From 2c22263eed45882aeee7b46d4c8f95abebb88baa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Navan Chauhan Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 12:45:57 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added daily report --- archive-covid-19/10 February, 2021.html | 189 +++++++++ archive-daily-dose/10 February, 2021.html | 448 ++++++++++++++++++++++ index.html | 4 +- 3 files changed, 639 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 archive-covid-19/10 February, 2021.html create mode 100644 archive-daily-dose/10 February, 2021.html diff --git a/archive-covid-19/10 February, 2021.html b/archive-covid-19/10 February, 2021.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..debf2ac --- /dev/null +++ b/archive-covid-19/10 February, 2021.html @@ -0,0 +1,189 @@ + + + + + + 10 February, 2021 + +Covid-19 Sentry + +

Covid-19 Sentry

+

Contents

+ +

From Preprints

+ +

From Clinical Trials

+ +

From PubMed

+ +

From Patent Search

+ +embedded image +

+ + + + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/archive-daily-dose/10 February, 2021.html b/archive-daily-dose/10 February, 2021.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5b7fc51 --- /dev/null +++ b/archive-daily-dose/10 February, 2021.html @@ -0,0 +1,448 @@ + + + + + + 10 February, 2021 + +Daily-Dose + +

Daily-Dose

+

Contents

+ +

From New Yorker

+ +

From Vox

+ + +

+There may have been some method to Castor’s seeming madness. Maggie Haberman of the New York Times reported that coming as it did on the heels of Rep. Jamie Raskin’s (D-MD) heart-wrenching account of how the insurrection impacted his family, Castor’s goal was to lower the temperature in the room. +

+
+ +
+

+Castor nodded to that strategy at one point, saying, “I’ll be quite frank with you, we changed what we were going to do on account that we thought the House managers’ presentation was well done.” +

+

+Still, the arguments Castor used toward that end were so convoluted that his performance was panned by Alan Dershowitz, a staunch Trump supporter who was part of Trump’s legal team during his first impeachment trial. +

+

+“There is no argument — I have no idea what he is doing,” Dershowitz said during a Newsmax interview that took place while Castor was speaking on the Senate floor. +

+
+ +
+

+Other right-wingers also gave Castor a thumbs down. Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York described his speech on Twitter as “a waste of time,” and conservative pollster Frank Luntz criticized both the optics and substance of the presentation. +

+
+ +
+

+Unsurprisingly, liberal lawyers like Norm Eisen (who served as a lawyer for Democrats in Trump’s first impeachment) were even more unforgiving. +

+
+ +
+

+One notable tidbit from Castor’s speech came when he acknowledged that Trump lost the election fair and square — a comment that may not have sat well with his client, who reportedly urged an earlier set of attorneys working on his impeachment defense to push long-debunked lies about election fraud, prompting them to resign from the case. +

+
+ +
+

+At other points, Castor touched upon a procedural argument that the Constitution doesn’t allow for presidents who have left office to be convicted of articles of impeachment. +

+

+That argument is dubious both in terms of the Constitution and with regard to common sense — after all, if impeached presidents can just resign from office and undercut Congress’s ability to prohibit them from running office again, then Congress can’t really hold them accountable — but it will likely be enough for a critical mass of Republican senators. +

+

+All but six of them voted at the end of Tuesday’s proceeding to end Trump’s impeachment trial on the basis of its purported unconstitutionality. Those 44 votes weren’t sufficient, but since a two-thirds vote is needed for conviction, they would be enough to secure Trump’s acquittal. +

+

+One of the Republican senators who voted to end the trial — John Cornyn of Texas — acknowledged that Castor’s case left a lot to be desired. +

+
+ +
+

+And yet Cornyn, along with 43 of his colleagues, ultimately voted to affirm it. +

+

+Correction, February 9: A previous version of this article mischaracterized the 56-44 vote to proceed with the impeachment trial at the end of Tuesday’s hearing. +

+ + +

+Republicans have largely said they intend to listen to the evidence for and against impeachment before making up their minds on whether to convict Trump. However, their votes on the constitutionality of the trial effectively serve as a proxy for how they are currently leaning — suggesting that the majority of the conference will probably vote to acquit. +

+

+According to a count by the New York Times, eight other Republican lawmakers — in addition to the six who voted to affirm the trial’s constitutionality — have yet to announce their position on conviction, meaning the other 36 have already pretty much settled on acquittal. +

+

+Given this dynamic, and Tuesday’s vote, the Senate is expected to fall far short of the 67-member threshold needed to convict Trump of impeachment, since 17 Republicans would have to join Democrats to do so. +

+

+Republicans have questioned the constitutionality of the trial to prevent it from moving forward +

+

+Day one of Trump’s second impeachment trial was primarily focused on debates about its constitutionality, since Republicans have increasingly argued that it’s unconstitutional to try a former president — even though most legal scholars disagree, a fact Democratic House impeachment managers emphasized Tuesday. +

+

+As Vox’s Ian Millhiser has explained, a majority of legal scholars have concluded that holding an impeachment trial for a former president would be constitutional. However, the precedent for how to handle the impeachment of a former government official is less clear: In 1876, Secretary of War William Belknap faced a Senate trial after he had already resigned, and though a majority voted to proceed with the trial, two-thirds did not vote to convict, with multiple lawmakers citing concerns about the proceedings’ constitutionality. +

+

+The House impeachment managers and Trump’s counsel presented their respective arguments on this matter Tuesday, with Democrats emphasizing that impeachment is still viable for officials who’ve left office because the Constitution’s authors intended it as a way to ensure accountability, while Trump’s attorneys tried to paint the trial as a partisan effort for political gain. +

+

+“The text of the Constitution makes clear there is no January exception to the impeachment power. That the president can’t commit grave offenses in their final days and escape any congressional response,” emphasized Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO). Democrats also cited historic examples, like the impeachment of Tennessee Sen. William Blount, to show that lawmakers in the past have still been impeached after they are no longer in office. +

+ +

+Meanwhile, in a meandering argument, Trump’s counsel countered by trying to paint the entire exercise as a purely political one. “We are really here because the majority of the House of Representatives do not want to face Donald Trump as a political rival,” Trump counsel Bruce Castor asserted. (If Trump were convicted by the Senate, lawmakers could then bar him from holding future federal office.) +

+

+Ultimately, as the result of the final constitutionality vote suggests, their arguments seemed only to reaffirm where senators, on both sides of the aisle, already stood. +

+

From The Hindu: Sports

+ +

From The Hindu: National News

+ +

From BBC: Europe

+ +

From Ars Technica

+ +

From Jokes Subreddit

+ + + + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/index.html b/index.html index 25b8b5d..998d711 100644 --- a/index.html +++ b/index.html @@ -13,9 +13,9 @@ Archive | Daily Reports
  • Covid-19

    • Daily Dose

    -