The Risks of Trump’s Impeachment Trial - Given the importance of condemning Trump’s destructive actions, the message sent by an acquittal may be worse than no trial. - link
The Indoor-Dining Debate Isn’t a Debate at All - On Valentine’s Day, New Yorkers will be allowed to eat inside restaurants again. We shouldn’t. - link
Can a Country Control the Virus and Host a Grand Slam? Australia Is Trying - In light of Melbourne’s long stretch of stringent lockdown measures, Australia’s decision to allow more than a thousand people into the country for a tennis tournament has been controversial. - link
What’s at Stake in the Fight Over Reopening Schools - From housing to health care, low-income people and others ravaged by debt and inequality are beginning to demand a better life subsidized by public money. - link
Trump’s Impeachment Trial Offers a Chance to Seize the Initiative on the Future of Free Speech - Trump should be convicted, and the First Amendment should be protected in the process. - link
These are the GOP lawmakers seen as most likely to vote for Trump’s conviction.
When it comes to this week’s impeachment trial, the Senate Republican conference is poised to stay pretty united, barring a handful of exceptions. Most Republicans, after all, have signaled that they won’t vote to convict former President Donald Trump, while only a few have indicated an openness to considering it.
During a vote on the constitutionality of the proceedings a few weeks ago, five Republican senators joined Democrats to affirm that they believed the trial should be allowed to move forward. Those lawmakers — Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Ben Sasse (R-NE) — are seen as the most likely to potentially support conviction. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) joined them in another vote on the constitutionality question at the start of the trial Tuesday, saying afterward he was unimpressed by the Trump team’s arguments.
The bulk of the party, however, is either maintaining that the trial itself is unconstitutional (a position most legal scholars disagree with) or arguing that Trump’s actions are not enough to merit impeachment. “I think I’m ready to move on. I’m ready to end the impeachment trial, because I think it’s blatantly unconstitutional,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said during a recent interview on CBS.
Unlike Graham, some of the 44 Senate Republicans who voted to dismiss the trial on constitutional grounds have indicated that they intend to hear out the evidence before making a final decision. Even so, it’s unlikely that 17 Republicans will be convinced to vote with Democrats, the number needed to hit the 67-member threshold required for Trump’s conviction.
“The outcome is really not in doubt,” Graham noted.
Despite this, House impeachment managers hope to sway at least some Republicans, and intend to use a combination of video and social media evidence to demonstrate how Trump incited the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, an attack during which five people died. The final votes on conviction will reveal not only how much Republicans are convinced by this argument but also how willing they are to publicly distance themselves from Trump.
The Republicans most likely to support conviction are the six who voted in favor of the trial’s constitutionality, including a few lawmakers who initially called on Trump to resign after January 6. Their willingness to voice criticism of Trump suggests that they may be open to using the trial to publicly confront him, though their final votes on the matter are still up in the air. A few of these senators are also viewed as more moderate members, and Toomey is among the lawmakers who will be retiring after this term.
During Trump’s first impeachment trial, Romney was the only Republican to vote for Trump’s conviction, becoming the first person in history to vote to impeach a president of their own party. This time around, it’s possible he could do the same — and be joined by a few others.
Thus far, all six senators have been careful not to suggest which way they might ultimately vote, arguing that they will need to see what sort of cases the managers — and Trump’s defense team — make. Here’s what these lawmakers have said so far:
Sen. Mitt Romney: “I’ll of course hear what the lawyers have to say for each side. But I think it’s pretty clear that the effort is constitutional,” Romney told CNN.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski: “The House has responded swiftly, and I believe, appropriately, with impeachment,” Murkowski said in a statement. “I will listen carefully and consider the arguments of both sides, and will then announce how I will vote.”
Sen. Susan Collins: “I’ve not made a decision yet, I don’t pre-judge the evidence at the trial,” Collins told NECN.
Sen. Pat Toomey: “I still think the best outcome would have been for the president to resign,” Toomey told CNN. “I’m going to listen to the arguments on both sides and make the decision that I think is right.”
Sen. Ben Sasse: “As a juror, I’m not announcing anything now and I’m going to be limited on what I say in advance, but let’s get one thing absolutely straight: Everything that we’re dealing with here — the riot, the loss of life, the impeachment, and now the fact that the US Capitol has been turned into a barracks for federal troops for the first time since the Civil War — is the result of a particular lie,” Sasse said in a statement.
Sen. Bill Cassidy: “The House managers were focused, they were organized … they made a compelling argument. President Trump’s team, they were disorganized, they did everything they could but to talk about the question at hand,” Cassidy told reporters after the first day of the trial. Notably, he had voted against the trial’s constitutionality before and was the only Senator to change his position on Tuesday.
According to the New York Times, there are about eight other Republicans who have yet to reveal how they’ll vote. All of them have previously supported dismissing the trial. These lawmakers could still be open to conviction, but they’re seen as less likely to vote for it given their backing for ending the trial itself.
These eight lawmakers are Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Todd Young (R-IN), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jim Risch (R-ID), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and Deb Fischer (R-NE). Several of them have also indicated that they will weigh the evidence before issuing a final position, and some have previously questioned claims of election fraud, though it’s not clear that they’re willing to hold Trump accountable for them.
McConnell, for example, had previously told sources close to him that he believed what Trump had done to incite the insurrection was an impeachable offense, according to the Times. He hasn’t signaled how he’ll vote since, however, and was among the Republicans who voted to say the trial was unconstitutional.
“The trial hasn’t started yet. And I intend to participate in that and listen to the evidence,” McConnell recently told reporters.
McConnell is reportedly not whipping votes — or pressuring his members — to vote against conviction.
The majority of Republicans — roughly 36 — appear to have already decided how they’ll be voting: Many take issue with the trial’s constitutionality, while others say that Trump’s actions are not impeachable.
Because Trump is already out of office, Republicans have raised concerns about the Senate’s ability to convict a former president — and are sticking by this argument to support acquittal. As experts have previously told Vox, many Republican lawmakers are still wary of antagonizing Trump’s supporters and threatening their own electoral prospects as a result.
“The Senate lacks constitutional authority to conduct impeachment proceedings against a former president,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) previously said in a statement. “The Founders designed the impeachment process as a way to remove officeholders from public office — not an inquest against private citizens.”
As Vox’s Ian Millhiser has explained, most legal scholars believe the trial is constitutional, though the precedent for it is hazy: In 1876, the majority of the Senate opted to move forward with a trial for Secretary of War William Belknap even though he’d already resigned — but he was not convicted, and many who declined to vote against him cited questions about constitutionality.
Beyond this issue of constitutionality, some lawmakers, like Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), have also questioned the degree of responsibility Trump should take for the January 6 attack, as Zeeshan Aleem writes for Vox. Others have claimed that Trump’s months of lies about election fraud, and his speech urging supporters to march to the Capitol, do not make him culpable for the storming that took place. (Countering this argument, however, is that several of Trump’s supporters have pointed to his rhetoric as the reason they came to Washington, DC and participated in the insurrection.)
Democrats, meanwhile, have emphasized that the push for impeachment is about making sure the president is held accountable for his role. They’ve noted, too, that they would pursue a vote to bar him from federal office if he was convicted by the necessary 67 members of the Senate.
“Senators will have to look deep into their consciences and determine if Donald Trump is guilty, and if so, ever qualified again to enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has said.
“I have no idea what he is doing,” Alan Dershowitz said.
The House impeachment managers began former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial on Tuesday by making legal and emotional arguments about why Trump must be held to account for his role encouraging a January 6 insurrection aimed at overturning his election loss. One of Trump’s lead lawyers, meanwhile, opened with a presentation that was more akin to an open mic night.
That attorney, Bruce Castor, delivered a rambling defense of Trump that included inscrutable lines like, “Nebraska, you’re going to hear, is quite a judicial thinking place,” and concluded with a dare for the Department of Justice to arrest Trump if it’s really the case that he committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
At times, his remarks — which began with him buttering up senators as “extraordinary people” — had the flavor of an improv set and it was hard to figure out what point he was trying to make.
I challenge you to make sense of what Bruce Castor is trying to say here. This is like the worst college lecture of all time. pic.twitter.com/x7rHNjYByT
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 9, 2021
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.
FWIW: A Trump adviser tells me Castor is intentionally trying to reduce the emotion in the room after the House managers’ case. Calls it a “deliberative strategy.”
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) February 9, 2021
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.
‘There is no argument - I have no idea what he is doing,’ @AlanDersh on Trump’s defense lawyer Bruce Castor ‘talking nice’ to U.S. Senators - via Newsmax TV’s ‘American Agenda.’ https://t.co/VlT7z8drtO pic.twitter.com/7P7uVk5X19
— Newsmax (@newsmax) February 9, 2021
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.
Has anyone told Trump’s lawyer not to wear a black pinstriped suit?
— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) February 9, 2021
They make viewers think of the Mafia – and what you wear has an impact on what people think.
Then again, judging by his comments, I guess this lawyer doesn’t know what people think.https://t.co/dNrVpIRZqg
Unsurprisingly, liberal lawyers like Norm Eisen (who served as a lawyer for Democrats in Trump’s first impeachment) were even more unforgiving.
That was perhaps the worst argument that I have ever heard from a lawyer.
— Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) February 9, 2021
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.
Here’s Bruce Castor admitting that Trump lost fair and square pic.twitter.com/cNLUqkqDyo
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 9, 2021
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.
CORNYN: “The president’s lawyer just rambled on and on… I’ve seen a lot of lawyers and a lot of arguments and that was not one of the finest I’ve seen.”
— Julie Tsirkin (@JulieNBCNews) February 9, 2021
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.
Most Republicans, however, voted to dismiss the trial, suggesting that Trump’s conviction is unlikely.
Senate Republicans, in a Tuesday vote on the constitutionality of the impeachment trial, have signaled once again that they’re unlikely to convict former President Donald Trump.
Although the Senate overall voted 56-44 that the trial was constitutional, just six Republicans agreed, indicating that most of the GOP conference favored ending the proceedings. This vote followed hours of presentations by House impeachment managers and defense counsel explaining their cases for and against the Senate’s jurisdiction over Trump’s impeachment.
Ultimately, most Republicans signaled agreement with the defense team’s argument, leading to a vote breakdown that was similar to that of another vote that took place in late January, when senators also weighed the constitutionality of the trial. In that vote, five Republican lawmakers supported moving ahead with the trial, while 45 of their colleagues disagreed.
The Republicans who joined Democrats to vote in support of the trial both in January and on Tuesday are Sens. Mitt Romney (UT), Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Ben Sasse (NE), and Pat Toomey (PA). Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) voted against the trial in January, but joined these five in voting for its constitutionality Tuesday.
Bill Cassidy told @tedbarrettcnn it was a “very good opening” by the House managers and made “very good arguments” on Constitutional question
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 9, 2021
“I’ve always said I would approach this with an open mind and would listen as an impartial juror to both sides.”
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.
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.
ICC Test Rankings: Kohli down to fifth as Root moves up to third after Chennai double century - India skipper Virat Kohli was on Wednesday pushed to the fifth spot by his English counterpart Joe Root, who rose two rungs to third in the latest I
Australian Open | Venus Williams rolls ankle, falls to Errani - Williams was making her 21st appearance at the Australian Open.
Root will probably break all batting records of England: Hussain - He felt that England have improved a lot on the road having won six away matches on the trot.
Chennai Test | Jamaican sprinter Yohan Blake admires Kohli for owning responsibility for India’s debacle - “What I really love about Team India is that Virat Kohli doesn’t find any excuses. That’s what I really love about his captaincy, he took the blame for everything,” Blake said in a video uploaded on his social media handles.
Australian Open’s hard quarantine “took a toll” on players - Victoria Azarenka and others were deemed at risk for exposure to the illness after another passenger on their chartered flight tested positive.
Court orders police probe into ‘fake documents’ submitted by former FRI officials - Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ravindra Dev Mishra ordered Station House Officer of Gandhi Cantt to enquire into allegations under CrPC Section 202 (Postponement of issue of process) and submit a report by March 26.
“Beneath 56-inch chest, PM has a small heart that beats for his billionaire friends” - Farm laws meant to encourage hoarding and weaken MSP regime, says Priyanka
‘Himalayas are fragile and host to several complex processes that need to be monitored’ - Ground-based measurements are critical to supplement satellite imagery but the prevailing conditions aren’t conducive, says Kalachand Sain, Director, WIHG.
China’s military says India, China have begun disengagement from Pangong Lake - The statement from China’s Ministry of Defence said this followed a consensus reached at the last round of talks between Corps Commanders on January 24.
When narratives are made and erased - The Names of the Flowers is on questions surrounding a witness to a historical event
Covid: EU’s von der Leyen admits vaccine rollout shortcomings - The European Commission chief tells the Brussels Parliament “we’re still not where we want to be”.
Draghi: Call of duty for Italy’s ‘Super Mario’ - With Italy’s Mario Draghi set to become prime minister, Mark Lowen profiles the man who “saved the euro”.
Europe’s oldest person survives Covid just before 117th birthday - Having battled coronavirus, French nun Sister Andre will celebrate her 117th birthday this week.
Polish court tells two Holocaust historians to apologise - The niece of a Polish village’s wartime mayor sued over claims he had betrayed Jews to the Nazis.
France Mila affair: Five held for death threats over video critical of Islam - Mila, 17, says she has been getting 30 hate messages a minute after posting videos critical of Islam.
SpaceX Starlink opens preorders, but slots are limited in each region - A $99 deposit today gives you a chance at service in the second half of 2021. - link
WHO team rejects lab origin of coronavirus, focuses on animals, frozen food - Meanwhile, China still clings to possibility the virus originated in another country. - link
macOS Big Sur 11.2.1 addresses MacBook Pro charging issues - There are also supplemental updates for Catalina 10.15.7 and Mojave 10.14.6. - link
Zero-days under active exploit are keeping Windows users busy - Microsoft and Adobe issue patches to stop malicious attacks in the wild. - link
We now have new evidence that Richard III murdered the princes in the tower - New research lends credence to the account of Sir Thomas More. - link
People always asked me how I could tell them apart. Simple:
Jane paints her nails purple. John has a cock.
submitted by /u/dhejejwj
[link] [comments]
A week after arriving back home in the States, he wakes one morning to find his penis covered with bright green and purple spots. Horrified, he immediately goes to see a doctor.
The doctor, never having seen anything like this before, orders some tests and tells the man to return in two days for the results. After two days, the doctor tells him, “I’ve got bad news for you, you have contracted Mongolian VD. It’s very rare and almost unheard of here in the US. We know very little about it.”
The man perplexed asks, “Well, can’t you give me a shot or something to fix me up, Doc?”
The doctor answers, “I’m sorry, there’s no known cure. We are going to have to amputate your penis.”
The man screams in horror, “Absolutely not !! I want a second opinion… !!!”
The doctor replies, “Well, it’s your choice. Go ahead, if you want, but surgery is your only option.”
The next day, the man seeks out a Chinese doctor, figuring that he’ll know more about the disease. The Chinese doctor examines his penis and proclaims, “Ahh… yes, Mongolian VD. Very rare disease.”
The guy says to the doctor, “Yeah, yeah, I already know that, but what can we do? My American doctor wants to cut off my penis!”
The Chinese doctor shakes his head and laughs, “Stupid Amelican docttah, always want operate, make more money that way. No need amputate!”
“Oh, thank God!” the man exclaims.
“Yes,” says the Chinese doctor. “Wait two weeks. Fall off by itself.”
submitted by /u/coolfunaboud
[link] [comments]
On the first Friday of Lent, John was outside grilling a big juicy steak on his grill. Meanwhile all of his neighbors were eating cold tuna fish for supper. This went on each Friday during Lent.
On the last Friday of Lent the neighborhood men got together and decided that something just HAD to be done about John, he was just tempting them to eat meat each Friday of Lent and they couldn’t take it anymore. They decided to try and convert him to be Catholic. They went over and talked with him and were so happy that he decided to join all of his neighbors and become a Catholic.
They took him to church and the priest sprinkled some water over him and told him “Your were born a Baptist, you were raised a Baptist and now you are a Catholic”. The men of the neighborhood were SO relieved, now their biggest Lent temptation was resolved.
The next year’s Lent rolled around. The first Friday of Lent came and just at supper time when the neighborhood was setting down to their fish dinners came the wafting smell of steak cooking on a grill. The neighborhood men could not believe their noses! What was going on??? They called each other up and decided to meet over in John’s yard to see if he had forgotten it was a Friday in Lent.
The group arrived just in time to see John standing over his grill with a small pitcher of water. He was pouring small droplets over his steak on the grill and saying, “You were born a cow, you were raised a cow, and now you are a fish.”
submitted by /u/ODaferio
[link] [comments]
Or did she?
submitted by /u/ricerly
[link] [comments]
It was an ether/oar situation.
submitted by /u/Bellboyatyourservice
[link] [comments]