On today’s BradCast Special Coverage: There have only been three Presidents during the 243-year history of the United States who have been Impeached, for a total of four Presidential impeachments. Donald Trump has been impeached twice. He alone makes up a full half of all of the Presidential Impeachments in the history of our nation. That will be a scar and mark of shame that will never be removed from his pathetic legacy, no matter what happens in his historic second Impeachment Trial in the US Senate, which began in earnest today….sort of. [Audio link to show follows below summary.]
Democratic House Impeachment Managers on Tuesday were forced to make the case for the Constitutionality of holding an Impeachment Trial for a President who is already out of office. Frankly, it’s a ridiculous case to have to make, as we discussed on yesterday’s show and again today. Of course an impeached, former official can be tried by the U.S. Senate after leaving office. It’s been done several times in our nation’s history, and legal scholars from both the Right and Left have argued as much in recent days in response to the disingenuous case made against it by Trump’s defense attorneys and his sycophantic Republican supporters in the Senate.
Nonetheless, lead Impeachment Manager Rep. Jaime Raskin (MD) opened the argument on this point on Tuesday, with a compelling narrative that there is no “January Exception” to the Constitution’s impeachment clause. If there was, he argued, Presidents leaving office would have impunity to cause any amount of mayhem during their final weeks in office. Raskin’s presentation began with a stunning, riveting and chilling video juxtaposing Trump’s January 6th rally comments to his supporters at the White House, instructing them to “fight like hell” before directing them to the U.S. Capitol, along with previously unseen video clips of his supporters subsequent attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. The montage showed Congress being interrupted by the violent insurrectionists, with lawmakers sent scurrying for their lives during the Joint Session to certify the 2020 Electoral College results from last November’s Presidential Election victory by Joe Biden…
Raskin’s presentation was followed with ones from Managers Joe Neguse (CO) and David Cicilline (RI) who offered historical, Constitutional and legal background in support of their case, before Raskin returned to close the argument with a heartbreaking personal tale of his — and his family’s — experience during the January 6th attack at the Capitol. We share extended excerpts from his presentation and video.
Next, Trump’s team of defense attorneys offered their own case, beginning with a rambling, disjointed, confusing, often political case by lead defense attorney Bruce Castor (famous for having refused to charge Bill Cosby while a prosecutor in Pennsylvania), before an angry, confusing, and even-more-political and partisan case was made by attorney David Schoen (who had previously represented convicted felon and Trump pal Roger Stone, and was set to defend convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein before he committed suicide in prison.)
Castor made no case at all about the Constitutionality of the proceedings, and even appeared to threaten at least one Republican Senator before arguing that a trial to determine if Trump should be allowed to hold future office was not necessary, since “smart” voters had already done a very good job of voting Trump out of office by themselves. (Begging the question of whether Castor will be allowed by Trump to return tomorrow!) Schoen eventually seemed to make a case against the Constitutionality of the trial, but his argument was so quickly read, and included so many arcane Constitutional and historical references, it was virtually impossible to follow or make sense of.
No worries, however. His case — any case at all, apparently — was good enough to win the votes of 44 Republicans Senators when the resolution to dismiss the trial was ultimately defeated at the end of the day by a 56-44 vote. All Democrats and six Republicans (Collins, Cassidy, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse and Toomey) voted to allow the trial to proceed. Opening arguments for the actual substance of the article of impeachment for “Incitement of Insurrection” begin on Wednesday.
Finally, in our closing few minutes today, we switch gears (mostly) for a quick report on two disturbing, and somewhat related developments. The first story regards an apparent hacker or intruder who was able to use remote access software several days ago, to dangerously increase sodium hydroxide (sometimes known as lye) levels at a water treatment plant in Oldsmar, Florida, near Tampa. Luckily the incident was noticed — live, as it was happening — by an alert operator at the plant who saw the manipulation on his monitor before drinking water was actually poisoned.
And, in somewhat related news, we learned over the weekend that top officials at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) — the federal agency responsible for certifying computer voting and tabulation systems — quietly changed a provision in new security standards for voting systems to allow wireless modems and chips in such systems. The change comes after years of work on the new draft standards by cybersecurity and voting systems experts who strongly urged against allowing remote access hardware, which can be used to hack election results, in such systems.
Whether they are used to manipulate results or not obviously makes no difference to those who are concerned that results might have been changed by hackers, as today’s Impeachment Trial should, once again, underscore.
We hope to have more information in the future on this, but the newly modified standards — known as the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) — are now much more friendly to private voting system vendors (and hackers) and are set to be approved by the Commission tomorrow (Wednesday). The EAC has long been captured by private voting system vendors, and appears to be doing their bidding once again.
The Election Integrity advocates at Free Speech for People have set up a petition that they are asking voters to sign in hopes of encouraging EAC leadership to return to the safer, modem-free standards before they are officially adopted and used by many states across the country…
There is no correlation to Belknap. Belknap RESIGNED his position, Trump’s term ended naturally. Game over. First time ever a Supreme Court Justice has not overseen a Presidential Impeachment Hearing, Game over. I was a life long Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, then my Mother was medically abused in the ER in 2018 and died as a direct result. That is when my eyes were opened to the Democrat Agenda of pulling in as many newly arriving as possible to California in exchange for their vote for the next 30 years. Premature Senior Euthanizing frees up funds for the newly arriving. How can you live with yourself swaddling everything you read from Progressive sites. Have some backbone, actually read from both sides of the aisle.
Allesandro @ 1:
My condolences for the loss of your mother. I understand wanting to find someone to blame. I’m sorry you seem to be misdirecting your grief.
To the actual substance of your false claims regarding impeachment and the Constitution (which it does not seem you have actually ever read), are you actually saying that if Trump had “RESIGNED” before the end of his term he then would have been Constitutionality eligible to be tried in the Senate? No idea how that actually makes any sense at all, but I’m sure you’ll enlighten us.
As to the Chief Justice not presiding, that too is explained by bothering to read the Constitution, as well as understanding that this is the first time a former President has stood trial (after being Impeached while in office, and the Republican Senate majority blocking his trial until after he was out of office.)
Beyond that, I assure you I read “from both sides of the aisle”, as well as actually documents (hint: The Constitution, among other actual documentation that has nothing to do with either “side of the aisle”.)
And, for the record, “arriving” immigrants do not get vote, in case you have been as misinformed about that as you seem to be about everything else you mentioned.
But we thank you for your attempt to post disinformation here. Hope you’ll figure out how you’ve been conned — or are hoping to con us. Game over.