Impeachment Trial Day 5: And Then Things Got Interesting, Live Stream, Open Thread
Editor’s Note: All updates will appear beneath the live stream feed to keep the page clean as the day goes on
UPDATE: It is done, and Donald Trump was again acquitted. The vote was 57-43, with 67 needed to convict. Republicans Senators Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, and Toomey voted to convict.
Original Post
Well, today was supposed to be the winding down of the Second Impeachment Trial, but then some things went down…namely, the Senate has voted to consider motions for calling witnesses.
First of all, a bit of laughter at the expense of Michael van der Veen:
WATCH: Laughter breaks out in the Senate Chamber after Trump attorney Michael van der Veen insists that any impeachment trial depositions should be done in person in his office in Philadelphia
"I don't know why you're laughing," he says https://t.co/3HfaYxaxQC pic.twitter.com/5DnCaTWJvF
— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 13, 2021
Now to the news of the day:
BREAKING: Senate votes 55-45 to allow witnesses and more evidence for Trump impeachment case, slowing the progression of a trial that could have concluded Saturday. Five Republicans voted yes, including Lindsey Graham, who switched from an initial no vote https://t.co/3HfaYxaxQC pic.twitter.com/flGv46j7AX
— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 13, 2021
So what changed? This:
A Republican from Washington state who was one of 10 GOP House members who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump late Friday urged people with knowledge of conversations Trump had during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot to come forward.
Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler said in a statement House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told her he spoke with Trump as rioters were storming the Capitol. She said McCarthy asked Trump to publicly “call off the riot” and told Trump the violent mob were Trump supporters, not far-left antifa members.
Herrera Beutler has said McCarthy told her of a conversation: “He said to the President, ‘You’ve got to hold them. You need to get on TV right now, you need to get on Twitter, you need to call these people off.’ And he said, the President said, ‘Kevin, they’re not my people.’”
McCarthy told the president: “Yes they are, they just came through my windows and my staff is running for cover. Yeah, they’re your people. Call them off,” Herrera Beutler told local Washington media.
In a statement Friday, released via Twitter, Herrera Beutler said: “That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said: ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.’”
CNN reported Friday that Trump’s comment set off a shouting match between the two men. McCarthy, furious, said “Who the f–k do you think you are talking to!?” to the then-president.
Or, as our friend Nicholas Grossman summerizes:
Jamie Herrera Beutler single-handedly changed the impeachment trial with one public statement.
Few Members of Congress have ever done something like that. And she was under a lot of pressure from her party not to.— Nicholas Grossman (@NGrossman81) February 13, 2021
AND..after all that the senate…doesn’t call a single witness. Wow:
The statement by Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler was entered into evidence in lieu of calling her as a witness without objection, and at the moment that seems to be the sudden end of witnesses being called in the Senate impeachment trial against former President Donald Trump. https://t.co/zM6Gq0LIoi
— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) February 13, 2021
Whether you're on the Left or the Right, if you're not morbidly laughing about one of the biggest YOLOs ever in Senate history being swiftly followed by one of the quickest walk backs of all time, then you do not have a sense of humor.
— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) February 13, 2021
I did not see witnesses coming, especially with Lady Lindsey voting in favor.
And Trump’s lawyers need to clue up quick or they may loose.Report
McCarthy, furious, said “Who the f–k do you think you are talking to!?” to the then-president.
McCarthy voted against impeachment, so evidently Trump knew perfectly well who he was talking to.Report
So, Democrats cave on their *their own* request to call witnesses. Infuriating. The best part is that Schumer’s political calculation trivializes Raskin and Neguese and the other House manager’s efforts as merely performative, which is what conservatives have been saying all along! Good job Democrats!Report
“The storyline just changed from “soulless Republicans acquit guilty Trump” to “cowardly Democrats abandon case” – Markos Moulitsas
He’s right. The Democrats are awful – just awful – at politics.Report
Instead of assuming that they’re failing, see where assuming that they’re succeeding gets you and see if that assumption gives more explanatory power for other things that are going on.Report
Schumer and the Senate leadership pressured House managers to not call witnesses *after* allowing House managers to put calling witnesses on the floor for a vote. A vote which Schumer himself voted “yes” on. There is no way to spin this incoherence and obvious incompetence into a positive.
If Schumer didn’t want to delay the rollout of the Biden agenda beyond today he should have not allowed the issue of witnesses to be voted on.Report
I’m no fan of schumer so if he F’d up that wouldn’t surprise me. I’m still not sure who they would call. Maybe there lots of people that would be informative, lots of of R’s that would lie. Who were they going to call? It’s not like we all don’t know the R’s aren’t going to rubber stamp coups. Maybe i’m wrong but who did you want them to call.Report
“I’m still not sure who they would call. ”
Schumer should have gamed that out *before* allowing the floor vote to have them, right? Instead, he demonstrated a mindboggling level of incompetence.Report
I’ve said schumer is bad for a while. That’s only because he is bad. He’s gotten rolled by the R’s before. Schumer needs to go. Pelosi gets some victories at least. Schumer…not really.
And again it’s not like witnesses would have changed the result. Trump is the guiltiest MF’r ever and was always going to get off. I dont’ know who all the witnesses would have been. I know there was talk about an R, Buetler i think, who put out a statement that looked bad for trump. Unfortunately what she heard was second hand from McCarthy who is as big lying partisan hack as any.Report
“And again it’s not like witnesses would have changed the result.”
greg, are you aware that it was *the Democrats* who pressed for and received an affirmative vote to allow witnesses?Report
Yes. Which makes me think A) schumer is bad B) R’s thought the D’s were bluffing and called it which leads back to A.Report
To add on, none of this would have changed the result or the reason they are there. If the D’s got this perfect nothing would have changed. That is the larger problem. Trump and the the R’s. Sure the D’s should do better. I have mentioned Schumer sucks but lets not get caught up with parliamentary hoo haa and checkers moves. Those are details.Report
“none of this would have changed the result ”
Gah!Report
So we’re agreed witnesses would have changed nothing. One problem we can fall into is focusing to much on what the “story” is and how does the politics play. That stuff matters to a degree, it’s also a great way to avoid the substance of any issue. It’s problem the D’s have fallen into over the years.Report
Exactly.
If the people who care about “optics” voted, neither Trump nor Biden would have ever been elected.Report
I think I’ll have to disagree with that Chip. Trumpism is almost entirely about optics.Report
“So we’re agreed witnesses would have changed nothing”
unrealReport
Still- then explain what i’m missing. I’m certainly not saying schumer did good. Is anybody anywhere saying witnesses would have changed the overall vote total. I haven’t defended how the D’s worked this today. I’ve heard people say the prosecution has done a good job but i haven’t watched. So they screwed up saturday. Tell me what i’m missing. Seems like mostly optics that doesn’t relate to the substance.
FWIW Ducklo resigned.Report
You’re not missing anything. The problem is what you’re *including*. Wrt the self inflicted SNAFU orchestrated by Dems this morning, whether witnesses matter or not is irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant. Yet you keep repeating it as if were exonerating. It isn’t.Report
So what is the big deal. The D’s F’d today. Fine, i didn’t defend that. Lots of potential 3 yard running plays early in the first quarter fail because of stupid errors. Hell they even look at the replay three times on how the guard ran into the QB and the running back dropped the ball. Didn’t matter a lot in the end.Report
Decisions about Schumer will come in the next several months. How much of Biden’s agenda can he deliver? The Covid relief package is going to be done under reconciliation. Can he keep his 50 votes in line? A monster infrastructure bill will probably be done under FY2022 reconciliation. Can he keep his 50 votes in line? The voting rights bill is going to be the big test.Report
One of the great mysteries to me, one that I’ve never seen any reporting on, is that Schumer, who’s consistently gotten his ass handed to him by McConnell, remains the SenDem leader. Absolutely baffling….
Oh, and re: the Biden Agenda: as far as I can tell it’s DOA and we’re already into Biden Agenda 2.0. (Also, the fact that he hasn’t fired Ducklo (yet?) is a pretty massive let down for people who hoped his promises of a better political culture were sincere.)Report
Seniority , friendships, loyalty, long standing allies. People have chosen ineffective leaders in all sorts of fields forever. Yes that sucks in this case and the D’s would be better to have new leadership. They should also ditch their love of seniority for higher level positions.
Biden will do some things through reconciliation, so we’ll get some things.Report
Tell me what you think he should have accomplished, that was possible, that didn’t get done.Report
They shouldn’t have voted on the witnesses issue, which until this morning everyone thought was already resolved. I don’t see it as quite the debacle Still seems to but it created a disappointment for no reason. Also took away a talking point.
My wife who is a real Democrat has been yelling at me about it all day. I assume she isn’t the only one unhappy with it.Report
She’s a procedure geek, which I am within reason. The House managers wanted a particular bit of testimony included. Schumer took the only option he had to force that. The Republican response was fine, we’ll stipulate it, and if you insist on calling witnesses after we’ve given you that we will tie this down for weeks/months because with 50/50 and Harris not presiding the witness door swings both ways. It’s all posturing anyway; between 40 and 45 Republicans were going to vote to acquit regardless.
Not procedure; not posturing; ask your wife the policy she thinks someone else would have done better than minority leader Schumer.
I have my own problems with Schumer. I think he ignores the fact that 19 of his current 50 floor votes come from the West and that he can count on them with impunity. I believe that over the next two years this will bite him (and Biden) unless Harris can convince them otherwise.Report
Why is tell the House managers ‘no, because we know we can’t convict and the GOP will use this against us’ not an option?
I know you’re joking about the procedure stuff but it’s hard for me to understand the excuse making for apparent failure to game things out in the most obvious way. What am I missing?Report
Ducklo has resigned. Gracefully! UNLIKE TRUMP!
Report
Biden Promise Kept!Report
Schumer is a lot more effective a politician than people give him credit for and has come along way since the aughts. But I guess we would not be Democrats unless we were anything but constantly worried our pols were blowing it.Report
And yet you continue to blindly defend a party that…oh, wait, you’re not blindly defending them. You may agree with their principles, and feel compelled to defend them against false attacks, but you’re not a mouthpiece at all. Therefore I, as an adult person in a conversation seeking the truth, will not attempt to blame you for things you don’t defend.Report
Meh. How many witnesses did they have to call that weren’t republican pols who would lie through their teeth. It’s not a criminal trial so no penalty for perjury. They don’t know what those pols would say, so you really shouldn’t call them. Other witnesses may not have wanted to cooperate. I’m not sure who there was to call. Maybe a few people but not sure how significant that would be.Report
That is untrue, it’s still in federal code that you cannot willfully lie to the government, and the senate certainly qualifies.Report
Didn’t know that. Still not sure how much R pols would fear punishment for stretching the truth, gilding the hell out of the lily or just forgetting.Report
To be fair to your point enforcement for lying to congress is not an evenly applied thing historically, so enforcement it is certainly an issue.Report
E.g. Clarence Thomas was confirmed after denying that he’d ever discussed Roe v. Wade with anyone, ever.Report
Well, its also in the federal code that you cannot incite a mob to assassinate the Vice President.*
It’s strictly forbidden! *
Against the law!*
No one is allowed to do it!*
*Exception: IOKIYARReport
greg, the Democrats wanted to allow witnesses, the Dems got a vote to allow witnesses, the vote was 55-45 to allow witnesses, then the Dems decided they didn’t want witnesses. All that happened *today*.Report
Quit criticizing the Democrats.
The Republicans are worse.Report
I mean, they absolutely are worse. And yet…Report
Clap louder.Report
{{Dems right now frantically trying to figure out how to blame not having witnesses on McConnell…}}Report
This latest development seems really confusing. When I saw we’d have witnesses I perked up thinking maybe there was an actual opening for conviction, or at least a greater chance than anyone thought possible. Either that or an opportunity to rub the GOPs face in some things that might be really embarassing for those in vulnerable seats. The attack ads write themselves. But then… we walk away and say oops just kidding?Report
How’s the timing of the witness stuff line up with McConnell’s memo that he’s going to vote to acquit on the constitutionality grounds?Report
I don’t understand why that would impact anything.Report
It was notice that the official party line is jurisdiction. No witnesses, no challenging the House management team’s case. Jurisdiction.
Want to bet how many Republican Senators are on the talking-head shows tomorrow morning claiming that jurisdiction tied their hands?Report
I guess I still don’t see how that changes the calculation. The understanding has been that there were not going to be enough votes for weeks. Why does the explanation matter? You’ve either decided that witnesses aren’t worth the time for a vote you’re going to lose or they are worth the time despite the fact that you’re going to lose. Even if you think there’s a small chance you might unexpectedly win you know the odds are stacked heavily against it. In all cases the calculation of whether it’s worth it should have been conclusively made this morning before the vote.Report
The House managers said they really wanted this testimony from a Republican included. Schumer said the only way that happens is if we can call them as a witness, and set that up. The Republicans then said they would stipulate that testimony, but if the witness process was started they would tie things up for weeks/months because Schumer couldn’t stop it. Schumer agreed to take the stipulation.
The calculation that needed to be made was by the House managers when Schumer told them that the only way they could force the testimony to be included was to go the whole calling-witnesses route. This is one of the very few points — maybe the only point — on which the House managers made a bad choice.Report
Well that was all very baffling.
While they entered Beutler’s testimony into the records… I can’t quite fathom the leverage R’s had that ended it at that. I’ll admit that today was the first time I’d heard her story… I think it’s not widely known and it’s the sort of thing that potentially moves the needle.
Add in some rioters turning on Trump and exposing the big lie? I think you see public opinion… which among R’s was already trending against Trump as leader of the party… possibly shift enough for other R’s to make a move.
I didn’t know they had Beutler who would go public about the call and Trump’s dereliction… pointing the finger squarely at McCarthy. I admit that I thought ‘witnesses’ were just going to be more Congressmen and staffers testifying how afraid they were – making the impeachment about them – and therefore rhetorically useless. But Beutler? That’s a thread you pull on.
I have no idea why Schumer doesn’t play that hand.Report
I don’t believe there’s a hand that gets to 17 GOP Senators. Which is why the vote to allow witnesses this morning was so surprising. I’m legitimately curious why they made that call when not doing so would have been completely consistent with what everyone was already expecting.
Now we’ve got Saul and Jesse down there talking about ‘Murc’s law’ but that’s doesn’t explain the reasoning and neither does Michael above.
Maybe all the Yeungling and Four Roses has dulled my mind but I can’t figure this out. Did they think they had something they didn’t? Was it a breakdown in communication with the Biden admin? Did Schumer owe a favor to someone in the House? I can’t tell but it does feel like an unfortunate inevitability has been turned into a let down.Report
Trump’s attorneys were waving a list of what they claimed were 301 witnesses they wanted to have testify if the Democrats persisted in calling for witnesses. It’s a reasonable bet that 299 of those witnesses would be Democratic politicians, getting grilled over “Now, Congressman, did you not, on September 12 of the year 2016 tell a group of your supporters in Spokane Washington that they should — QUOTE — ‘Go out and fight like hell, like rabid banshees’ — UNQUOTE — to win that election? Yes or No, Congressman? …. Thank you. And now on September 14th of that year did you or did you not say, while speaking to a rally at Washington State University, that ….”
You get the idea. 301 question sessions devoted to Democratic campaign rhetoric, likley lasting into July. And all of thiis spent without approving Biden’s ambassadors or judicial picks or several thousand executive branch appointments. Or paying attention to Biden’s federal budget proposals or infrastructure investment or Obamacare revisions or anything else of interest.
Wouldn’t that have been fun? The Democrats decided NO.Report
BREAKING: Democrats outsmart Republicans by rejecting GOP demand to call witnesses
🙂Report
Well … I’d not say the Democrats handled things all that perfectly. It was a mistake, it strikes me. to run a fast impeachment campaign in the very first days of the Biden presidency. Would have made sense to assign the original investigation to some House committee, with a larger set of charges to consider and a proper budget and a decent set of FBI and Secret Service agents and all the rest, and to run that investigation from now to November, WITH EVERY SINGLE SESSION BROADCAST LIVE ON CSPAN AND PUT UP IN VIDEO FORM IN PERPETUITY ON THE HOUSE WEBSITE. Put it all out there, every interview, every memo, every piece of legal paper, for all the world to see, with no one able to pretend that there’s some “alternative facts” version of history more palatable to conservative wishes.
This is the 21st Century, not the 18th. Let’s use modern technology to govern outselves.Report
Well, the Republicans are who we always said they were, and now they are on record.
Will this shift votes for 2022?
Maybe! We’ll see.Report
By then this will seem like decades ago.Report
The good news is that after he wins in 2024, he can be impeached again in 2025.Report
There is some real strong Murc’s law going on in this thread.Report
Welcome to this site everyday since Election Day, 2016.Report
It doesn’t matter what you *DO*. It only matters what you *ARE*.
Choosing to criticize good people instead of criticizing bad people is a red flag that indicates that someone is bad.Report
“‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.’””
Bam!! Ice cold. Gotta give Trump credit.
““Who the f–k do you think you are talking to!?” to the then-president.” Give the above, Trump probably thinks “no one who’s important”. “God I laughed at the line. Politicians do seem to have an inflated opinion of their own self “importance”.Report