things other people have actually done. Most of the things that have his name on them are owned and operated by other people. The notable success he had before turning to politics was being on TV, and that show was built by Mark Burnett, who has a track record of building successful “reality” programming.

            He thought running for office would give his businesses some free marketing. Then it turned out the Republicans actually WERE stupid enough to nominate him (uh-oh) and then it turned out there WERE enough of them to win in a low-turnout election…which we had in 2016 but not in 2020.

      3. Pretty much. Trump should declare war on the left. He should order the Air Force to bomb the DNC, to kidnap leftist judges, and whatever else is needed.

        1. This sounds like a right-winger’s comment. Not so much because it expresses support for Donald Chump, but because the commenter is so unfamiliar with the Constitution that he doesn’t know where the power to declare war lies. Hint: Not the President.

    2. Senate Acquittal of Donald Trump (disambiguation)

      1. Frankly, we won that vote by a landslide.

  23. I recommend that if republicans take the house they impeach Joe (or Kamala) three times just to ante up.

    1. I think they should also impeach FDR, I mean he interned the Japanese which is absolutely far more racist than anything Trump ever did.

      1. Y’all are welcome to go for it, if that’s what you really want to try.

      2. “I think they should also impeach FDR, I mean he interned the Japanese which is absolutely far more racist than anything Trump ever did.”

        Sure, FDR’s got a track record of winning elections and defeating fascists, so the Democrats would be fools not to nominate him again to keep that epic winning streak going. Just because he died during his fourth term is no reason not to worry about a resurgence.

    2. If they want to be so obviously petty, they’re welcome to go for it.

      1. Obvious pettiness is fashionable. About half the anti-Trump complaints fall into that category, including the extremely petty obstruction of congress nonsense from a year ago.

        1. “Obvious pettiness is fashionable.”

          Sure is, just four years ago Trump’s fans were advocating their contention that losing an election ought to be rewarded with prison time. They seem to be backing away from this position now, along with the theory that trade wars are easy to win.

    3. They should impeach Obama for violent words

      1. Doing something as dumb as you think the other side is being is sure to work out for you.

        1. Some people took Obama’s advice to bring a gun to a political showdown, and now people are dead; others are crippled for life. Incitement!

          1. Yeah, that’s truly what Obama literally meant.

            You’re unserious and in bad faith.

            1. Am I supposed to care what someone styled “Sarcastr0” thinks is unserious and bad faith?

              You, both your side generally and you personally to the extent that you are expressing any specific opinion on this, apply a blatant double standard. You insist on granting your allies the benefit of the doubt, and refuse to give it to your enemies. Then you accuse others of bad faith when they refuse to give your allies the benefit of the doubt.

              What did Trump literally mean? Maybe what he literally said: peacefully walk down, and be heard. What did Obama literally mean? Maybe what he literally said: bring a gun, punch back twice as hard. Violently escalate conflict. If we are impeaching presidents over inciting violence, let’s do it even-handedly.

              1. “Am I supposed to care what someone styled ‘Sarcastr0’ thinks is unserious and bad faith?”

                Whether it’s correct or not to think you’re unserious and in bad faith. But who cares about objective reality? Certainly not Republicans, they make their own reality, and get mad when other people won’t humor them.

  24. Somin is a hate filled lawyer who should be deported back to Russia.

    1. No antisemitism today? Luck us!

      1. Perhaps, you can clear up a mystery. Why do Jews keep voting for the Democrat Party, the mortal enemy of Israel?

        1. Because they’re not Jews. They’re liberals, mostly atheists, who think putting on a kippah and going to shul twice a year so they can virtue signal to their idiot friends makes them REALLY Jewish.

    2. Yes, he wants to recreate the communist shithole he left.

  25. I agree with Professor Somin on this one. Speaker Pelosi would be wise to include House Republicans supporting impeachment among the impeachment managers, if they would be willing to serve, and would also benefit from including conservative legal scholars among witnesses testifying about the law.

    I would also note that if the trial will not start until President-elect Biden’s insuguration, as Senate Majority McConnell has decided, then there is absolutely no reason to hold anybsort of summary proceding. The Senate should confuctba traditional impeachment trial, similar to past ones, with preparation and investigation, witnesses and argument, and with a meaningful opportunity for the defense to challenge the House Managers’ view of the facts and law.

    1. “Speaker Pelosi would be wise to include House Republicans supporting impeachment among the impeachment managers, if they would be willing to serve, and would also benefit from including conservative legal scholars among witnesses testifying about the law.”
      That one word, “if” has a lot of power. The impeachment managers should try to appeal to the Republican Senators’ sense of decency and loyalty to the American Constitution, If they have any to appeal to.

  26. You’re living in a fantasy world if you think there will be a 2/3 vote to convict.

    At 12:19 PM on January 20, 2017, the Washington Post posted an article entitled “The campaign to impeach Trump has already begun.” At that point Trump had been the President of the United States for nineteen minutes. EVERYBODY knew from Day 1 that the Democrats would impeach Trump if they took the House in the 2018 elections for any flimsy pretext they could find. After the Democrats won the House, Rep. Tlaib is on video giddily proclaiming, “We’re gonna impeach the motherf*****r.” Why? This was before the Ukraine phone call. Of course “why” was unimportant.

    The Democrats have reduced impeachment to a farce, to just some silly political stunt with the same severity as ripping his SOTU speech. “Forever impeached!” proclaimed Nancy Pelosi, as if someone charged with a crime and found “not guilty” was “forever indicted”. If Trump had won the election, they would have concocted some other reason to impeach him, and everyone knows it. It is the Democrats in a fit of petty hatred who have demeaned the constitutional process, not Trump.

    1. Ten Republicans voted to impeach Pres. Trump today.

      Other than that, though, great comment!

      1. Ten? Gee, is that a lot? Look, class, Arthur, did a math!

        Thank goodness it wasn’t more than ten, lest you would have had to take off your shoes to count them.

      2. To dumb it down a bit further for you, 10 Republicans represent less than 5% if the caucus. If the Senate Democrats repeat that success, they won’t get the 2/3 vote necessary to convict, particularly as one of their own, Joe Manchin, has signaled he may not vote to convict.

        Frankly, I don’t care how they vote. But you are obviously very emotionally invested, and I just don’t want to see your high hopes dashed followed by you lashing out, possibly hurting yourself or others. I’m just telling you what is obvious to almost everyone that doesn’t live in a bubble: there’s practically zero chance of a 2/3 vote to convict.

        1. 5% of Senate Republicans would be 2-3 of them. I’d say Romney is a lock, maybe a couple more Senators expecting to retire instead of run again. If it reaches 5 Republican Senators, I’ll be impressed.

      3. Ten FORMER Republicans, although I can only find 8 names…

        1. Cheney should immediately lose her leadership position, and all 10 should be invited to caucus with the Democrats. Cancel them.

          1. That’s good. Then you can go back to pretending that this is purely partisan, because no Republicans supported it, because any Republicans who supported it aren’t Republicans, because they can’t be because they supported it.

        2. No, they’re all current Republicans.

    2. “The Democrats have reduced impeachment to a farce, to just some silly political stunt with the same severity as ripping his SOTU speech.”

      They really screwed up when they decided to push impeachment of Clinton. They put Ken Starr on the job of finding something, anything, they could pin on him in the whole Whitewater affair. It totally paid off when Starr uncovered all those Whitewater crimes.
      Yep, when they started this partisan tit for tat tradeoff, those darn Democrats really destroyed the effectiveness of impeachment proceeding for dealing with real problems in the future..

  27. One more time for the brain dead Ilya.

    Name the pub Senators who will vote for impeachment. At best I count Romney, and maybe two more. Likely Manchin will vote against.

    While your mental masturbation may seem like fun that is all it is.

    1. Counting votes before they’re cast? Whether you guess right or not, still seems like a poor option.

  28. “Impeachment can only succeed if it has substantial bipartisan support. Here are some ways to help make that happen.”

    It will have bipartisan support in the Senate, or it won’t. Trying to browbeat or manipulate Republican Senators into creating the appearance of bipartisan support is likely to backfire.

    I don’t think any of your suggestions have even a remote chance of generating real bipartisan support.

  29. I’d think step 1 of making it bipartisan would be making the case coherent and precedential.

    The current case for impeachment is incoherent and to the extent it is coherent, also demands the impeachment/removal of most of Congress.

    1. The fact that they started discussing impeaching Trump, literally, before the election (The 2016 election!) and 58% of Democrats favored impeaching him a few weeks after he took office, demonstrates that this urge to impeach him isn’t about any identifiable offense. It’s about him not being a Democrat.

      At first they thought the Mueller investigation would provide them with a legit excuse to impeach, so they waited on it. The investigation fell through, was a dry hole, so they seized on the Ukraine call. It didn’t work. Now they’ve seized on this, though it is patently obvious that the rioters planned to riot regardless of anything he said.

      They’ve never come up with a case for impeachment that persuaded people who didn’t already hate Trump, and that has doomed the efforts all along.

      1. The fact that they started discussing impeaching Trump, literally, before the election (The 2016 election!) and 58% of Democrats favored impeaching him a few weeks after he took office, demonstrates that this urge to impeach him isn’t about any identifiable offense. It’s about him not being a Democrat.

        This argument is actually stupider than when you used it a year ago, Brett. It’s about him being a sociopath. That you pretend not to see this may make you a sociopath too.

        There was no discussion of impeaching him literally before the 2016 election, and there was no effort to impeach him a few weeks after he took office.

        At first they thought the Mueller investigation would provide them with a legit excuse to impeach, so they waited on it.

        The Mueller investigation didn’t start until months after Trump took office, so they couldn’t have been waiting on it if they had already been planning to impeach him.

        Now they’ve seized on this, though it is patently obvious that the rioters planned to riot regardless of anything he said.

        No. He spent months lying about the election being stolen. You should know — you did the same, too, despite the fact that you can’t point to a single fraudulent vote cast in favor of Biden. Not one.

        1. “There was no discussion of impeaching him literally before the 2016 election, ”

          Big lie technique, huh?

          1. “There was no discussion of impeaching him literally before the 2016 election, ”

            Not by anybody who had the power to actually do it.

        2. “and there was no effort to impeach him a few weeks after he took office.”

          Oh, really?

          February 10th, 2017

          “The momentum to impeach President Trump is accelerating.

          On Thursday, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) filed a “resolution of inquiry” that amounts to the first legislative step toward impeachment.

          A new poll shows that registered voters are evenly split, at 46-to-46 percent, on whether they “support” or “oppose” impeaching Trump. Just two weeks ago, the pro-impeachment figure was 35 percent.

          Since inauguration, more than 800,000 people have signed a petition in the first stage of the Impeach Donald Trump Campaign, which will soon involve grassroots organizing in congressional districts around the country.”

          1. Literally first step towards impeaching Trump was gaveling the House of Representatives into order. Because, you know, they can’t impeach him if they aren’t in session. Will you go to the point of claiming that since the House of Representatives held a session in January of 2017 as proof that they were planning to impeach him then? Because that would be stupid.

            It’s a shame that you have to be asked if something extremely stupid is what you’re trying to claim, but that’s what come from continually advancing stupid claims, as has been your habit.

          2. “and there was no effort to impeach him a few weeks after he took office.”

            Again, not by anybody who could actually do it.

        3. David. You are a lawyer. Everything you say? Dismissed.

          1. You hold supernatural beliefs, and your occupation is the most toxic in the country, more toxic than organized crime.

            1. Twit. Dismissed.

      2. I have some news for you, Brett.

        It is not necessary to hate Trump to believe that he should not be President.
        If he hadn’t run as a Republican, you’d have been happy to rip into his significant flaws yourself.

  30. ATTENTION CONSERVATIVES/REPUBLICANS!!!

    THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL NOTICE THAT YOU ARE NOW A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN.

    Do NOT assume you have any rights, because you do not.

    You may have an opinion, but do NOT publicly voice it or you will be CANCELED.

    Your ONLY option is to sit down and shut up.

    Your compliance is APPRECIATED or it will be MANDATED.

    That is ALL.

    1. Trump spent the last four years with the loudest megaphone in the world. His problem wasn’t that he had opinions, his problem was that he lost an election, refused to accept it, and spent months telling his followers that they shouldn’t accept it either and that the presidency was stolen from them. Eventually, enough of his followers took the wrong-color pill and actually believed him, and decided the only way they could rectify this dread injustice was to physically attack the US Capitol to prevent Congress from certifying the election results.

      Yes, complying with election results in this country is mandated. That’s how a democracy works.

      1. Except no one tried to stop the count. The demonstration temporarily suspending it, but the count still happened.

        Protesting election results is permitted in our country. Up until now it was as American as apple pie to protest those results.

        1. Oh, they were all trying to stop the count. They said as much – it’s part of the whole lynch Pence thing.

          But your lust for victimization is noted. I won’t kinkshame.

        2. Really, this is what you’re left arguing?

        3. “Except no one tried to stop the count. The demonstration temporarily suspending it, but the count still happened.”

          Because the insurrectionists got distracted with looting Nancy’s office and forgot they were supposed to grab the EC ballots.

      2. He lost the election only with the votes of tens of millions of people who shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

        1. Yeah, but we’ll probably still let you vote again next time.

        2. “He lost the election only with the votes of tens of millions of people who shouldn’t be allowed to vote.”

          He lost the election 306 to 232, or using your math, by tens of millions of votes.

    2. “THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL NOTICE THAT YOU ARE NOW A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN.”

      In accordance with your wishes.

  31. Today is a terrible day in the history of our Republic. We have utterly disgraced ourselves.

    1. Harper’s Ferry is just right around the corner, bound to happen now.

      1. Except that Harper’s Ferry accomplished nothing…

    2. Pretty sure that day was January 06, Commenter.

      1. I said the same thing that day as well, Sarcastr0.

        1. Keep repeating it, eventually you’ll be right.

    3. I’m actually happy they did this. If they’re going to be this way might as well Let it all out for everyone to see I say. All the Repubs need to do is to not be stupid and kick back and let the circus continue as long as possible into Kamala’s first term. So much for ‘healing the nation’. Long after all the other nonsense around this is forgotten the childishness of the Democrats will be etched into the record forever. As for Trump, well, I dunno how he actually feels but in terms of making an impression in the history books he should pat himself in the back. He didn’t quite get that second term but it is far better to go out in a blaze of fireworks than quietly while out a mediocre and impotent long Presidency like Shrub did before him.

      1. At least Trump did not start an overseas war.

        1. Did his best to get one started right here. I don’t think that’s better.

      2. “All the Repubs need to do is to not be stupid”

        They’re doomed.

    4. “Today is a terrible day in the history of our Republic. We have utterly disgraced ourselves.”

      the four-year nightmare is almost over. What’s the current asking price for a federal pardon right now? (asking for a friend.)

  32. Could this libertarian support be a deep fake to get people to realize how ridiculous government is?

    Future Democrat Houses will no doubt impeach past, long-dead Presidents for racism, homophobia and assorted crimes against diversity. Just imagine the thrill affluent, white liberals (the heart and soul of the modern Democrat party) will feel when the first transgender POC Speaker of the House announces that George Washington has been impeached for owning slaves!

    1. I wonder whats going to happen to Somin during President Kamala’s term of office. He’s built himself over hating Drumpf so much there might be a period of confusion and wandering as he tries to figure out what to do with his life.

      1. Maybe looking down the road to 2028 is too long-term.

    2. “Future Democrat Houses will no doubt impeach past, long-dead Presidents for racism, homophobia and assorted crimes against diversity.”

      No doubt. Of course, the long-dead ones are already no longer drawing a pension nor requiring a Secret Service detail, so perhaps the rush will be slower than you anticipate.

  33. I’m a little confused by one thing.

    The point of an after-term impeachment is to keep him from holding office again, right?

    That only matters if he runs again in 2024 *and wins*. If he runs again in 2024 and loses, who cares?

    Net, it seems like the people who are pushing for impeachment think that he has a real chance of winning in 2024.

    Footnotes:

    Yes, yes, it blocks him holding other offices. No other office matters. There are no restrictions on being the President’s BFF, and being the President’s BFF is more powerful than any of the other offices. So if he’s not POTUS, but his BFF is, that’s the next best thing.

    I suppose that maybe Republicans who want to run in 2024 might like to see him disqualified, but they aren’t exactly saying so.

    1. That can be done for prosecuting and convicting him of the crime specified in the article of impeachment, i.e., 18 U.S. Code § 2383

    2. As we’ve observed over the past two months, Trump can do plenty of harm even when he’s lost. Barring him from office prevents the whole lost-cause nonsense we’ve seen since he lost the election from happening again.

    3. As we’ve just seen, Trump could cause quite a bit of trouble if he runs and loses.

      1. Somehow I didn’t see Glaucomatose’s response until after I hit submit on my comment.

    4. “. If he runs again in 2024 and loses, who cares?”

      Depends, which candidate did he displace? Maybe THAT guy would’ve won and done a good job.

  34. Even if you do succeed in getting 17 R’s on board, Trump will just start bleating about how the votes were fake.

    1. If the Republicans are dumb enough to think playing into the Democrats hand will give them anything, something, then they deserve to lose.

      1. Maybe some of the Republicans will recall that they are Americans first, and Republicans second. “What’s good for America is good for us!”

        but of course, if they did that they might accidentally appeal to people who are Americans first, and partisans second, and they wouldn’t want that, now would they?

  35. If Republicans would only be as universal in their hatred as Democrats, unity would descend upon us.

    1. “If Republicans would only be as universal in their hatred as Democrats, unity would descend upon us.”

      Just let the D’s nominate a woman or a black man again, and revel in the hatred.

  36. I admit that I rarely read beyond the headline of Somin posts like this, because the content is all predictable.

    Just to get up to speed, they are impeaching Trump because he said “let’s peacefully protest” and then the protesters proceeded with an historic massive peaceful demonstration, except a few hooligans trespassed into the capitol, but it wasn’t even in the top 10 or 20 violent riots of the year which were all leftists and supported by Democrats?

    I mean, I know why they are really doing it, but is the pretext really this laughable?

    1. If this was anyone other than Trump the media would be hailing how successful the Million Man March was on the Capitol after hearing such a moving speech.

      The reason why the left is so mad and scared is because of how successful of an event it turned out to be.

      1. “If this was anyone other than Trump the media would be hailing how successful the Million Man March was on the Capitol after hearing such a moving speech.”

        If this was anyone other than Trump, the insurrection might have worked and the victors get to write the histories.

    2. They were also so destructive and threatening they had to be voluntarily let in the door by the police.

      I wouldn’t trust an army of these guys going up against Kevin Mccallister.

      1. “I wouldn’t trust an army of these guys going up against Kevin Mccallister.”

        Kevin Mccallister had the advantage of a script by John Hughes, the capitol hill gang had a script by Trump, and it wasn’t well thought out.

    3. The level of bad faith here is impressive.

      1. As evidenced by the comment you posted two minutes after this one?

      2. Bad faith? It’s totally transparent.

        1. Saying the thing Trump said was ‘lets peacefully protest’ is transparently bullshit.

          No one who says it can believe it; they’re just lying.

          1. I mean, those were pretty much his exact words.

          2. Given that the Capitol was breached WHILE he was still talking (with him making dramatically less inflammatory comments than Democrats did this past summer), timeline is not on your side.

            1. You think that helps clear him? I want you on MY jury. I couldn’t possibly have robbed that bank, because when the bank was being robbed, I was inside it!

  37. Chapman Law School forced into retirement a prominent professor who spoke at the Trump rally.

    Chapman Law School should be cancelled and shut down.

    1. This is really how the gain power. Not merit or vision. Simply purging the ranks so their acolytes come into leadership by osmosis.

      1. Yeah, super liberal school, Chapman.

        We need to force them to not fire the wrong people. For freedom.

        1. What you think its okay for so called places of ‘free thought’ to go around firing people simply for speaking at political rallies? If there was a movement where in an ostensibly ‘free society’ more and more people in power were fired for violating religious mores and were slowly replaced by fundamentalists across all areas of society you’d just yawn and go back to watching tv?

          1. As long as his side is winning, it’s all good. Haven’t you picked up on that yet?

            1. “As long as his side is winning, it’s all good. Haven’t you picked up on that yet?”

              Ah, Brett. always transparently willing to impute your mindset to other people.

          2. There oughta be a law!

          3. He wasn’t fired.

          4. “What you think its okay for so called places of ‘free thought’ to go around firing people simply for speaking at political rallies?”

            Assuming you put “what” where you meant to put “why”, why do you assume that a trade school is a so-called place of “free thought”? Are you confusing it with a research university?

  38. I think impeachment is a really bad idea. I don’t give a damn about Trump himself, but I believe impeachment is a terrible way to try to reconcile with his supporters. Top Democrats (including our incoming Vice President) rather explicitly encouraged last summer’s (far more violent and damaging) riots and will face no consequences. Trying to impeach Trump to legally prevent him from running again is likely to intensify his supporters’ loyalty to him as well as their (not wholly unjustified) sense that there are blatant double standards at work and that they always get the short end of the stick. Let’s not let animus for Trump himself lead us into heavy-handed, counterproductive things that will exacerbate polarization.

    1. After something like an insurrection, you don’t get to move directly to reconciliation – there needs to be accountability.

      Anyone arguing about unity right now isn’t really seeking unity, they’re seeking a lack of consequences.

      1. After something like an insurrection

        Calling it an insurrection doesn’t make it one. Once they got into the Capitol, the supposed ‘coup plotters’ acted like teens who’d broken into their high-school at night — no plan, no idea what to do next. They ‘insurrectionists’ spent their time taking selfies breaking things and pulling stupid stunts. A real coup attempt includes plans to bring in the generals, seize the TV stations, etc — everybody knows what that looks like, and it looks nothing like what happened in DC.

        And I’m not suggesting ‘unity’ which is impossible. I’m suggesting avoiding actions seem likely to harden divisions, make Trump’s base even more loyal and fuel their sense of aggrievement. And, absent evidence that Trump actually plotted to have rioters storm the Capitol, there’s simply no way there are going to be the votes for conviction in the Senate. Let him slink out of office on his own power as a loser and a disgrace.

        1. Some goofed around, others went actively looking for legislators to take hostage and possibly execute.

          And the determining factor might not be the speech, but Trump’s reported enjoyment of the riot breaking into the Capitol and his reluctance to deploy the National Guard.

          I think those two factors raise the very real possibility that he did hope the crowd would intimidate or even force Pence into throwing out the electoral college votes and the legislators appointing him to a second term.

          If that is the case then Trump was an active participant in an attempted insurrection.

          1. others went actively looking for legislators to take hostage and possibly execute.

            Which others? Have they been identified and charged with attempted kidnapping or conspiracy to commit murder? And were those intentions a part of a larger conspiracy?

            Also, yes, I think Trump did (delusionally) hope the legislature would throw out ‘fradulent’ results from certain states and, once that was done, that he would be declared the winner.. As the NY Times pointed out, the legislature does have the power to reject the results submitted by states, and (symbolic) objections have been lodged fairly often.

            Of course, no convincing evidence of fraud has been presented and there was no prospect of the legislature rejecting state results that would overturn the election. But it’s not sedition to argue for this process to be used.

            1. Zip tie folks, people chanting “hang Mike Pence”, the militia dude on Parler who explicitly posted that they went looking for legislators, etc, etc.

              There’s no shortage of evidence that the crowd included groups who were planning an insurrection and intent on carrying out those plans in the Capitol.

              And its probably not sedition to argue a legislature throws out an election. But it is sedition to incite a crowd into insurrection (deliberately or not) and then when that insurrection starts to thwart attempts to stop it.

              1. The operation was a failure because they didn’t capture the Electoral College ballots, which were physically in the capitol building when the insurrectionists broke in.

            2. The NY Times did not point that out at all. The article describes the Electoral Count Act, but in no way says that Congress can just reject state results.

              Also, symbolic objections have not been lodged fairly often (though more of late than in the past). And of course the ones on 1/6 were not symbolic; they were intended to overturn the election.

              1. ” symbolic objections have not been lodged fairly often (though more of late than in the past). And of course the ones on 1/6 were not symbolic; they were intended to overturn the election.”

                And they would have gotten away with it, too, if those meddling kids and their talking dog hadn’t secured the EC ballots before the mob could get them.

        2. “Calling it an insurrection doesn’t make it one.”

          Nor does pretending it wasn’t an insurrection make not an attempted insurrection.
          they tried
          they failed
          so sad.

    2. ” I don’t give a damn about Trump himself, but I believe impeachment is a terrible way to try to reconcile with his supporters.”

      the ones who staged an insurrection deserved to be tried and imprisoned as reconciliation, as is usually the case with failed revolutionaries.

      Trump has almost a week left. What odds will you give that he writes out a pardon for all the would-be revolutionaries? Side bet, being Trump, will he find a way to mess it up so the pardon is not effective?

      1. Too bad, would-be revolutionaries, apparently you couldn’t come up with the asking price for a Trump pardon.

  39. A bipartisan impeachment would be better for the country—but would it be better for the Democratic Party?

    I suspect that Pelosi, Schumer, et al., would prefer that there be just enough R’s voting for impeachment and conviction to allow them to call it a bipartisan effort. But they’re undoubtedly salivating at the thought of running ads in 2022 featuring the invasion of the Capitol and pointing out that Senator So-and-so voted against impeachment and on the side of the vandals and furries. To that end, they’ll try to conduct the proceedings in a way that’ll win the votes of as few on-the-fence Republicans as possible.

  40. “. . . the impeachment managers should make sure to call one or two of the many conservative and libertarian legal scholars who have advocated impeachment.” Oh, wow, so you could play a lawyer on TV too!

  41. “Make Impeachment as Bipartisan as possible”

    By definition, this would require that at least two parties be interested in impeachment.

  42. Nancy has zero interest in letting the GOP distance itself from Trump.

    1. Likely true, but neither does Trump intend to let himself be separated from the marks until his debts are serviced, at least.

  43. One of newly-installed President Biden’s first public acts should be to publicly offer Trump a pardon for any crimes he’d like to confess to. Then, actually grant him a pardon for any crimes he actually confesses to.

Please to post comments