My Contribution to Politico Symposium on President Trump's Acquittal

Politico invited me to contribute to a symposium on what President Trump's acquittal means. Here is my brief entry:

The impeachment largely didn't matter to history. We were left with a show trial, which amounted to little more than political theater.

This proceeding could have made a definitive case that Donald Trump incited an insurrection. And I think that evidence could have shown conviction was warranted—especially concerning the official actions Trump took before and after the speech he made on January 6, the same day as the Capitol riot.

But this impeachment was rushed through, which ultimately made it ineffectual.The House approved a single article of impeachment one week after the incursion without developing any evidentiary record. The House did not hold any hearings, accept any sworn statements, subpoena former administration officials or request official documents. At the time, haste was understandable. The House insisted that Trump posed an existential threat, and he had to be removed immediately. But once January 20 passed, that existential threat disappeared.

Perhaps Trump may seek some future office in two or four years. But until then, there was no need to jam through a one-week hearing without any fact finding or oversight. After January 6, the House could have spent some time collecting testimony, documents and other evidence to build a case. But the House chose not to. Instead, it sent its managers to try Trump armed with newspaper clippings, surveillance footage, presidential tweets and Parler posts.

It's no wonder the managers couldn't prove Trump intended to incite an insurrection. They had no actual evidence that proved Trump's state of mind. When the managers tried to introduce a second-hand account of Trump's intent based on a conversation he had with Senator Mike Lee of Utah, Lee claimed it was inaccurate—and the managers ultimately had to withdraw the evidence. Still, the House managers could have called witnesses to build a record during the Senate trial, and even threatened to do so on Saturday. But they didn't.

It seems the focus now will turn to President Biden's agenda. So be it. Priorities matter.

I also expressed similar thoughts last night on BBC World News.

Comments

[Martinned]

Glad to see that there was no reason to worry about the power of the House to impeach ex-office holders.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let's impeach both Clintons together....

[Don Nico]

Ed,
Give it a rest with the Clinton's. At this point they are irrelevant.

[tkamenick]

The House didn't impeach an ex-office holder.

[Martinned]

No, but Blackman is suggesting that they should have. (As in: that they should have conducted a further investigation and adopted articles of impeachment later in the year.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"It's no wonder the managers couldn't prove Trump intended to incite an insurrection."

The Sage of South Texas vs. most of the United States Senate, including seven Republicans.

Tier four is as fourth tier does.

[DaivdBehar]

All Tier 1 law schools should be defunded, and de-privileged. Then they should be shut down as part of the campaign to save our nation from the most toxic occupation in the country. It is 10 times more toxic than organized crime.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That is probably as good a defense of Prof. Blackman and his downscale flailing as could have been provided.

Ouch. Very ouch.

[Aktenberg78]

After the civil war starts, I hope conservatives bulldoze the campuses of Harvard, Yale, and other places run by the left, and raise confederate flags over the rubble.

[DaivdBehar]

Those treason indoctrination camps spawn the failed elite. They are all know nothing bookworms.

Trump supporters want them gone. If you understand that simple idea, you underdtand everything. If not, you remain perplxed by the Trump phenomenon. No Democrat understands that. No lawyer understands that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is difficult to gauge which is more heartening, from the perspective of those who wish to see better Americans continue to defeat conservatives in the culture war — the Conspirator contributions to this blog, or the comments provided by the Conspiracy’s right-wing fans.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As to raising confederate flags over Harvard & Yale, do not forget the Hartford Convention of 1814-15.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd be happy with the Tier 1 schools merely being taxed as the commercial businesses which they are.

[Krychek_2]

Actually I’d be fine with that though I’d also support taxing churches.

[MatthewSlyfield]

There was never any chance at a conviction in the Senate.

That has nothing to do with Trump, Republicans, Democrats or partisanship.

The simple truth is the US Senate has NEVER once in the entire history of the US convicted on a Presidential impeachment.

Presidential Impeachment/Conviction record: 4/0.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's because Presidents resign if they would be convicted.

[tkamenick]

But you can try a President who resigns.

[Brett Bellmore]

But you'd only bother to if it was a nakedly political vendetta, which would likely result in acquittal.

[Krychek_2]

Nah. Had there been any real likelihood of Nixon making a comeback and running again, the Senate would likely have continued with his trial too.

Had Nixon had Trump’s Congress, he’d have finished out his second term. And had Trump had Nixon’s Congress, he’d have been gone two years ago.

And I have to say this: it would serve Senate Republicans right if Trump did run again in 2024. He’d probably get the nomination and then get the entire party killed in November.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Nixon was not actually impeached. He resigned before the House voted out a bill of impeachment. There is no way of knowing what would have happened in the Senate if Nixon had not resigned and the House impeached him.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

We do know that the Senate minority leader, Hugh Scott, thought the Senate would vote to convict Nixon if the House impeached him. Old Hugh was a pretty good vote counter.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think he'd be foolish to run again. The Democrats have expended vast amounts of effort on poisoning the minds of a whole generation of voters against him, and while the Biden administration could easily end up being enough of a disaster that he might win anyway, by acting as a king maker he could make that sunk effort wasted; They'd have to start from scratch sliming someone new.

There are other considerations: By 2024 he'll be older than dirt, and maybe not up to it, and would almost certainly not last out a full term.

Better, if he wants to remain in politics, to groom someone new, and concentrate on find/creating ways to defeat the left's media machine.

[Krychek_2]

Except that trump’s megalomania makes all other considerations irrelevant.

[Kazinski]

I'm not sure about that, obviously it was ego that triggered his run in the first place, but I don't think he expected to win.

Ego is not the same thing as megalomania.

[Brett Bellmore]

Everybody who runs for President is an egomaniac by normal standards, no exceptions.

Billionaires who actually win the office have some basis for their inflated egos, though that doesn't preclude them being over-inflated.

It wouldn't be insane for him to think he could win a second time, particularly if Biden majorly screws up, as seems likely.

But I still think it would be a bad idea given his age and other considerations.

[MatthewSlyfield]

One President resigned under threat of impeachment. However, he was not actually impeached. No impeached President has resigned.

[Dan Schiavetta]

There was a great deal of proof, Josh. Don’t be invertebrate about this.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

There was NO proof in evidence. Don't be Democratic about this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Cranky incels and disaffected clingers play lawyer, with predictable results.

[DaivdBehar]

Artie. Perhaps, you can explain this to the class. Why are Democrat women so ugly? I mean, they have ugly faces. When they speak, they are also, nasty, not anyone to spend more than a few seconds with.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are they Heidi Cruz hideously ugly, or just regular ugly?

[DaivdBehar]

It is like a requirement to register as a Democrat female.

This is an anchor who is supposed to bring in viewers. Everything is in the wrong place. The placement of the face parts is the opposite of attractive. She has multiple asymmetries. The nose job was pretty good. The teeth are disturbing. The botox makes her incapable of facial sincerity. Despite all the work, no one wants to look, let alone spend any time with this skank.

Then, she opens her mouth, and every word is hate filled, her being a nasty, unfair, highly selective, attack dog. She is trying to persuade, and is using the hard sell. No one can get past her face, however.

https://media13.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/202006/n_msnbc_wallace_200611_1920x1080.nbcnews-fp-1200-630.jpg

[StellaLink_the dog]

"spend more than a few seconds with."

A few seconds? Jesus, you must be a spoonful of fun.

[DaivdBehar]

Stella, are you a Democrat female?

[StellaLink_the dog]

I'm a dog. On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Except me, I'm a dog.

Are you a child molester?

[DaivdBehar]

Children annoy me. The idea of dating one is beyond impossible.

If you are a dog, are you intelligent or caring or a good cook? Those are attractive features. You can overcome your Democrat registration to attract a man. There is always hope.

[StellaLink_the dog]

As any dog on the internet can tell you, on the internet you must infer all conclusions from what your interlocutors post. Accept no declaration at face value, as nobody knows your a dog, or not.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I understand your intent, but I wish you wouldn't respond to this internet "person." It only makes him comment more, to the detriment of this forum.

[Don Nico]

If the proof was so incontrovertible, why hasn't Trump been arrested by order of the US Attorney? The case seemed at least pretty good, especially for an Acting US Attorney on the make.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Because, as the Democrats effectively admitted by bringing everything Trump had done going back to November to contest the election into their incitement impeachment article, His Jan 6 speech by itself isn't enough for incitement.

But in a criminal case, imminence is required for incitement, so they can't bring in all that other stuff.

Then there is some evidence that the riot was pre-planned by persons who are/were probably Trump supporters but weren't present for Trump's speech, they were already at the Capitol building.

There are certainly other things he could potentially be criminally prosecuted for, but he would have a pretty decent chance of beating an attempt at a criminal prosecution for the Capitol riot.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Matthew, get real -- we didn't try Jodie Foster for inciting the shooting of Reagan, even though we know that Hinkley said that was why he did it.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"we didn’t try Jodie Foster for inciting the shooting of Reagan, even though we know that Hinkley said that was why he did it."

Incitement would require that Jodie Foster actually said something to Hinkley. I rather doubt you could prove she even knew he existed before he shot Regan.

[Brett Bellmore]

She probably knew him as 'that idiot I told my manager to shred any letters from.'

[Dr. Ed 2]

Reagan -- not Regan -- Regan was a WW-II USMC veteran who told Merrill-Lynch that his skill was "killing people" in his 1946 job interview, adding that "he'd gotten pretty good at it." M/L said that skill wasn't one that they'd have much call for at M/L but they hired him anyway. He went on to be Reagan's Secretary of the Treasury.

But do you honestly think Donald Trump even knew that the bare-chested "shaman" existed before he made the press after being arrested?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He probably wasn't aware of his individual existence, but he certainly said something to him.

[Sarcastr0]

If the proof was so incontrovertible, why hasn’t Trump been arrested by order of the US Attorney? The case seemed at least pretty good, especially for an Acting US Attorney on the make.

Proof of impeachability may not be the same as proof of criminality.

[Don Nico]

That is obvious, S0, but the penalties for conviction in an Art. III Court can be so much more.

[WJack]

Wondering if the “Americans” who created the most powerful, most properous and most free country ever will peaceably tolerate
its demise.

[DaivdBehar]

65 million gun owners have 300 million guns, legally. Most are Trump supporters.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"65 million gun owners have 300 million guns, legally. Most are Trump supporters."

People with guns are three times as likely to be homicide victims as people without. People with guns are twice as likely to commit suicide as those without.

[DaivdBehar]

That is really racist, because you are not referring to Trump supporters.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Racist? Damn, I thought you had no sense of humor and here you prove me wrong.

Tell me, Sparky, in exactly what way is my quite factual assertion racist? What race is it that I have demeaned or disparaged or treated in any racist way and exactly how?

You are a dope.

[DaivdBehar]

You were referring to black people in your racist comment, without saying so openly. Everyone knows that.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Everyone knows that."

In the same way that everyone knows that the moon is made of green cheese.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Stella, see above comment.

[Kazinski]

I'll take that chance.

And you can take your chances with me, with my .357 wherever I go. And now there are 17 states I don't even need a permit to concealed carry.

But the funny thing is despite your stats, and the explosion of gun ownership, and liberalized gun laws, gun deaths are going down. Except of course this year, in blue cities.

[Brett Bellmore]

People proven to have guns due to their homes being searched after they were homicide victims are three times as likely to be homicide victims as people who weren't homicide victims and so could lie about whether they owned guns.

Really, the Kellerman study you're citing is a textbook example of how to do bad statistical research. Literally a textbook example, it's been cited in textbooks! It doesn't prove anything like what you say.

[DaivdBehar]

Failed lawfare by the failed elite. It is harassment. It makes the supporters of Trump angry. So far, this lawfare has gone unanswered.

[Brett Bellmore]

"After January 6, the House could have spent some time collecting testimony, documents and other evidence to build a case."

But this sort of collecting of evidence depends on the evidence existing to be collected. Thus their decision not to bother.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Evidence would've undercut them...or potentially pointed out that Pelosi deliberately understaffed the Capital...

[Formerly Known as Stash]

Well, it was enough to convince the majority of the House, the majority of the Senate and the majority of Americans (including Mitch McConnell, who appears to be saying he only let Trump off on a technicality) that Trump willfully and shamefully broke his oath to protect and defend the Constitution and failed to faithfully execute the laws.
It seems unlikely to me that as more is revealed over the next few years that Trump will come off looking any better. I note one important result of the trial is that it was uncontested that the supposed "steal" was an outright, deliberate lie.
From an historical perspective, this will go down as the most bipartisan impeachment ever, which in itself speaks volumes about the strength of the case. What evidence that was not in control the defense, was missing?

I saw motive, opportunity, knowledge, timeline, actions, inaction and result. Read McConnell's speech. I saw documentation--videos, Trump's written declarations. This was all plenty to show "state of mind."

Blackman's transparent bs about lack of evidence is just a hand wave. What, for example, was missing? And, in terms of what might have been nice to know, say, more specific internal deliberations at the White House, how much of that could not have been provided by the defense. Since it did not provide it, that is a well recognized evidentiary basis for concluding that any lack of detail did not include anything exculpatory.

You should know by now that Blackman doesn't write to persuade, he writes to confirm existing political bias. The compliment one can give to Blackman is that he is prolific, and a tireless self-promoter. He's found his market which has given him a prominence that his schooling and teaching position made more difficult to achieve, in that he did have the usual credentials. Canny hard work pays off. Good on him. But one has to appreciate what he is doing when reading his work.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Pays off? At South Texas? As the ‘find a wingnut’ go-to for bookers looking to “balance” coverage of political issues? Play the paltry game, win paltry prizes.

[Krayt]

Oh please let not faithfully executing the laws of the United States become a regularly-impeached thing!

I mean, it's not holding it in reserve until you stumble across a political opponent you really, really, really hate, is it?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's remarkably easy to convince people who already believed something. I've multiple times pointed out news articles and polls showing that Democrats were discussing impeachment before he was elected, and a solid majority of Democrats favored impeaching him within days of his taking office. Probably before he took office, that's just when they started polling on the topic.

A majority of Congress have been his political enemies all along, because he was an insurgent candidate, not establishment. It's just that Republicans didn't think they dared admit to being his enemy until he was safely defeated, and most understood that, even after that, admitting it was the same as announcing retirement.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that he'd have been convicted on a secret ballot. At any time in the past 4 years, without even bothering to specify charges.

For the Democrats, his real crime was being a Republican, and for the Republicans, not being a member of the establishment.

[Sarcastr0]

You showed you don't read quotes, just headlines. Because your list of evidence that Dems want impeachment for impeachments' sake doesn't hold up.

As DMN pointed out to you.

[Brett Bellmore]

As DMN asserted to me.

If you keep changing your basis for impeachment, and the only constant IS that you want to impeach, the basis isn't a reason, it's just an excuse.

[Sidney r finkel]

I believe Prof. Blackman is wrong, that the impeachment will matter as far as history is concerned, just not in a narrow legal manner that a law professor would look at things.

History will, over time, review all of the proceedings and the documents and come to the conclusion that Donald Trump incited a riot and insurrection designed, in some way in his deranged mind, to overturn the election and keep him as President. The trial will be just one part of history that concludes this man should never have been President and disgraced himself and the Republican party.

Also, Prof. Blackman's complaint about rushing things through is silly posturing. Given that impeachment should happen to a person while they were in office, there was simply not time to complete the record. And given the proceedings in the Senate it is clear that a detailed investigation was not needed by the House. The guilt could not have been more evident, and in the future disclosures will re-inforce that position.

[DaivdBehar]

Sidney. Perhaps you can explain this to the class. How come most of the hounds after Trump have German Jewish names? They are certainly an overly represented group. Jews of other origins are strong Trump supporters.

[Formerly Known as Stash]

I guess this comment means you're no Einstein.

[DaivdBehar]

Stash. This group is smarter than most, even than other Jews. They are over-represented in the billionaire class, in the failed elite class, in every superior group you can name, like Nobel laureates, such as Einstein. They should take it easy with that predatory power trip they are on against Trump. They may be making a mistake.

Trump, of course, is also ethnic German.

[Formerly Known as Stash]

It seems to me that it is usually a good idea to listen to smart people, as they have a better than average chance of being right. Do I listen to Einstein or some guy on the internet who says the world is flat? If the latter, you shouldn't worry because the latest word from Q-anon is that Trump will be inaugurated March 4 after a military takeover. Me, I'm listening to the folks who say that is wacky BS.

[iowantwo]

It seems to me that it is usually a good idea to listen to smart people, as they have a better than average chance of being right.

Do you know who doesn't believe you should listen to smart people?
People that have come understand a Harvard degree is no measure of intelligence.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The kind of people still in Iowa, experiencing the wrong end of generations of bright flight?

[DaivdBehar]

Artie. I want to help you understand the support for Trump. The current elite has failed. It is fired. Once you understand that, everything else is explained. That includes the elite's fighting back with lawfare. That just enrages real Americans.

You may have started with good native intelligence. After passing 1L you became stupider than a Life Skills student learning to eat with a spoon, one of the stupidest people in this country. The grads of Tier 1 schools are the stupidest of the stupid lawyer profession. Of the Tier 1 grads, the Supreme Court Justices are the stupidest of all. That is why the Supreme Court must be moved to Wichita, KS, the middle of the continental US. Lawyer stupidity explains the lack of understanding that everyone ordinary has.

I also want you to turn on MSNBC. Almost everyone on it has a very ugly face. I do not mean ordinary faces. I mean circus freak grade ugly faces. Verify for yourself.

[Formerly Known as Stash]

Seems to me that is just a dispute about how to identify who is smart, and does not address the question whether it is good to listen to smart people.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm sure the impeachment's will at least be written about in history books as a terrible stain, if only because the great majority of historians are Democrats. The degree to which people will roll their eyes while reading those history books is yet to be determined.

[Eric VonSalzen]

There's an old saying that if you strike at the King, you better kill him. Obviously, a President is not a King, and certainly an ex-President is not a King. But still, if you think about attempting to impeach a President, shouldn't you do so only if there's a chance you'll succeed? It was obvious from the outset that the Senate would not convict Trump on the "evidence" the House presented. Sure, that's partisanship, but the impeachment was partisanship, too. The same is true of the first impeachment.
My guess is that the Democrats are DEATHLY afraid of Trump (or of the "Return of Trump", like some old horror movie sequal). They have used impeachment TWICE as wolfbane or garlic to keep the monster out. It isn't likely to work. In fact, what the Democrats have done (TWICE, excuse the repetition) will undermine whatever they do in 2022 and 2024 to oppose Trump's influence on the electorate. There's a lot to dislike about Trump, and he was at his worst between November 10 (? whenever the media declared Biden the winner) and January 6. But that will all be "old news" by 2022 and 2024.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump lost by seven million votes. There are fewer uneducated bigots and superstitious yokels in the American electorate every day as our nation continues to improve -- less bigoted, less backward, less rural, and less religious, less White.

Trump pulled off a three-cushion trick shot at the Electoral College to win. Modern America will never put him in position to try that one again. There just aren't enough vestigial clingers left.

[Eric VonSalzen]

Rev., you might be right, but then why is your Party so scared of Trump?

[StellaLink_the dog]

Why is it that you think the Democratic Party is more afraid of Trump than is the Republican Party? Thinking Republicans want Trump to be significant in their party about as much as they want a good dose of the clap.

[DaivdBehar]

Artie, take a drive anywhere 50 miles from either coast. Trump country, save for the isolated urban hellscapes there.

[StellaLink_the dog]

In Texas urban Hellscapes like Dallas, Ft Worth, Houston, San Antonio, Austin.

[DaivdBehar]

Those have been infused with escapees from California. Texas will soon be purple, then lost to our nation. California may lose a Congressional seat, and Texas may gain one after the 2020 Census count.

[StellaLink_the dog]

All those cities are more than 50 miles from the coast, all voted against Trump, and none is an urban Hellscape.

So, your point is?

[ragebot]

On the other hand COVID-19 is killing the dem voters way faster than the pub voters and the hot spots for COVID-19 deaths are all big dem cities where those seven million dem voters live.

The silly dems never realized Trump's secret plan to help spread COVID-19 and kill dems.

[Formerly Known as Stash]

Except that they did work. Trump flipped two solid red states blue, and decisively lost the election. Lost the Senate majority that should have been a cinch to keep. Rebuilt the Blue Wall. Split the GOP so prominent members are being censured, with promises to primary folks with "I am not a witch" candidates to lose solid seats. (Changing party name to GOPQ.) McConnell says Trump "practically and morally" responsible for the attack on the Capitol, but lets him off on a technicality. Big donors cutting off the trumpiest legislators. And, of course, this was the most bipartisan impeachment vote ever. No conviction, but more successful than any other.
Don't believe me--check out McCarthy at National Review, January 27, 2021:
"Yes, the former president’s impeachment trial will be divisive for the country, but not in a way that troubles the Democrats. Rather, it will unite the Left while intensifying the Right’s internecine conflict."

Trump is the biggest dem turnout generator ever, beating even Obama. If the GOP could convince the dems to run Hillary Clinton again, they certainly would. The impeachments did much better than the Benghazi hearings and email stuff ever did. The dems are hoping they have such luck that Trump will remain a force in GOP politics, and, in the ultimate gift, run in 2024 primaries. And what could be better than Ivanka knocking off Little Marco in the primary and running for Senate? Out of office, he's a bull in the GOP's china shop.

[Don Nico]

Trump worked hard to lose the election.
After getting past the first impeachment trial, he needed only to tell the public to listen to the physicians (Fauci and the CDC) and express sympathy for those overtaken by COVID. It was the greatest flame out in American political history.
Biden had the luxury of having to do nothing but let Trump campaign for him.

[santamonica811]

Can't disagree with a single word. For H. Clinton to lose in 2016, about 6 different things had to happen, and they all did. For Trump to lose in 2020, *even after Covid* about 3-5 different things had to happen. And Trump cheerfully (eagerly) made sure they all did.

Man plans and God laughs.

[Don Nico]

"Man plans and God laughs."
Indeed, indeed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Eric VonSalzen, you cite the old saying, but your reference misunderstands it. The king is the sovereign—the nature of sovereign power is why a failed strike is so dangerous. The sovereign's power is exercised at pleasure, without constraint. To strike safely at so vast a power an attacker must succeed, and replace the sovereign, lest that vast power be used against the attacker. It is absurd to suppose Donald Trump wields sovereign power now, or ever did.

The American sovereign is the People; the failed attempt was Trump's. Trump struck at the People and failed. It is he who is now in danger.

Possibly Trump will be protected from sovereign vengeance. The People's sovereign power may at this moment be too vitiated by its divided loyalty, by its current disunity of purpose. Whether that will protect Trump remains to be seen. It is Trump's only hope.

Sovereigns are jealous of their power, tolerate rivals no better than they tolerate treason, and have long memories. Memories which in this case they may not even need. The People of Georgia, and of New York—no less than the People of the United States—each wield power sufficient to overwhelm Trump if they choose to use it.

Worse for Trump—or perhaps for the nation—Trump's only defense against sovereign vengeance, if it comes, would be to renew his strike, and carry it through to success, or to his own utter destruction. Given that, it is remarkable that Blackman is so blinkered about the judgment of history, which is yet to come.

Perhaps Trump will presently notice where he stands, and flee the country. That seems more likely to me than any successful renewal of his attack on the nation's sovereign.

[The Turtle Dove]

It's all well and good, since the current politics is just a television show, but there might come a time when a tradition of ignoring the common law protections of the criminal law in a criminal trial before a high tribunal comes back to do real harm.

A complete disregard of the rules of evidence, and the rules about what can and can't be said in statements to the court without at least a solid proffer of proof. It was a television panel show, video content edited for broadcast, not proof.

They actually voted to give one of the participants in the events a gold medal mid-trial. Merited, undoubtedly, but one of the central hard-won concessions of Magna Carta, a trial of misbehaving barons according to the law of the land, is now unequivocally left in the dust.

Do you want a presumption of Article III review on points of law and procedure from a constitutional court? Because this is how you get Article III review on points of law and procedure from a constitutional court.

Harumph.

Mr. D.

[tkamenick]

If the sanctions you are facing aren't criminal (jail/prison time), it's not a criminal trial.

[The Turtle Dove]

Well, formally, based on several centuries of Anglo-American practice, the High Court of impeachment in the upper chamber conducts a criminal trial. That's what's printed on the paychecks and room requisitions. If another part of the interconnected tensile webs of the law, to avert injustice in another proceeding, wanted to test that claim and ask whether the verdict should be treated as a criminal verdict given the light of some other consideration, that would certainly be a fair question -- but it is one that has not yet been asked.

Mr. D.

[DaivdBehar]

My Senator, Toomey, should be expelled from the Republican Party.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The fracturing of the Republican Party is going to be entertaining, important, and deserved.

[neurodoc]

1) The irony is that the Ds will gain as much or more by coming up short on a conviction, and the Rs will suffer greater injury as a result of the failure to get more than 17 ayes for conviction. Trump can now get working his magic toward creating greater GOP factionalism and dragging the collective enterprise ever further down. The Rs best hope is that Trump and his crime family will be so preoccupied with legal and financial tsuris that they will be limited in the greater destruction they can cause that party and this country, the latter especially, since the former is of minimal concern to me.

2) In the history of the VC, has their ever been a more shameful post than this Blackman one? If so, what was it and when? This one seems to me as a huge embarrassment to the "firm," greater
than all the generally Trump-favoring ones taken together over the past 5 or so years.

[AmosArch]

Tldr "well we lost again but blablablah baseless speculative consolation theory with zero evidence for and a mountain against how this is actually a win for dems". And you accuse the election fraud theorists of being crazy. The ocean of dem tears is real and delicious.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"well we lost again"

How so? Trump is branded as nothing more significant than a dried wank stain. Biden is president, Dems control the House and the Senate. Please, sir, don't throw me in the brier patch.

[AmosArch]

Right...you guys had absolute control and you used it to give trump the last laugh in the vendetta that has consumed your life for the past 5 years. If you doubt the cope, you can read it here and in the ocean of tears on Twitter right now. Congratulations, even when you 'win' you lost.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Well, Dumbo, the laughing has not yet stopped. We'll see how much Trump is laughing after Georgia and New York and the banks are throught with him.

As for Twitter, what's Twitter?

[AmosArch]

If you think it will make the dems look good chasing around a private citizen after they left power like putin or some vengeance crazed tinpot Latin dictator, knock yourself out.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Do you think before you post, ever?

NY and GA are looking into Trump for criminal behavior. Are the laws not supposed to be enforced now because you're a sycophant and the defendant would be named Donald Trump?

GTFO.

[Leo Marvin]

"The ocean of dem tears is real and delicious."

Lol. Among the problems with your galaxy-brain analysis is that neurodoc (the commenter you're responding to) isn't a Democrat. Trump cultists like you may very well have succeeded in making him an ex-Republican, but if that's how we're defining "Democrat" now, I think the actual Dems will say "keep up the good work, Amos."

[AmosArch]

You're right I made a terrible mistake. What ever will we do without another Romneyite for the Dems to put through their paces as a show dog in the big leagues or to logon to random forums to wag the finger at their naughty 'fellow Republicans' in the little leagues for not doing whatever progs want every newscycle? What have I done?

[Brett Bellmore]

There aren't enough NeverTrumpers in the GOP to form a decent sized faction. In fact, most of the prominent ones have already left the party, or announced their retirement effective the next election. So talking about factionalism is silly.

[AmosArch]

I think some Republicans are too trapped in the Twittersphere and Beltway cable network bubble and mistake it for the general American opinion. Pretty much everywhere I look people either are pissed that they are wasting time or don't care. Even the leftleaners. I was flipping through different radio stations and websites that had big election coverage to gauge engagement outside the politicalsphere and this was barely registering at all among the usual local and life interest cruft.

[StellaLink_the dog]

How did Biden win? Nobody I know voted for him.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But the photocopier did....

[wreckinball]

OK you win!

[Sarcastr0]

AmosArch, on the other hand, knows general American opinion super well.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You misspelled Putin.

[David Nieporent]

Fun fact for the mail order JD guy: there is no provision for expelling someone from a party. The GOP could of course expel him from its caucus in the U.S. senate, but that would seem particularly shortsighted given the current 50-50 split in the senate.

[DaivdBehar]

I asked the PA GOP Chairman to censure and to defund Toomey, who is retiring in 2022 anyway.

I learned enough in mail order JD school to know the lawyer profession is the stupidest group of people in this country. It is the most toxic occupation, causing 10 times more damage than organized crime. You do not know enough to know how stupid your profession is. Everyone else knows that, including Life Skills students learning to eat with a spoon. The latter are geniuses compared to the Justices of the Supreme Court.

Who was the greatest President according to the lawyer profession? He was a distance lawyering learner. He was the very worst, in a class totally alone in the nether depths of catastrophic Presidents. No one has ever come close to the stench he left. You think he was the best. That is how dumb the profession is.

[Formerly Known as Stash]

So basically you view the legal profession the way an anti-vaxxer or faith-healer views the medical profession. Its approach is somehow fundamentally wrong, I am just curious about the ideal lawyer-free regime you advocate. How would it work? Mob justice? "People's tribunals"? If I have a dispute with you, do we each gather up our families, friends and neighbors and duke it out? Have whoever is in charge decide? (What if it's my uncle?) The "exceptionalism" of the US is "a government of laws and not men," Do you advocate a "a government of men, and not law"?

Or, are you advocating some sort of reform in how law is taught? How should the curriculum be changed to reflect your ideal of how law should be practiced or applied? Just curious about your philosophy.

[DaivdBehar]

Rule of law is a great invention. It replaces violence that makes life unlivable. The lawyer profession is in failure in every goal of every law subject. Its supernatural doctrines violate the Establishment Clause.

A course in Critical Thinking should be a pre-law course. Then enforce the plain language of the constitution against the lawyer profession. Empower the highly effective and successful competitors of the law in moral enforcement, like religion and self help. Criminalize lawyer rent seeking and tricks.

[Formerly Known as Stash]

Um, who enforces the constitution against the law profession? Should we have religious courts cutting off the hands of thieves, executing heretics and apostates or stoning adulterers? (Bye, Mr. Trump, hello Spanish Inquisition). And self-help, who knew? BLM can just execute offending officers, and the Proud Boys can hang Mike Pence. And what happens when one religion bans something that another approves? Can the former use "self-help" to stop the latter?
I am curious. On what country or time period do you model your ideal society? To me, it sounds like the ungovernable tribal areas of Pakistan along the Afghani border.

[AmosArch]

I hope spending tons of political capital to give Trump the last laugh was worth it to the Dems. I'm fine with it lol.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ready to declare victory in the culture war, Amos?

Willing to declare relevance?

[DaivdBehar]

All woke corporations must be boycotted. All woke non-profits lose their exemption.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Amos, you've got the the directional arrow on that political capital expenditure off by 180 degrees. Trump has a bunch of would-be followers now feeling betrayed, and facing criminal charges. Other would-be Trumpist insurrectionists will be thinking that over. Trump's real-time involvement in criminal insurrection was put beyond doubt. Trump is suddenly a high-profile candidate for criminal and civil prosecutions in multiple venues. The Ds picked up the single most formidable Republican office holder, now apparently in solidarity to see Trump charged criminally, and brought down. A notable crack opened up in Republican Senate support for Trumpism. The fissure runs right between some of the more promising R presidential candidates. Trump's lawyers were discredited. Several impeachment managers were introduced to the public as genuinely brilliant advocates.

Compared to that, Trump got a victory which was already judged baked-in by everyone. Maybe the future will look different. Right now, Trump is a lot weaker than he was last week.

[Jimmy the Dane]

It is a sad day for the Republic and one that will live in infamy for years to come. Spurred on my rabid liberals and their enablers in the media, the democrats launched a farce impeachment for nothing more then the President of the United States giving a well received speech.

[AmosArch]

I see some parallels with the Court packing, and the 'living constitutionalists' and the farce impeachments to the Gracchi movement as a similar beginning of the buckling of the Republican structures and precedent under the weight of people intent on abusing and circumventing them. The GOP and trump are sort of guilty as well but not nearly to the same extent as the Left. Perhaps we can reverse this but sometimes you gotta clean house and start all over again.

[Don Nico]

"It is a sad day for the Republic and one that will live in infamy for years to come."
Don't be so melodramatic.
"It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

[QuantumBoxCat]

From the Politico piece:

"POLITICO Magazine asked a select group of political and legal experts what they saw over the past few weeks, and how—or whether—it will echo through American history."

Josh writes, "The impeachment largely didn't matter to history."

I look forward to Josh not blogging about, or even mentioning, the impeachment in future posts. Since, if he does mention the event in a future post, then it must actually matter. If it did not matter, then it should simply be forgotten, as most events in the past are (like what I ate for breakfast on any given day in the past). Lets see if Josh can actually hold firm to the words of Josh.

[Don Nico]

"Josh writes, “The impeachment largely didn’t matter to history.”"

At least it is over with and the Congress can get down to far more serious issues facing the nation.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Yes. True that.

[bernard11]

The House did not hold any hearings, accept any sworn statements, subpoena former administration officials or request official documents. At the time, haste was understandable. The House insisted that Trump posed an existential threat, and he had to be removed immediately. But once January 20 passed, that existential threat disappeared.

Oh, STFU, Josh. If the House had done all that the proceedings would have stretched beyond January 20, and you would have been all over the argument that once out of office Trump couldn't be impeached.

You are a disgusting, hypocritical, Trump cultist.

You want not just a January exception, but a November-January exception.

Scummy.

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Bernard. You seem verklempt. Try to calm down. Don't let this political drama upset you. It is fake drama.

[Kazinski]

Sure, but if we had the trial right away Trump would have no time to line up lawyers or prepare a defense.

And the House managers and other assholes would carillon be claiming that Officer Sicknick was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher by Trump supporters.

[DaivdBehar]

No coroner report on dead officer. No Democrat outrage about the Democrat homicide if an innocent white woman

[Armchair Lawyer]

bernard,

You ever wonder why the Senate voted to allow witnesses...then didn't allow witnesses.

It was a show trial. Long on emotion. Short on facts.

[bernard11]

You ever wonder why the Senate voted to allow witnesses…then didn’t allow witnesses.

Because calling witnesses would unreasonably lengthen the trial, especially since some potential witnesses - McCarthy, Pence, Kushner - would fight the subpoenas forever, a la McGahn, and witnesses would not change any GOPer's minds.

I mean, the R's pretty much hung their hat on the January Exception.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, the GOP would have insisted on calling Pelosi and asking her why she ordered the cops to stand down.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And Kushner, et al likely would have taken the 5th Amendment -- and made a credible argument of witchhunts that would embarrass the dems.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Benard,

"Because calling witnesses would unreasonably lengthen the trial"

I know that's the party line, but step back for a second and really think about it. Impeachment is a very serious deal. But this has been the fastest impeachment trial on record...over in less than a week. Every other impeachment trial has been at least three weeks in length. At LEAST 3 weeks in length. And that doesn't even account for the very short time for any type of House investigation.

But rather than have any agreement about number of witnesses or length of time for witnesses or anything, "calling witnesses would unreasonably lengthen the trial". Despite this already being the shortest impeachment trial ever....

You REALLY buy that party line? Seriously? It makes no real sense.

[wreckinball]

They wanted just a couple of their witnesses. I guess they were too dumb to think that hey would get massacred when the defense called witnesses.

Pelosi on the stand LOL. That scared them straight

[MollyGodiva]

Trump forgot that he had a duty to faithfully execute the laws, not execute those who are faithful to the laws.

[Jerry B.]

Democrats say Trump should have called out Federal forces to stop the insurrection, but when he called out federal forces to stop the insurrection in Seattle last year, they called that fascist and a horrible misuse of Federal power.

[MollyGodiva]

There is a big difference between deploying federal troops when the mayor requests it, and when the mayor does not. It is like having police in your home, them being there because you called them is quite different then them being there when you don't want them.

[Snorkle]

Priorities certainly matter.

As McConnell made clear, the priority for Republicans is loyalty above all else. The "speak no ill" Reagan rule apparently now extends to impeachment after insurrection, with everyone finding some bullshit reason to explain their cowardice.

Either the Republican party ends, or the country does.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump got at least 77 million votes and those voters aren't going away. Either the GOP adopts the MAGA mandate or it dies...

[Don Nico]

Better that it dies. A new party of principle will rise from the ashes, one with a true center.

[wreckinball]

Trump won't run again. And there won't be a third party. It will be a movement within the party like the TEA party was.

Only it will be bigger and led by Trump.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Something you've said with which I actually agree.

America needs a conservative party to stand for right-leaning politics. A one-party system benefits nobody, and the current GOP has completely lost their way.

[Formerly Known as Stash]

Actually, it could do both. "Anti-MAGA" got 7 million more votes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

From Civil War veterans....

[wreckinball]

They wanted ti impeach him just "because".

There was no evidence. If the bar for incitement was that low than the examples the defense team presented would mean half of the democrats in congress should ne shown the door.

It was a freaking clown show. AND the evidence presented by the house managers was doctored and false. They presented the freaking Charlottesville Hoax.

But of you think otherwise he can be charged with incitement in a criminal court. I wouldn't hold my breath on that though.

[Stephen Lathrop]

wreckinhall, do they let jurors in criminal trials wander off and not pay attention? Do they shield criminal jurors from accounting to their peers during deliberations? If not, Trump in criminal court would miss out on the only protections that kept him from conviction in the Senate.

[wreckinball]

What happens when you present fraudulent or doctored selected edited videos as evidence in a court of law?

You go to jail for contempt of court . Don't think the Dems case could even be presented as-is on a court of law.

[wreckinball]

None of the seven Rs who voted yes will win re0election or if retiring like Toomey ever hold office again. McConnel is also toast in 6 years

[David Nieporent]

In 6 years he'll be 84 years old; I don't think he's too worried about a bunch of illiterate people trying to vote him out.

[wreckinball]

Great reply
Just kidding
God you’re a dope
Really if wasn’t for Tony and the Rev you’re the dumbest person in here

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Do you see how he comments under his real name, and you are just an anonymous internet troll who ignores the repeated requests of the people who actually provide you this free forum to be civil? Does that ever give you pause?

[Variant]

An aside - always enjoy your takes, Josh, but would you ever consider a haircut and getting clothes that fit?

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

"managers couldn't prove Trump intended to incite an insurrection" -- he certainly intended to overturn election results without a court finding of election-changing fraud. No other president has tried that. Why shouldn't that be impeachable and disqualifying?