What’s Next?

Yesterday Donald Trump gained the unwanted distinction of being the first American president to be impeached twice. Bill Chappell reports at NPR:

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to impeach President Trump for “high crimes and misdemeanors” — specifically, for inciting an insurrection against the federal government at the U.S. Capitol.

Just one week before he will leave office, Trump has now become the first U.S. president to be impeached twice.

Wednesday’s vote came a week after Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in a chaotic scene that left five people dead.

Ten Republicans broke party ranks to vote in favor of impeachment, including Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who chairs the House Republican Conference.

To the best of my ability to determine the House has not yet conveyed that conviction to the Senate where it would be tried.

I don’t believe that President Trump’s statements meet the legal definition of inciting a riot in the federal code. But context matters and in context Mr. Trump’s remarks were reckless, inflammatory, and contributed to the breaching of the Capitol by rioters. Under the circumstances in my opinion the House was correct in impeaching him.

My present understanding of Republican politics is extremely fuzzy. I just don’t get it. The materially party line vote in the House signals that very few House Republicans thought that the president’s remarks rose to the level of impeachment. I haven’t done a review of those who voted to impeach. I can’t interpret the votes either way.

Now the questions are

  1. Will the House convey the article of impeachment to the Senate?
  2. What will happen in the Senate?

As I read the calendar the first day on which a Senate trial could begin would be Inauguration Day. That seems excessively inflammatory to me as well. Will they bother? Will they engage in a symbolic trial? Will they try and convict? Will they take some other action?

I genuinely have no idea.

Update
Here’s Ben Shapiro’s explanation, reproduced at Politico of House Republican thinking:

Opposition to impeachment comes from a deep and abiding conservative belief that members of the opposing political tribe want their destruction, not simply to punish Trump for his behavior. Republicans believe that Democrats and the overwhelmingly liberal media see impeachment as an attempt to cudgel them collectively by lumping them in with the Capitol rioters thanks to their support for Trump.

and

Conservatives see the game. It doesn’t matter whether you held your nose when voting for Trump; it doesn’t matter if you denounced his prevarications about a “stolen election” (for the record, I was met with great ire when I declared the night of the election that Trump’s declaration of victory was “deeply irresponsible”).

If you supported Trump in any way, you were at least partially culpable, the argument goes. It’s not just Trump who deserves vitriol — it’s all 74 million people who voted for him.

And that claim, many conservatives believe, will serve as the basis for repression everywhere from social media to employment. Evidence to support that suspicion wasn’t in short supply this week…

13 comments… add one
  • bob sykes Link

    Peter Turchin’s prediction of widespread political violence in the 20’s is coming true, and the Democrats are doing everything in their power to make sure it comes true.

    PS. The wave of speech suppression is growing. Curt Schlichter, the former Red Sox pitcher, lost his AIG insurance because he has a conservative blog. Insurance??? Good grief. If he had kids in school, either they would be expelled, or they would be placed in a foster home. (It is MA, after all.)

    PPS. Our gracious host Dave is evidently liberal, but he is not anywhere near left enough. Blog’s like this can be shut down, too. And he still lives in a future war zone.

  • A classical liberal perhaps but not a liberal as the term is used today.

    The best characterization of my views I’ve ever heard is “eclectic”. When I take the test on the Political Compass it places me right in the center—very, very slightly (just a couple of degrees) socially conservative and libertarian.

    In practice that means most progressives see me as a conservative and most conservatives see me as a liberal. That’s because I’m to the right of the former and to the left of the latter.

  • PD Shaw Link

    The only time the Senate tried an official that no longer held office was in the impeachment of William Belknap, who resigned as Secretary of War in the Grant administration when he learned he was about to be impeached.

    To keep it simple, there were enough Senators who thought they didn’t have jurisdiction over the matter that Belknap was acquitted on a vote of 37 guilty and 25 not guilty, with the latter consisting of 23 voting not guilty for want of jurisdiction.

    This was debated and briefed at length and while its not binding precedent in any legal sense, this is what happened the one time it was attempted.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    Who is going to chair the trial? The Chief Justice or the VP Harris? That will be litigated too.

    Also; since the House didn’t do any hearings or collection evidence gathering; that will have to happen in the Senate itself.

  • Grey Shambler Link

    And that’s the reason Republicans will not dump Trump until another popular party leader rises and usurps his political power. They need protection from the Dems, and the Dems, overconfident as always are going for the kill.

  • Andy Link

    Well, I think Trump deserved impeachment. I’m on the fence on whether it’s worth the effort at this point for the Senate to do anything or to try to do anything, but I am interested in forcing Senators to vote on it and be on the record.

    “It’s not just Trump who deserves vitriol — it’s all 74 million people who voted for him.”

    On the merits, I think Shapiro is wrong here. Sure, Democrats, like all politicians, are being “political” and will use impeachment and Trump’s failings to their own advantage. But Democrats wouldn’t be in a position to do that if Trump and his allies had acted responsibly. And Shapiro and Republicans would be doing the exact same thing if the situations were reversed. That’s how politics works. That is not, IMO, a valid excuse to avoid condemning Trump or anyone else for objectively bad actions and behavior that violate principles that Shapiro claims to believe in. Shapiro’s logic basically dictates that one should never punish bad behavior by members of their own tribe because the other tribe will always use it to maximum advantage and that’s unfair. Well, that’s just a recipe to excuse anything your side does and is completely contrary to any notion of actual principles. IOW, more tribalism, more ends-justify-the-means, more sublimation of principles into rank partisanship, etc. No thanks.

    Yes, I think Turchin is correct. Social unrest and political violence does seem to come in waves and we are due. There’s no good time for this to happen, but the timing here seems particularly bad given how much the geostrategic balance is changing globally.

  • On the merits, I think Shapiro is wrong here. Sure, Democrats, like all politicians, are being “political” and will use impeachment and Trump’s failings to their own advantage. But Democrats wouldn’t be in a position to do that if Trump and his allies had acted responsibly.

    Keeping in mind that I do not claim to know what’s going on among Republicans, it seems to me that a lot depends on why people voted for Trump. What if they voted for Trump because they were profoundly unhappy with the direction in which the country is heading and they saw Democrats as promising not to change that direction but to head in that direction more quickly?

    I had many reasons for not voting for Trump but one was enough. I will not cast my vote for anyone whom I believe to be of low character. Period. I didn’t vote for Bill Clinton for that reason and I won’t vote for Trump.

  • steve Link

    It is a waste of time is what I think. Trump deserves to be impeached. It owed be great to have GOP Senators on the record, but when push comes to shove I dont think Mitch lets it happen. I also dont think it will really hurt anyone who votes against impeachment. It does guarantee they win their primary. The only thing that would make it worthwhile at all is if it means he cant run in 2024. As of now, he is the leading candidate for the GOP in 2024.

    Steve

    Also liked this from Huppke.

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-trump-impeached-cancel-culture-jim-jordan-house-capitol-huppke-20210113-og6kmejp6neldhnb2yxdbedjbe-story.html

    Steve

  • Andy Link

    Steve,

    It won’t be Mitch’s call soon.

    And I really should have edited my first comment – what a mess and with the wrong quote.

  • steve Link

    I think Mitch will still be minority leader. He uses that to delay as long as possible. He finds a way to avoid the whole thing. But, I dont think he runs again so he doesnt have as much self interest. Will see.

    Steve

  • Drew Link

    “What if they voted for Trump because they were profoundly unhappy with the direction in which the country is heading and they saw Democrats as promising not to change that direction but to head in that direction more quickly?”

    Which I believe accurately describes the vast majority, as I’ve been pointing out for 4 years.

    “I will not cast my vote for anyone whom I believe to be of low character.”

    Which pretty much leaves the null set. That’s not a flippant remark. It is, sadly, almost completely true.

  • Which pretty much leaves the null set.

    There are degrees—from “okay as politicians go” to “low character” with lots of gradations in between. IMO Clinton was a low character as is Trump.

    Let me give some examples, using people I’ve actually met and spoken with. The late Illinois Sen. Paul Simon struck me as okay as politicians go. So did Gov. Pat Quinn (maybe one notch lower). The late Gov. Jim Thompson struck me as a couple of notches below okay as politicians go.

  • Grey Shambler Link

    I’d like to drop this here, it’s copy and paste but i think this guy sums up my thoughts and may help to understand the mindset of Trump voters for those having trouble:

    He had the stock market humming which increased the value of pension funds, 401Ks and IRAs. He increased employment for all Americans. He stood up for America on the world stage. He made the United States a exporter of oil rather than importer. He ran the country like a business instead of a bureaucracy. He believed laws should be respected and applied to everyone.
    We get it. Trump was gauche. He wasn’t a life long politician. He appealed to people who drive pick up trucks. He talked plainly and not down to people. He didn’t know Washington D.C. double talk. He said he was going to do something (build a wall, bring forth a vaccine in under a year) and he did it. He didn’t form a commission or request a study. He didn’t trill his “Rs”. He refused to wet himself around celebrities and media elites. He behaved like a commoner. He ate commoner food, once serving Big Macs to a football team instead of free range foie gras. Much to the chagrin of his opponents, he fought back and like his opponents with gloves off. He was like the guy who got rich selling used cars. He was full of himself, unlike the politicians and celebrities who are continually giving themselves awards. He refused to tolerate people who reaped the benefits of this country, only to criticize and demean it. This why Trump has increased his vote totals among working class blacks and Hispanics. He was a tough talking no nonsense New Yorker but not one from the upper east side but rather one from Queens. He was what people always claim to want a Washington D.C. outsider. Yes he appealed to middle America and because of this the elites deplored him or as one of your snob unifying brethren opined perhaps the Trump library should be in a trailer park.
    Unattributed.

Leave a Comment