Trial by Fire

Yesterday morning, before the day's Senate Impeachment Trial began, I was thinking about one of the things Trump’s lawyers said the day before.  Later in the day, Trump attorney David Schoen commented, “We have responses to all the things the House Managers said, and we will get to them in later days.”  My thought yesterday morning as I began anticipating the day ahead was, boy, is that a stupid strategy. There is an avalanche coming, and if Trump's lawyers actually do have a response (which is questionable…) they should have addressed it at the time, because if they wait, the train will have long-since left the station, the avalanche will be pouring down, all hell will have broken loose, and no one will care about “When the House Manager said back on Tuesday…”  And then we saw the House Manager's start to lay out their case with gut-wrenching video and methodical connections, with at least another five days ahead. And yes, remarkably, this was just their Opening Statement, devastating as it was.

I thought the lead House Manager Jamie Raskin was tremendous.  But then I suspected all be excellent because they’re clearly so well prepared, and they’re structured and meticulous.  And it turned out that they all have indeed been excellent.  I thought Joe Neguse  and Stacey Plaskett were particularly standout.  But still, I continue to look forward to hearing Raskin above all.  Oddly, I suspect the House Managers will look even better after the Trump lawyers present their side.

What also leaps out is how the House Managers have it all beautifully prepared with graphics and videos.  That’s critical for the public even more than senators.  The House Managers have had weeks to put it all together.  But Trump’s team was just thrown into this.  I suspect the Grade-C Trump team will come across far, far worse after what the House Managers are doing.

And it will make acquittal votes all the more damning to a lot of the public, even moderate Republicans.

A friend asked how Trump could possibly be acquitted after a presentation like this?  There was a great comment Tuesday night on Brian Wlliams’ MSNBC show.  He addressed that Mitch McConnell had apparently told Republican senators to vote their conscience.  So, Williams asked Michael Steele what he thought that might mean for Republicans.  And Steele said, “To act your conscience, you have to have a conscience.”

And that’s how Trump is likely to be acquitted.  But – as I've written here several times, I’m not as 100% convinced as most are.  Though, yes, I do expect that to be the case.  However, even if Trump is not convicted but there are as many as 10 GOP votes to convict, that’s major.  Huge.  Only one person in U.S. history has ever voted to convict a president of their own party.  Moreover, and this often gets lost in the discussion over acquittal, it would mean that even though Trump did get acquitted, the vote would nonetheless be 60-40 to convict.

Not only would a result like that be horrible for Trump and historic, even as an acquittal, it would also be damaging to Republican senators running for re-election who voted to acquit.  Because the public is watching this, and it's profound and heart-sickening.  So, being on the record to having voted to acquit an insurrectionist is not a great look when up for re-election in a purple state, and there are quite a few.

Similarly, just days after House Republicans voted to let Marjorie Taylor Greene keep her committee assignments  and half the GOP members gave her a standing ovation, that vote is now looking even more horrific and shameful than it did at the time. And it's looked ghastly and sick and the time.

By the way, I have an odd thought about the Senate vote.  Just a guess, but I think it will harder to get from five votes to 10 to convict than it will from 10 to the necessary 17.  That’s because if by chance they can reach 10, emotion then starts to take over, perhaps because of rising public reaction, and you near “dam-breaking” save-yourself territory.  But getting from five to 10, that's what will be the long, hard slog.  Who knows, just a guess.

Yes, I know that with the comments by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) comments on Tuesday, it suggests that he will be a sixth vote to convict.  However, I decided to choose “five” because I’m not convinced yet that he will vote to convict.  It seems possible that he will, but I think the other five are more certain and the bottom-line foundation.  I wouldn’t quibble with anyone saying that six is the starting point, but it was something I considered and I chose to go with “five.”  

Finally, as deeply impressive as the House Manager's presentation has been so far, the one thing I would love is for them to make some of it more personal, given that it was the senators' own assembly that was overrun, and they were as much witnesses as jurors.  And I do suspect that they will do so.  But as I wrote yesterday, I'd love for a House Manager to say something like – “The mob incited by Trump were out to kill members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike.  Imagine for a moment if 50 senators and congressmen had been murdered, let alone more.  Many of the people seated around you.  How would you be voting on this impeachment trial then?  You should vote no differently just because, but pure luck and the grace of God, the insurrectionist mob didn’t succeed in their intent.”