Trump’s Second Impeachment Trial: Live Updates

Schoen concludes his argument, and Raskin yields back the remaining time for a simple majority vote on the constitutionality of the proceedings.

Schoen plays the Trump team's own video montage, showing how Democrats, including Representative Raskin, repeatedly called for Trump’s impeachment from the first day of the Trump administration onwards.

Up next for Trump is David Schoen, who argues that the impeachment pushed by Democrats — and ten Republicans — aims to “disenfranchise 74 million Americans” who voted for President Trump.

“They're willing to sacrifice our national character to advance their hatred and their fear that one day they might not be the party in power,” Schoen said.

“They tell us that they have to hold this trial in the name of unity, but they don’t want unity . . . This trial will tear this country apart in a way we have only seen maybe once before in our nation’s history.”

Granted, Trump impeachment lawyer Bruce Castor Jr. did not have a particularly easy assignment, persuading senators that they did not have the authority to have this impeachment trial. He aimed for folksiness in his opening remarks, and… well, his argument meandered, wandered, flattered the senators, talked about how they took pride in representing their state, and seemed to discuss everything. He covered it all… except proof that under the Constitution, the U.S. Senate may not hold an impeachment trial of a former president.

Castor's rambling style is being intentionally utilized, according to Maggie Haberman of The New York Times.

Alan Dershowitz, who defended Trump in the first impeachment trial, is not impressed.

Castor later said that the Trump defense team “changed what we were going to do on account that we thought that the House managers' presentation was well done.”

Trump's impeachment defense has begun with Bruce Castor, a former district attorney from Pennsylvania — he introduced himself as the “lead prosecutor,” before correcting himself.

“You will not hear any member of the team representing former President Trump say anything but in the strongest possible way denounce the violence of the rioters and those that breached the Capitol,” Castor says. While he says it is understandable to want to ascribe blame, “this trial is about trading liberty for the security from the mob? Honestly, no. It can't be. We can't be thinking about that. We can't possibly be suggesting that we punish people for political speech in this country.”

“If we go down the road . . . Mr Raskin asks you to go down, the flood gates will open . . . The political pendulum will change one day.”

Senator Roger Wicker (R., Miss.) was impressed by the House Democrats' presentation, but says his mind hasn't changed on the constitutional question.

More Turley on being quoted by Neguse:

“His reliance on the Duke article is not misplaced. It is only his characterization of my position that was misleading.  Indeed, if my views of 21 years ago are going to be cited as recent, I would at least appreciate the use of my thinner photos from the 1990s.”

Democrats have gaveled for a ten minute break, after Representative Raskin recounted how his daughter Tabitha was with him at the Capitol on January 6, and told him after that she didn’t want to come back to the Capitol.

“'Dad, I don't want to come back to the Capitol,' Of all of the terrible, brutal things that I saw and that I heard on that day, and since then, that one hit me the hardest,” Raskin said, breaking into tears.

In the meantime, President Biden told reporters that he is not watching the trial and is focusing on his job.

“The Senate has their job. They’re about to begin it. I’m sure they’re going to conduct themselves well. And that’s all I’m gonna have to say about impeachment,” Biden said.

You can be forgiven for finding the opening arguments of the impeachment trial of the Senate less than riveting television. The House impeachment managers will spend this first day arguing a basic starting point: yes, the Senate may hold a trial of former President Trump, and no, the trial is not unconstitutional.

Life would be so much easier for Senate Republicans if the trial was unconstitutional! They have little appetite for defending Trump on the merits, so they would prefer to find a procedural reason to reject a conviction. The former president's lawyers will argue that once Joe Biden took the oath of office at noon on January 20, the Senate lost all ability to render any judgment on Trump. The problem with this philosophy is that it gives a president carte blanche in his final days in office.

Because Senate Republicans would prefer to just get this trial behind them, you might think that Senate Democrats would prefer to drag it out. But that doesn't appear to be the case, either; the Senate still hasn't decided whether or not to hear from witnesses. If, as the House impeachment managers argue, the House impeachment is like a grand jury indictment, and the Senate trial is like a criminal trial, why shouldn't each side be given the opportunity to call witnesses and cross-examine them? Just what is the rush?

House impeachment managers say the matter at hand is of historical importance — which is one more reason to take all the time they need with this trial. The argument of Democrats is that this is the preeminent matter before the country right now. But their actions don't match their words.

If you wanted to convince a wavering Senate Republican, I don't think Eric Swalwell is the guy you send – or Ted Lieu, or Joaquin Castro. Ten House Republicans voted for impeachment, and nothing barred Speaker Nancy Pelosi from selecting one of them.