Actually, the title of this post should perhaps be "The Never-Ending Impeachment of Donald Trump." The talk of impeachment began before Trump was even the Republican nominee in 2016. It continued throughout his presidency, and continued after he left office. Here is Politico from April 17, 2016: "Donald Trump isn't even the Republican nominee yet. But his incendiary rhetoric has critics on the right and the left discussing the most extreme of countermeasures at an unusually early point in the race. 'Impeachment' is already on the lips of pundits, newspapers editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress."
At a pro-abortion rally in front of the US Supreme Court building, while the Court was hearing an abortion rights case, this was Chuck Schumer riling up the crowd: "I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions." So a Democrat is allowed to directly threaten two sitting Supreme Court Justices by name, with no consequence whatsoever. Schumer's incendiary rhetoric, attacking a co-equal and independent branch of government, the independent judiciary, warranted this rare rebuke by the Chief Justice: "...threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous."
So, for Schumer's incendiary rhetoric, his incitement, was there an impeachment? No. Was there a censure even? No. Here is an important lesson from a recent guest on the Dennis Prager radio show. A young woman, I believe 20 years of age, was raised by her left-wing mother, as her parents divorced when she was young. The young girl got involved in her mother's left-wing political organization. However, in her teenage years she became a conservative, and worked for conservative causes. Her mother, while expressing her support for her daughter, added that she would have preferred that her daughter was working for good instead of evil. There you have it. That is why Schumer was not to be punished. If you are a Democrat/left-wing, you are by definition good. If you are a Republican/conservative, you are by definition evil. The "good" can do no wrong; the "evil" can do no good.
The current Article of Impeachment is for "incitement to insurrection." Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally on January 6, was where he allegedly incited an insurrection. I am not going to get into whether or not what we saw was an insurrection or a riot or a protest run amok. I will say there was not $2 billion worth of damage, as there was in the riots across the country last summer. In any event, did Trump intend a violent assault on the Capitol, or did he intend to have his supporters show their support for the members of Congress contesting electoral college votes?
Here is what Trump said: "Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy...we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave Senators and Congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them...We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated...I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." You decide what Trump intended. I only see support for those in Congress contesting the electoral college vote. But Schumer's words can only be interpreted as threatening two sitting Supreme Court Justices: "you will pay the price...you won't know what hit you."
The lead House Manager, Jamie Raskin (D-Md), was incensed that the Republicans in the Senate brought a motion that the impeachment of a civilian no longer in office was unconstitutional, which would have ended the proceedings before any arguments on the merits of the issue of 'incitement' were made. Raskin: "They (Republicans) want to call the trial over before any evidence is even introduced." I nearly choked on the hypocrisy. Evidence? He wanted evidence? Did he, as a member of the House, seek to have the matter referred to the House Judiciary Committee first before the entire House voted? No. Did he insist on the same due process and evidence gathering that he said he wanted the Senate to do? No. The same due process and evidence gathering by the House Judiciary Committee given to Nixon, Clinton and Trump in his first impeachment proceeding. No, Raskin was happy to have a rushed, emotional vote with zero evidence gathering.
Raskin, as a House member, objected to the counting of the electoral college votes from Florida in 2016. He used this expression, which when said by Trump was incitement: "fight like hell." Remember, as a Democrat, Raskin is by definition good. Therefore when he said what Trump said, it does not count.
The Democrats believed they would win by appealing to the emotions of the Senators when they played a lengthy video of the protesters breaking into the Capitol. Here is writer Peter Baker: "Some current and former Senators struggled to regain their composure after watching, which was exactly the reaction that the Managers were trying to generate." Which is why I would have objected to the showing of the video, as any probative value was clearly outweighed by the prejudicial impact on the jurors/Senators. (California Evidence Code Section 352, Federal Rule of Evidence 403.)
However, the playing of the video did allow Trump's attorneys to play numerous videos of Democrats using inciting and incendiary language. Virtually all politicians say they are going to "fight" or "fight like hell." Then, there was Schumer's threat made to the two Supreme Court Justices.
I have previously discussed how disturbing the images were of the US Capitol under attack. I have already written in earlier posts that after the lawsuits failed and the electoral college voted, Trump should have conceded. He didn't. But he is not alone. Here is Nancy Pelosi in May, 2017: "Our election (in 2016) was hijacked. There is no question." And here is Hillary Clinton in October, 2020, 4 years after the election she lost to Trump: "There was a widespread understanding that this election (2016) was not on the level." But remember, challenging the integrity of an election is only a threat to democracy if a Republican does it. If a Democrat does it, nothing to see...just move along.
After hearing the arguments from both sides, it appeared that the Senate was set to vote. But then the House Managers said they wanted witnesses. Trump's attorneys said fine, we would like to call Pelosi and Kamala Harris. Suddenly, there was an agreement that there would be no witnesses. If I had to guess, lead House Manager Raskin likely received a call or text from Pelosi to this effect: "The hell I'm going to testify. End it!" Just a guess. The Senate then voted. The vote was 57 to 43. Seven Republicans voted with all 50 Democrats to convict. But it takes two-thirds (67) to convict, so Trump was acquitted.
But there is an important point here. Every time I heard a discussion on TV or the radio, every single commentator said that 17 Republican votes were needed to convict Trump. Why? Why did everyone assume/know that all 50 Democratic Senators would vote as a block? Why did they think not a single Democrat might look at the impeachment of a civilian as unconstitutional? Why did these commentators not think that a few Democrats might see Trump's words as no worse than, and possibly not even as bad, as Schumer's and others?
AOL reported that well over 100 former Republican officials (clearly, all "never Trumpers") were talking about starting a third party. These are people from the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Trump administrations. The new party would be a center/right party, and would endorse center/right candidates whether Republican or Democrat or Independent. I cannot imagine a more foolish endeavor. The end result would be dividing the Republican party, ensuring Democratic victory in elections for years to come. And they are living in a dream world if they believe so-called center/right Democrats will not vote with their party. They have repeatedly proved they will. Witness today's impeachment vote, when everyone knew how every Democrat would vote.
