I'm seeing an interesting but unfortunate phenomenon repeat itself here re: impeachment

[StarfishSaver]

Prior to Trump's first impeachment, some people here pushing for it resisted cautions that impeachment would not lead to his removal, arguing that it didn't matter that he wouldn't be convicted - he needed to be impeached to make a point.

But when he was impeached, there was a lot of second-guessing during and after the trial about how it was conducted because it didn't result in a conviction. I remember all kinds of criticisms about the Democrats'
strategy regarding choice of wrongdoing to charge, witnesses, subpoenas, arguments, etc The hindsight assumption among some here seemed to be that if the Democrats had done it differently, they could have removed Trump from office, although there was never a chance that would happen.

I'm seeing the same thing happen now with the second impeachment. Many people hammered the Democrats to impeach Trump last month, even If he was on his way out of office. The Democrats did that. Then some people harshly criticized Pelosi and Schumer for not forcing a trial before he left office, resisting all arguments that it couldn't be done and even if it could the Republican Senate would dispose of it with barely a whisper. "Do it anyway! It can't wait! He needs to be held accountable now!"

But now that we're in the middle of the trial, there is a lot of second guessing about Democrats choices of how to conduct the trial - people are complaining about a lack of witnesses, arguments, why aren't the Democrats harshly penalizing Republicans for not paying close enough attention or meeting with the defense counsel, etc. - as If the Democrats could force a conviction if they only did things differently, i.e., better.

This looks to me like a lot of moving of the goalposts, similar to what occurred during and after the first impeachment. We've known all along that, while it's possible, a conviction is highly unlikely and there's little the Democrats can do to get one. And just as the pre-impeachment argument was that a conviction is not necessarily the goal but impeachment and trial are necessary to put Trump's wrongdoing on the record for history, that is still an important and monumental outcome of this proceeding, whether or not conviction occurs.

The impeachment isn't and never has been the penultimate punishment of Trump. The civil and criminal justice systems will address that. The impeachment and Senate trial serve a different purpose - and the Democrats have performed that duty exquisitely.

I hope people will keep their eyes on the ball and on history as this continues to move forward.

[servermsh]

1. No moving goalposts from me. I've consistently said Dems should have formed a committee.

IMHO, Democrats should have continued normal business in the full Senate while running an impeachment committee. The committee could have subpoenaed witnesses on what Trump was doing during the insurrection. It would have been blockbuster TV coverage.

The House Managers have done a fantastic job. The information they had was very well presented. But the crucial phase of Trump's behavior during the insurrection was only glimpsed, because there were no witnesses.

The point is to do as much damage to Republicans as possible. A months-long impeachment committee process would have done that.

Hopefully a commission is formed to study everything in detail, including having witness testimony.

[DonaldsRump]

4. That's a good point

It would be great if the Senate, after trump's shills present his "case", decides to hold up on the trial pending further investigation. I doubt that will happen.

I totally agree that keeping this in the public's eyes is good for Ds and bad for Rs. But there needs to be a specific link between trump and the violence (for example, he paid the Proud Boys to storm the Capitol etc) for a conviction, either for impeachment or criminally.

trump is going to be facing criminal exposure on several fronts, so this is not the end at all.

[wiggs]

41. I'd like to think that dems and some gop in congress are doing what they need to do as

the nation's representatives fulfilling their duties. The media loves the 'Ds' v 'Rs' angle but I think there is a contingent of reps who are pursuing their obligation to justice, transparency, truth, and the law for inherent righteousness and not for political gain.

Tired of pundits and journalists looking at actions of dems purely in the light of political motivation.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Why do you think the Senate committees won't conduct investigations?

Impeachment is one specific thing. It doesn't foreclose further investigations, which will surely be forthcoming.

But also, there is no such thing as an "Impeachment committee." When articles of impeachment are transmitted from the House, the Senate has to immediately begin a trial run by the House managers.

The Senate can conduct in depth hearings on this moving forward. But impeachment is a very different process.

[servermsh]

31. Impeachment Rule XI allows for an impeachment committee to take evidence

After the Republicans vote to acquit in the Senate, further investigations won't have the same impact in the media.

They could have instead run a committee to take evidence.

Impeachment Rule XI allows the Senate to create trial committees to hear and consider evidence and report it to the Senate. Such committees were not intended to be used for presidential impeachments, but four of the six impeachment trials completed since 1936 concerned federal judges, and in each of these cases the Senate established a trial committee

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46185#

[StarfishSaver]

38. I stand corrected on the rule

But had they done that, people would have complained about why they were taking so long. There would be pressure to hurry up, wrap it up, etc. Moreover, it could step all over and interfere with the FBI and other law enforcement investigations, which are still in their early stages and very sensitive. And it wouldn't make any difference at all in getting a conviction of Trump - the outcome would be the same.

I have no doubt the Senate and House managers considered all of their options and determined this was the best course of action. It's not like they're winging it. I trust their judgment.

Once they finish impeachment, they can conduct hearings and investigations that are in-depth and thorough and not conducted under the pressure of moving an impeachment forward.

[Demsrule86]

53. I hope they don't. We need to get stuff done by 22 or we are going to lose.

Have 911 style committees outside of Congress. We are going to lose if we keep investigating. Run ads in 22.

[DonaldsRump]

2. Excellent post. Right on the mark.

I've written elsewhere that having direct evidence tying the violence to trump might be the one way he could be convicted. If that evidence is not available for whatever reason, the House Managers did an AMAZING job creating a permanent record for us and future generations to forever see.

I sincerely doubt that for the vast number of American voters that the Capitol Insurrection makes them want to rush out and vote for Republicans.

Impeachment and conviction can take many forms. And the criminal trials (e.g., in Fulton County, Georgia) haven't even started.

[betsuni]

3. K&R

[greatauntoftriplets]

5. K&R

The fact that he was impeached twice will follow him forever. It'll even be featured prominently in his obituary.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Well said

Though tactics can and will always be argued about, because no victory is ever assured and there are always multiple options for how best to seek one, Democrats have risen to the moment, and history will note their courage, skill, and resolve in not shirking from their duty to uphold our constitution. Not one word has been minced in exposing the ongoing threat Trump poses to our democracy. I am so proud to be a Democrat today.

[bullwinkle428]

7. His despicable behavior needed to be etched in granite for all of history

to witness, and I think this impeachment accomplished that in an extremely effective way. People could come up with 100 different ways that things could have been done, but they'll also need to show how any of those things would have swung cretins like Cruz and Hawley.

[Demsrule86]

54. Sure but the follow up could be ...they win in 22 or 24 or both. We need to show we can govern.

[SlogginThroughIt]

8. When you say...

When you say some people did this and some people then did that... How do you know those people are the same people?

[niyad]

16. Where was that stated or implied?

[SlogginThroughIt]

25. I the first and second paragraphs.

I don’t think you are wrong at all. But I don’t know that it is the same people saying one thing first and then a other after.

[Boomer]

37. Exactly!

I'm really tired of the "some people say..." mantra. Whether it's Trump or a Democrat who uses that phrase, it obscures more than it enlightens.

[Wounded Bear]

9. Monday Morning quarterbacking is not just a thing in sports...

[Maeve]

10. His first impeachment trial had a bipartisan vote to convict

This one will likely be even more so---it won't just be Mitt voting with us (or should I say, voting with the US).

And I can't wait to see what pain is coming to the courts for the shit-gibbon next!

[rainin]

11. I don't understand why they're not telling the stories of the injured police.

Every last one of them! Destroy the idea that trump supporters back the blue! Also, tell the stories of the traumatized staff. And tell the stories of the ones who have since realized that trump lied and they're headed to prison. Stories stories stories sell. They had time. I'm confused why they didn't use these powerful stories

[ancianita]

18. And who are "they"? There's YouTube videos of Plaskett, Cicillene and Castro doing just that.

There is plenty being seen that can't be re-created as effectively in print.
MSNBC re-ran House Managers' footage of Capitol Police radio and tv footage.

[rainin]

49. House Managers. They've chosen to not have witnesses, but they could still tell

the very personal stories of the Capital Police.

[ancianita]

50. They interviewed two on camera, the one who suffered a heart attack after being tased, and

another who described the hours of battling without outside assistance. They presented both of those during the trial.

The whole idea that they didn't give proportional attention to police suffering is a bit off, anyway, since this isn't all about all the suffering; this is about the suffering brought about by a high crime and misdemeanor, lest the results get mistaken for the cause.

[StarfishSaver]

59. Exactly

This isn't like the penalty phase of a trial in which there is witness impact testimony after guilt is proven in order to decide the extent of the penalty. This is about proving his guilt, not that his bad behavior hurt people. We know that. There's only one penalty that can come of it, so the depth of the damage is not really that relevant.

[ancianita]

60. ...

Glad you saw my point.
House managers gave properly proportional attention to every aspect of the impeachment charge.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. Not true! Again, accusing other Dems of things that aren't true.

[gab13by13]

15. I totally agree,

I am not seeing what Starfishsaver is seeing. It was common sense to wait to send the impeachment to the Senate and there were few people who wanted it rushed over. This is the second post pushing this narrative, why, what's the point if a few people did want to send it over sooner?

The 1st impeachment was much more complicated and we have yet to see the entire Mueller report. Bill Barr put the kibosh to the 1st impeachment.

The 2nd impeachment is right out there in the open for people to easily understand, not complicated at all and the managers did a fantastic job and that is what we should be talking about. We should be talking about how iron clad the case for conviction is. We should be talking about how Senators have a choice to vote for democracy or to vote for authoritarianism or for Nihilism or whatever Trumpism is called.

I say great job House Democrats and great job House managers in showing beyond the shadow of a doubt how guilty Trump is of high crimes and misdemeanors. Job well done. GQP Senators who vote to acquit should be shamed and we should push to shame the people and corporations who are funding them.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

20. Applaud your free thinking! There's some kind of irony in

Disparaging people for thinking people were disparaging people!

[MFGsunny]

13. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! to you, Tom and to SS.

Enough with our own magical thinking that is so destructive.

Enough with letting the perfect get in the way of the good.

Enough with the shifting sands of moving goal posts.

Enough with throwing in the towel and walking off the field before the last whistle blows that game time is over.

Enough with shoulda, coulda, woulda.

What? We didn't know a priori who all the snaky players were in either the first or second impeachment trials?

LETS KEEP OUR EYES ON THE STARS AND OUR FEET ON THE GROUND.

[SheltieLover]

14. Very well stated!

Goal posts do not move in my world!

This needed to happen as it brings fresh information to the fore in a very public manner.

Qpube senators who refuse to convict are, no doubt, coconspirators. Investigate & vigorously prosecute!

[lagomorph777]

17. I am immensely proud of how our Dems have been handling this process.

They have clearly used every available minute to prepare an extremely compelling case.

Though they probably won't convict Ex-President Turd, the GQP will convict themselves. The public now knows, in graphic detail, just what these traitors are voting for.

[niyad]

19. KNR, with deepest thanks.

[flibbitygiblets]

22. It. IS. True.

I’ve read such things on DU many times (including in this thread).

Healthy questions meant to improve our chances of success aren’t necessarily a bad thing, generally speaking.

But with the current zombie Republican Party, thinking we would have a different outcome if “we’d only _____” is probably counterproductive.

Our side did a great job in both impeachment trials. In a sane world, it would be MORE than enough.

[StarfishSaver]

24. And it goes beyond "if only"

There have been numerous disparaging comments, including posts calling Democrats "stupid" for not doing certain things, bemoaning that "they don't understand what we're up against," "if Democrats knew what they're doing, they'd" etc.

It's tiresome.

[ancianita]

61. It's tiresome, indeed.

[Politicub]

23. Well, DU is a forum. And by its nature, people discuss things as new

ideas come to mind.

Your observation applies to almost any topic.

None of us have control over the process taking place, but we do have ideas and opinions. And some of those thoughts deal with how a poster would have approached things differently.

Imagine if someone could create a treatment that would alleviate reliving the past or feeling tormented by past decisions. It would change the human condition. Ruminating about the past and fretting about present reality keep many a person on the therapist’s couch.

[SlogginThroughIt]

27. Agreed.

This is what I was trying to get at in my post above.

[StarfishSaver]

29. There's a difference between "I think they should have" and "It was stupid of them not to"

or my (not) favorite ""The Democrats need to understand x, y or z" ...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

43. Oops, forgot and " neither is acceptable"

[zaj]

26. There is no pending election and this case involved murder on camera

The waivering is natural and is about walking the line to ensure electoral victory. That's not very debatable here.

[PatrickforO]

28. There is a huge difference between the last impeachment and this one, though.

Given what I know about Russian hacking, and suspect (strongly almost to certainty) about Trump's subservience to Putin, the last impeachment was almost as serious to national security as this one, but it didn't play like that. Our people did a good job with that one too, but it was too easy for the right-wing noise machine to minimize the crime, too easy for Republicans to use ready-made talking points and whataboutism to sway opinion, too easy for them to scoff.

This time, scoffing is much more difficult. Oh, we already see the talking points they are coming up with, but the damage has been done. Our people presented a rock-solid, compelling, gripping, and horrifying case against Donald Trump.

It is a given that the Senate will acquit him because there are too many cowards among the Republicans. Cowards like Graham, or true believers like Cruz, Hawley, and Gosar.

I do believe, though, that there will be several Republicans, maybe even five or more, who will vote to convict. The Republicans are rapidly losing what the ancient Zhou Dynasty in China called the 'mandate of heaven.' People are leaving them in droves.

And look at the job Joe Biden is doing!

Talk about a steady, decent, hard working, trustworthy president! Two million people got the vaccine yesterday - Biden has surpassed his million-a-day goal - doubling the results after only 22 days in office. Talk about kicking butt! Give him another 80 days, and people will begin calling him 'transformative.'

I'm optimistic.

[StarfishSaver]

30. Yes!

We need to remember that while the Democrats are certainly going for and hoping to get a conviction, that's not the sole purpose of this and falling short of conviction isn't a failure. In fact, the Democrats have already achieved a huge victory and made a contribution that will forever resonate through the ages.

Disqualification is not the only way to hold Trump accountable. This entire process has done that beautifully.

[WestMichRad]

32. Well stated. Also...

I think what we're seeing is that impeachment is an insufficient constitutional remedy for holding the President accountable. It doesn't work when corruption has infiltrated the government as deeply as is currently the case.

Don't know what the remedy for this might be. Allowing conviction of an impeached officer with a mere majority of Senators would enable abuse of this mechanism.

[IronLionZion]

33. People don't know how the process works

and there is rampant speculation, assumptions, and misinformation shared online.

67 Senate votes are required for conviction. Republicans are the shitstains of America and won't vote to convict. So here we are.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

34. Well said. Both impeachments and trials were necessary and

the Democratic prosecutors presented their cases expertly in both instances, leaving no reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty, in both trials.

Democrats did exactly what is called for under the Constitution - impeaching Trump, and putting him on trial because of his criminal behavior, with the intention of guarding the people from tyrannical abuse of power by a President.

"Democrats have performed that duty exquisitely."

[FakeNoose]

35. So right! A lot of us aren't lawyers

... but that doesn't stop us from voicing our opinions.

StarfishSaver of course you are right. This impeachment trial is the Democratic leaders' chance to lay the groundwork for all the charges against Chump that will come out later. There's still so much to be investigated, and later criminal trials will have far more meaningful outcomes.

Thanks for your input, as always!

[wiggs]

39. Agree, just the beginning of exploration of this issue. Many trials of conspirators to come, much

information still to surface about Jan 6. And Ukraine. And Russia. And Georgia. Ultimately...about SAE, Turkey, Qatar.

Dems did a wonderful job of doing their duty, which had to be done immediately. Probably necessarily given the timing, their efforts are not a complete airing of the event.

[mcar]

36. Never underestimate the great knowledge of the Constitution and Congress

that some on social media hold. Why, it's even greater than that of Constitutional Scholar Jamie Raskin!

I, too, remember that silliness during the first impeachment and yes, it's happening again.

I'm looking at these proceedings as the opening volley in the mid-term campaigns. The DNC and other entities are not going to let these immoral, unAmerican Republicans get away with their perfidy.

As angry as I am, this gives me some comfort.

[kentuck]

40. I think a lot of people think a "conviction" means he is going to jail...

And the Senate simply doesn't have the authority to put anyone in jail by impeachment.

[StarfishSaver]

42. The most that could happen is that he would be disqualified from running again

And even if that happens, you can bet that 1) it won't stop him from doing everything to be a dangerous pain in the ass short of actually running; and 2) he'll still claim to be running and will actually try.

So while conviction and disqualification have a nice ring to them, they aren't going to substantially reduce his ability to be a threat.

[kentuck]

44. And I'm not sure that would be best for Democrats.

I think it might be better if he does run? I doubt that he will have the support he had in the last election. I may be wrong but I believe he has lost a lot of Republican support and that he would be a much weaker candidate in 2024.

[StarfishSaver]

45. I will never say it's better if he runs

People said that in 2016, so sure that his running would help the Democrats and look what happened.

Anything can happen in politics and we could find ourselves once again in the position of watching him benefit from a perfect storm and having to reap whirlwind once again.

We can't ever let that man get anywhere near the White House again.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

52. He lost by 7 mil BEFORE January 6th. But don't you think GOP

might be screwed either way? The point is the millions of crazy supporter's votes. He can tell them who to vote for if he's on Mara Lago's golf course or on campaign trail? Unless he single handedly discovers a cure for cancer, he has doomed the GOP for a long time. Yay for us!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

46. Links ? Accusing people of expecting conviction? Not fair

to constantly accuse people of something without any proof. Don't remember anyone who was a proponent of impeaching the MF of saying if things had been different he would have been convicted. Interested in reading their arguments on that.


Sounds like a preemptive lobby because doubtful a conviction coming this go round.

[c-rational]

47. Well said StarfishSaver. We should all remember the Reagan rule - never criticize the people

on your team. we have it in the terms of service here on DU. we should remember to carry it a step further and be constructive in our statements regarding all things Democratic.

[AmyStrange]

48. +100000000000000000000000000000000 x 2

-

Well said
===========

[Demsrule86]

51. I was luke warm on impeachment both times. He was never getting convicted. I hope

enough folks were watching that at least they saw what he caused...and that he attempted a coup.

[rusty fender]

55. Why do you feel the need to chastise posters on

this board for criticizing the Dem’s impeachment strategy? We’ve been told again and again that no elected Democratic official pays attention to anything that is written on this board.

Let DUers have their say. Sheesh

P.S. I think that the House managers are doing an excellent job—I’m quite impressed

[DallasNE]

56. I Don't Believe Your Strawman Ever Existed Within The Ranks Of Democrats

They have always been where you are at, particularly with the 2nd impeachment. Trump is now in the ash heap of history. Republicans are starting to line up post Trump, witness the statement from NIkki Haley.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

62. Ditto

[angrychair]

57. More pessimistic

The civil and criminal justice systems will address that

Trump has been doing these things for decades, with little to no accountability and I don't see any evidence that is going to change.

We know he is "individual one". No arrest.

We were told there were 2 sealed indictments waiting for him. No arrest.

We know he was being investigated in NY. No civil penalties. No arrest.

He ran a false charity. Nothing.

He ran a false school. Nothing.

Anyone that challenges him end up in an endless hell. Constant death threats and his followers digging up dirt and attacking them relentlessly in the press.

I just don't have a lot of hope that anyone will actually do anything that matters.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

63. That is exactly spot on AC!!! Why are these jurisdictions

not pursuing some of his crime?

You made me think about his crimes before prez. He got away with everything. And he kept on going minute one. If he was gonna be stopped he would have had to have been stopped on Jan 2017. With swift and unilateral justice. "Sorry MF federal government is different than trump org"

I always like it to a child taking money out of mom's purse every day for a year and then the mom finally punishes him.

[LizBeth]

58. Right. I have seen the same. Yes, I noticed that.

[Hekate]

65. KnR