TODAY: Just before 1PM, proceedings for the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump begin with senators holding a 4 hour debate on whether it is constitutional to impeach a former president. Then, a vote on that question to follow.
@CourthouseNews

Now, if a vote is reached that says this trial is unconstitutional, it could end the trial right here. But a similar procedural vote was triggered by Sen. Paul (R-KY) last month on constitutionality and it failed, 55-45.

Signs point toward holding the trial. If so, after today, the schedule is: 16 hours spanning 2 days to present arguments for house impchmt mgrs and then 2 days for Trump's defense team to present.
Lawmakers then have 4 hrs alloted for q's in writing, for either side.

Legal experts/scholars say Trump's defense suggesting this trial is unconstitutional is gossamer at best but we will get deep into that later.

A conviction is unlikely. But Dems want to nip any hint of a 2024 run in the bud. So, without a conviction, his name must be mud.

Laying out the visceral images of the insurrection barely a month old, replaying his speech before the siege, hearing about insurrectionists arrested who later pointed the finger at Trump as the source of their inspiration to attack -- all will bolster the case against him.

But Trump is notoriously slippery. And he retains support from members of the GOP who enjoy, in turn, the support of his voter base.

More to come later in a report by myself and @JackRodgersCNS for @CourthouseNews.

The constitutionality of impeaching a former official is up for debate today in the Senate as former President Donald Trump's impeachment trial gets underway. Read up on that in our developing story here:
https://www.courthousenews.com/round-2-trump-impeachment-trial-begins-in-senate/
cc: @JackRodgersCNS
@CourthouseNews

House impeachment managers filed their reply brief this morning to Trump's defense and the table of contents is fairly succinct, I'd say:

Trump's reply brief is dubbed indefensible by impeachment managers; he tries to "shift the blame to his supporters" invokes "flawed legal theory" & accepts no responsibility, which they say aids their argument that he should never hold office again. https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20475731-house-impeachment-reply-brief-feb-9-2021

Trump's team has argued, in part, “Conviction at an impeachment trial requires the possibility of removal from office" and that "without that possibility, there cannot be a trial."
Trump's brief: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/trump-impeachment-brief.pdf

This theory has been unwound by legal scholars et al all around the U.S. including those at the conservative Federalist Society. A letter issued on Jan. 21 dismissed Trump’s defense that a former official cannot be impeached:
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Scholars-Impeach-Letter.pdf

Further, Trump's attorneys rely on 1A as a defense to the incitement charge, arguing his remarks at the 'Save America' rally on the morning of Jan 6 were not goading but "peaceful." Expecting this passage from Trump's rally to do a lot of heavy lifting.
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6

CSPAN will offer a stream of today's debate and vote here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?508293-1/impeachment-trial

. @SpeakerPelosi in a letter to Democratic colleagues this afternoon commends lawmakers - including lead impeachment manager @RepRaskin for "defending the Constitution." She also notes reps are still at work thru House on covid relief + passing Biden's rescue plan.

A note: Senior aides to impeachment managers this morning as well as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have said there will be new evidence admitted at trial.

We will be underway shortly. Impeachment managers are now walking toward the Senate, led by @RepRaskin.

In addition to @RepRaskin, the roster of House impeachment managers includes: @RepDianaDeGette, @davidcicilline, @JoaquinCastrotx @RepSwalwell, @tedlieu, @StaceyPlaskett, @RepDean and @RepJoeNeguse.

And now, the Senate has convened for debate and we hear a prayer from the Senate chaplain Rear Adm. Barry Black. "Could it really be just truth striving against falsehood and good striving against evil?"

A pledge of allegiance follows and off we go.
@CourthouseNews

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont presides over the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

Leahy notes the presence of impeachment managers as well as attorneys for Trump. Majority Leader @SenSchumer speaks next and says he will begin by governing the structure of the trial.
House mgrs have agreed, along with Trump's team, that rules are bipartisan.

S. Res 47, adopting the rules of trial, comes up to a vote.

Votes were all "ayes" at a clip until Sen. Hawley voted against the organizing rules for the trial. Sen Johnson also votes no. Sen. Lee also votes against adopting rules for trial. Sen. Marshall votes against. Former Sen Major Leader McConnell votes in favor.
@CourthouseNews

Sen. Paul of KY also votes against adopting rules. Sen. Rubio joins him. Sen. Sasse votes for it. Sen. Scott (FL) is a no. Sen. Scott of SC also a no to adopt rules for trial.
@CourthouseNews

Sen. Tillis, Toomey, vote in favor of adopting rules. Sen. Tuberville votes against.
New to the Senate, Senator Warnock casts his vote in favor of adopting rules.

NOW: S. Res 47 adopting the rules of trial for former President Donald Trump's impeachment for incitement of insurrection is passed: 89-11.
@CourthouseNews

. @RepRaskin will now proceed to debate on the constitutionality of Trump's impeachment for his incitement of insurrection on Jan. 6.
He represents MD's 8th; and serves as the lead manager. He's a prof. of constitutional law for 30 years.

He says "please breathe easy" to those who dread that we will hear extended lectures on the Federalist papers.
"Our case is based on cold hard facts. It's all about the facts," @RepRaskin says.
@CourthouseNews

"They want to call the trial over before any evidence is even introduced. Their argument is if you commit an impeachable offense in your last few weeks in office, you do it with constitutional impunity."

There is no January exception, Raskin notes, offering this stark visual:

The 'January exception' is an invitation to our founder's worst nightmare. If we buy this radical argument that President Trump's lawyers advance, we risk allowing Jan. 6 to become our future. - @RepRaskin

Raskin plays first a snippet of the speech from Trump, where he says he will "be with" supporters as they "go down to the Capitol." Footage from rioters breaching barricades as lawmakers are inside counting votes is shown.

We see footage from Jan 6 as lawmakers walk into the Senate. Then clips of those outside saying things like: "We outnumber you a million to one out here" and "Fuck these pigs" "Let us in" and "There's much more coming"

"We fight and we fight like hell & if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore," Trump says in a clip from his speech the morning of Jan. 6.
Then, footage of rioters clashing with police and insurrectionists shouting "Get the fuck out of her traitors"

Footage of Mitch McConnell's remarks during the count are played. They were powerful rebukes of Trump, effectively dubbing his claims of election fraud conspiracy theory. We see footage of gallows erected, large crosses with Trump flags hoisted to them outside the Capitol.

In a chilling clip, we hear the banging of the entryway by insurrectionists from inside the Capitol. And now footage of Capitol police Officer Eugene Goodman who led the mob away from senators on the floor. They shouted at Goodman: "Are you gonna beat us all?"

We see the clip of Lankford being alerted by an aide that protesters are in the building as the certification of votes is disrupted.

We see footage of rioters carrying American flags, Trump flags, some masked, many not, shouting "Fuck the blue" as they scale the marble facade of the U.S. Capitol.
Rioters heard saying "We're listening to Trump"

Trump sends a tweet that Pence is a traitor and then we see clips of rioters screaming "Traitor Pence" others chanting "stop the steal." Footage of the breach of the House from inside as House reps are evacuated and insurrectionists heard saying "they're leaving."

The footage of veteran Ashli Babbitt being shot by police as she forced entry through the speaker's lobby is played. Babbitt died shortly after.

"That's what we need to have, 30,000 fucking guns up here," one rioter is heard saying in this now minutes long segment of graphic footage from the siege.
We also see clips of rioters screaming "No Trump, no peace."
@CourthouseNews

We see the footage of the police officer being crushed in the door, screaming brutally, as the insurrectionists scream "heave, ho" and push against the door in a wave of bodies.
Then chants of "fight for Trump."

I remind you, this was a month and three days ago.

Two hours pass. Trump finally releases a video "I know how you feel... but go home and go home in peace"

We see the continued clashing outside of the Capitol, police officers beaten with American flags and calls to "mobilize in your own cities, storm your own capitols"

After all of that, Trump tweets:

Raskin: Even if the evidence proves he incited a violent insurrection on the day congress met to finalize the election, he would have you believe there is nothing the Senate can do about it. No trial, no facts. He wants you to decide that the senate is powerless at that point.

Raskin: That can't be right.

"The transition of power is always the most dangerous moment for democracies, any historian will tell you that. We saw it in the most astonishing way. We lived through it.

The framers knew of this risk, Raskin adds.

"That's why the oath for president binds him from his first day to his very last and every in between, that the President of the United States is forbidden to commit high crimes and misdemeanors at any point that he is in office." - @RepRaskin
@CourthouseNews

Now onto the constitutionality argument. There's no secret January exception hidden away in the Constitution, Raskin says and then he notes: "Every impeachment in the framers lifetime occurred with former officials."

Early state constitutions also supported the idea of former officials being eligible for impeachment. Departure from that norm would have been a big deal and yet there's no sign anywhere that happened, Raskin continues.

Raskin cites the standard of the time, the accepted understanding that former officials can be impeached by quoting William Davie.
Then: "President Trump may not know a lot about the framers, but they sure knew about him," Raskin says.
@CourthouseNews

Raskin turns floor over to @RepJoeNeguse, an attorney before being elected. He thanks Raskin for his constitutional insight, but Neguse notes, you don't have to be a scholar to reach the conclusion that escaping congressional response is not what was intended by Constitution.

Neguse going down the list of former officials who were impeached, including William Belknap, former secy of war, who resigned to avoid inquiry into his conduct and to avoid being disqualified from holding future office. The House was alerted to this and went fwd to impeach him.

Neguse, speaking to today's senators, says in the past, senators of old were outraged when the argument that former officials could not be impeached was presented.
The Belknap case is a clear precedent that the senate must proceed with this trial.

Belknap wasn't convicted but a thorough public inquiry into his wrongdoing was had and this ensured his accountability and also deterred anyone else from considering such corruption "The trial served important constitutional purposes," Neguse continues.

And unlike Belknap, Trump wasn't impeached for run of the mill corruption, misconduct, Neguse says. "He was impeached for incitement of insurrection"
A violent insurrection. Where people died.

Neguse cites Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Michael McConnell to bolster constitutionality argument. He also cites the WSJ piece from prominent Republican atty Chuck Cooper: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution-doesnt-bar-trumps-impeachment-trial-11612724124

. @JonathanTurley who defended Trump's actions during his first impeachment has written on the subject of legitimacy to impeach former officials, Neguse highlights this, citing Turley's own work. "I agree with him," Neguse says of Turley.

Small break from live-tweeting as I prepare to update my report for @CourthouseNews