Read on Twitter
Right now, @RepRaskin is vindicating the best of our Founders' ideals. It is exquisite lawyering. Perfect, sober, balanced.
A "January exception" to our impeachment clause is "an invitation to our founders' worst nightmare," etc.
Pitch perfect opening.
A "January exception" to our impeachment clause is "an invitation to our founders' worst nightmare," etc.
Pitch perfect opening.
And a devastating video. Brings tears to my eyes to watch this footage. I had repressed that last, horrible, tweet from Trump 4 hours after the attack.
So glad to hear @RepJoeNeguse making the Michael McConnell point--even if you think former officers can't be impeached, Trump wasn't a former. He was impeached *while* President. And so glad to hear him point out that Trump's lawyers didn't even respond to it in their briefing.
Huge props to @JoshuaMatz8 and the other staff who have put together such a compelling constitutional argument--focusing on text, history, and structure. This is how Constitutional Law should be done. And Biden should snap Matz up after this is over.
This powerful speech by @RepRaskin will be remembered in history. We are watching it being made.
The argument by @RepRaskin may well be the most compelling oral argument I've ever seen. My god.
Interesting that Trump's lawyers begin by calling the events of January 6 repugnant and that they won't defend any of it. That's precisely what Trump didn't say on January 6. Quite an easy mark for House Managers to hit back on.
The level of skill between the two legal teams is striking. Trump lawyers begin with a bizarre claim that the "heat of passion" defense in the law--which is about when husbands used to find their wives cheating on them and killed them-explains the passions in the Chamber. Um no.
16 hours of this???
ok, I just heard one of the more idiotic points I've ever heard in the law. Trump lawyer says we can't look to English precedent because we had a Revolution. Literally every one of the 115 Justices to have ever served on the Supreme Court would disagree. This is embarrassing.
Of course, sometimes English precedent doesn't apply because of our Constl design. But our Founders most certainly looked to English traditions for all sorts of things--sometimes they deviated, sometimes they embraced. For impeachment, they obviously embraced as Phil.Debates show
It's gonna be a long week.
So far we are half an hour in, and I haven't heard an actual argument. I have learned about toasters and honorific titles and all sorts of things.
In all my cases, I've noticed that folks who are confident in their legal argument dive right in. Others meander. This argument gives meandering a new meaning. He's not even bothered to try to make his arg about former officers, respond to Judge McConnell, Chuck Cooper, etc.
This is a really weird argument: Ds impeached trump because they are afraid of facing him in 2024. Good luck with that one. His own argument is self-defeating, as Trump just lost. Might it be, instead, that he is actually being tried because he fomented an attack on the Capitol?
One interesting thing about the House Manager's presentation: I was surprised it didn't begin with Gabriel Sterling's December 1 warning to Trump that someone will get shot and killed. That puts so much of Trump's stmts and actions in context. Perhaps saving that for tmrw.
Now Trump's lawyer is arguing b/c Trump hasn't been prosecuted for Jan. 6, he can't be impeached. That's backwards. All sorts of things are impeachable whether or not they are crimes. And if I were Trump's lawyer, I'd be very careful about this arg, as his cronies not at DOJ now
It can't be that Trump
a) can't be impeached for Ukraine because America should wait for the election;
b) can't be impeached for January 6 because he will soon be out of office;
c) cannot be prosecuted while he's a sitting President; AND
d) cannot be prosecuted afterwards...
a) can't be impeached for Ukraine because America should wait for the election;
b) can't be impeached for January 6 because he will soon be out of office;
c) cannot be prosecuted while he's a sitting President; AND
d) cannot be prosecuted afterwards...
...for his actions while President
At some point, Trump must face a real tribunal. For every right, there is a remedy
Laced into our constl system of separation of powers is this core idea–you can’t just precipitate an attack on a coordinate branch of govt&go retire to Florida
At some point, Trump must face a real tribunal. For every right, there is a remedy
Laced into our constl system of separation of powers is this core idea–you can’t just precipitate an attack on a coordinate branch of govt&go retire to Florida
If you are interested in the history of impeachment, etc, @SammyKoppelman and I wrote this book about it all, pegged to the first impeachment but lots of relevant history etc about what impeachment all about. https://www.amazon.com/Impeach-Case-Against-Donald-Trump/dp/0358391172
OK, they may have topped their ridiculous English history argument from an hour ago with the claim that this is a Bill of Attainder. OMG. Next they'll claim this trial violates the Quartering Clause of the Third Amendment.
I might have missed it, but have Trump's lawyers really responded to the main argument of the House managers, which is that Trump was not a former official when he was impeached and when he acted? (The Judge Michael McConnell argument). We are almost 2 hours in.
