Listicle Blog Post: Donald Trump, The Final Straw?

4 things to understand from the impeachment.

By: Julia Heymann, 2. 14. 2021

Donald J. Trump was acquitted by the Senate on February 13, 2021, in his presidency’s second impeachment trial. While impeachments are incredibly confusing, this one became even more so because the Senate is split 50/50. This made it challenging because it meant that 17 Republicans would need to side with the democrats. Unfortunately, there are still too many loyal to Trump and are more concerned with appeasing him and his base than anything else. While it was confusing, it is essential to understand the players and what role they served. 4 things to understand and take away from this impeachment are the Impeachment Managers, Trump’s defense team, The vote, and Mitch McConnell. While there was much more that went into this impeachment, this list of 4 unlocks a lot of the confusion in a simple and easy to follow way.

1. IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS

• Impeachment Managers are a select group from the house of representatives assembled to argue the case to the Senate. If this were a real court of law, the Impeachment Managers would be the prosecution, Trump’s team the defense, and the Senate would be the jurors. The 9 Impeachment Managers handpicked by Speaker of the House, Nanci Pelosi, lead by Rep. Jamie Raskin D-Maryland, by overwhelming opinion (except for the Trumps team and some on Fox News) did a fantastic job. However, going into the trial, they knew they would not have the votes to convict Trump. A ⅔ majority is needed, and with the house split 50/50, they would need 17 Republicans to be swayed. Unfortunately, as proven by said trial, many republicans are still under Trump’s thumb or are just hoping to appeal to his base and worrying about their own political futures. The Managers were fighting a losing battle from the beginning, but they did not let this stop them. They viewed this as a PR strategy to sway public opinion. Preparing for the likelihood of Trump running for President again in 2024. Rep. Ted Lieu D-CA, one of the impeachment managers, said, “I’m not afraid of Donald Trump running again in four years. I’m afraid he’s going to run again and lose. Because he can do this again”. If that does not convince people to be wary of Trump’s future, what will?
• The Managers knew they could not sway the number of republicans needed to convict, but they knew they could persuade Americans watching from home. So even if they could not bar Donald Trump from running for public office again, they might convince people not to vote for him if that day is to ever come. Every piece of information they put forward had a purpose, every tweet, every video, and even their seemingly strange request to call a witness. They put forth a motion to call Rep. Jaime Herrera-Beutler R-WA, then decided against it when Trump’s team asked to submit her statement into evidence instead. While strange, the U.S. Virgin Islands Del. Stacey Plaskett, in an interview with CNN, said they achieved what they wanted by being able to read Rep. Jaime Herrera-Beutler’s statement on the record. They knew it did not matter how many witnesses they had or what was even presented. The outcome was going to be the same. Plaskett states, “we didn’t need more witnesses, we needed more senators with spines.” All they wished to achieve was having Herrera-Beutler’s statement on record. This way everyone knew the truth, and the truth became a part of history, and everyone would see that these senators let their constituents down when they voted to acquit. It showed that they were more concerned with their own political futures than justice; and that they were unconcerned with the potential of this acquittal setting a dangerous precedent for future presidents. 

2. TRUMPS DEFENSE TEAM

• Donald Trump’s defense team from day one showed their true colors. Although they had been working on this case for less than two weeks, their start was worse than expected. Trump’s original defense team quit. The first day, when arguments began with whether it was within the constitution’s confines to impeach a former president, they were incoherent. They did not seem prepared or up to the task of a trial of this caliber. Bruce Castor was unprepared and unprofessional; trying to joke around and going off script, making little to no sense. David Schoen fairing only slightly better. They apparently changed how they originally planned on presenting because of what a stellar job the impeachment managers had done. Trump was reportedly livid with their performance. After that day, Michael van der Veen, a personal injury lawyer from Philidelphia, PA, seemed to step into the defense’s lead spot. Van der Veen took a page right out of Trump’s book; he was loud, angry, sleazy, and fell back on lies and unsubstantiated ‘facts’ to try to manipulate the public. The New York Times and other news outlets even had fact checks going on during van der Veen’s remarks. Similar to what they had for Trump during his campaign speeches and time in office.
• The defense incorporated videos into their presentation that were offensive and misleading. Del. Stacey Plaskett stated “I’ll briefly say that defense counsels put a lot of videos out in their defense, playing clip after clip of Black women talking about fighting for a cause or an issue or a policy. It’s not lost on me that so many of them were people of color and women. Black women. Black women like myself who are sick and tired of being sick and tired for our children, your children.” She called them out for that and for spreading the same hate that insighted the insurrection in the first place. Van der Veen also slipped in suggestions that insurrection was an Antifa plot and that MAGA supporters were the ones peacefully protesting. He straight out ignored the truth and spread Trump’s propaganda and hate-filled rhetoric. 

3. The Vote

• The vote in the senate turned out how most people figured it would. Republicans (and only republicans) voted to acquit Donald Trump of his crimes. There were only 7 Republicans who voted to convict Trump; Senators’ Mit Romney of Utah, Richard Burr North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. However, despite voting with their conscience, they are facing fallout from their party. For example, Cassidy and Burr were censured almost immediately by their state Republican parties in Louisiana and North Carolina. A Lousiana GOP member, Mike Bayham, called Cassidy a “Senator without a party.” The vote was not meant to be partisan. The Senate or ‘jurors’ were intended to be impartial and view the case with an open mind. The Republicans who actually followed this rule are being harassed and scolded by their colleagues.
• On the other hand, those who did vote too acquit are now being questioned by outraged Americans and news organizations. Many senators are citing that their decision stems from a lack of jurisdiction, but that argument is moot. They voted on Day 1 to determine if this was within their purview to go through with the trial. It was found constitutional, so therefore the idea that it was unconstitutional to convict a former president on an article of impeachment, little merit. After they voted to move forward with the trial, they were meant to take constitutionality out of the equation regarding the jurisdiction because it was determined that it was within their jurisdiction. Many say that the jurisdiction argument is just a safety net Republicans are using to justify not voting to convict. Even though Trump’s Lawyers were no match for the Impeachment Managers’ evidence, the case was still lost. Many are still hoping that the criminal charges (none of which as of now have to do with the insurrection) he may be facing in New York and Georgia will stick. 

4. MITCH MCCONNELL

• Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, is in some hot water following the outcome of the trial. No one was surprised when he voted to acquit. He even sent out a memo stating that he was doing so, sealing the trial’s fate and securing any potential stragglers whose vote could have been swayed. What has people enraged is that right after voting to acquit, he gave a blistering 20-minute speech condemning Trump’s behavior. In this speech, he blames former President Trump for the January 6, Insurrection in the capital, saying it “was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet earth.” He condemns the former President for his actions and believes he needs to be held accountable, not by the Senate. What he said is not what many have an issue with. They have a problem with the fact that his vote to acquit did not reflect his view on the President and that if he feels the President should be punished, why not start here. While he could not in good conscience stop from speaking his mind, but why couldn’t his vote represent his feelings?
• On CNN, they were calling him a flip-flopper, accusing McConnell of wanting to have his cake and eat it too. He wants Trump to be punished. He just did not want to be responsible for punishing him. This trial was the place he would be held accountable for what happened on January 6, nowhere else. While Trump does have potential indictments coming from other courts around the country, none are related to this, so he virtually has escaped all punishment for inciting a coup. While the justice department could potentially bring charges against him, it is highly unlikely that will actually happen. 

The outcome of this impeachment has caused a well-deserved PR disaster for Trump and his republican supporters. Many feel that republicans were more worried about themselves and their political futures than their duty of being a voice for the people. Many face questions and backlash on how they could acquit the former President for insighting a deathly insurrection in the capital. They are worrying about what will stop this from happening again in the future; after setting a dangerous president. The Impeachment Managers charged with prosecuting the case knew it was an uphill battle, but they did not let that stop them. They presented a clear and truthful case, and even with the evidence they put forward and the lack of substance from Trump’s defense team, all but 7 republicans could not be swayed. Falling short of the 17 they actually needed. It became clear that it did not matter what the managers presented. It would not change the minds of enough senators to win the trial. All they could hope was that they did enough to change public opinion.