Impeachment The Sequel

I encourage you to head over to patreon dot com slash woke a F and subscribe for just five dollars so that you don't miss a single enlightening conversation. But since we are living through the historic second impeachment of a president who's already left office, I wanted to give you a healthy taste of this week's think Thursday discussions. First up, former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirshner, who you may

know from MSNBC Peacock and his own Patreon show. He reacted to the opening statements in the impeachment trial and gave a legal breakdown of why the impeachment trial of citizen Trump is in fact not unconstitutional. Glenn, I feel like I don't know. For the last several months, every week is another historic week in America. I would like to get back to a time when we are bored,

but that is not the case yet. So we've had now our opening statements from both the house managers impeachment managers, as well as Donald Trump's last minute substitute B string I guess team of lawyers. I want to get your initial reactions before we dig in to specifics. So what were your overall feelings on what you saw this week? And a lot to unpack. So in Impeachment the Sequel, Part two, I will say my first impression watching the two teams of lawyers is if I ever need lawyers,

I'm going to Raskins, Nogoose and Cicillini. I Am not going to showing and cast right because it really it was embarrassing. It wasn't the B team, it was the you know, maybe the W team. They were way down in the alphabet. I heard Nicole Wade say she counted him up, counted Trump's defense teams up. This is the seventh defense teams he's had and over the last four years. Yes, and he's clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel. So it was an embarrassment, and even some of the Republican

senators said it was an embarrassment. So look, the presentation by the three House managers the prosecutors in substance was powerful. It was you know, they hit the right legal notes, the right factual notes, the right procedural notes, and most importantly from an old career trial prosecutor, the right emotional notes. You know, the opening montage was put together chronologically in a way that I hadn't seen it done before, relating kind of almost in real time, how the insurrection unfolded,

and importantly how it was inspired by Donald Trump. Then when the defense team started its presentation, you know, it was laughable. But I'll try to leave all the jokes aside. That the problem that they had, and they really didn't handle it well, is that there are there are two enormous hurdles for them to overcome argument that the Constitution doesn't allow us to try at a Senate impeachment trial a former president who was impeached while he was president.

The first is the plain language of the Constitution. It says that the Senate shall have the power to try all impeachments period there's no footnote, there's no caveat, there's no asterisk that said the Senate shall have the power to try all impeachments unless the president resigned or was out of office right quick before the trial kicked off. Right, it's a silly argument that the Constitution prohibits it, because the contrary is true. The Constitution expressly provides for it

with no caveats. The second is so the plain language of the Constitution kills the defense argument. But the second is precedent. When we talk about precedent, Danielle, as you know, we're usually talking about court cases, Right, the Supreme Court has said X Y and Z, and that's why X Y and Z is precedent. Well, because there's this thing called the political question doctrine, which says courts are not permitted to touch to decide to litigate uniquely political questions

like impeachment. There will never be court precedent, Supreme Court or otherwise on the ins and outs of an impeachment hearing because it's a political question. So what do we do. We look to historical precedent, we look to political precedent, we look to procedural precedent, and we have all of that because this exact thing has been done before in our nation's history multiple times. And people have probably heard about the Marquee case. In eighteen seventy six, the Secretary

of War, William bell Napp, he was impeached. He resigned because he didn't want the Senate to try his impeachment case. What did the Senate do? They tried his impeachment case even though he had resigned. So in our nation's history there is political precedent for the Senate to do exactly what the Senate is doing. Those are two big deal pieces of information or evidence or precedent that control this thing, the Constitution and our nation's history. And the Defense did

nothing to talk about that. All they did was they were rambling. I don't know what they did. It was absurd and frankly obscene. And but here's the thing, Danielle, because we both saw it. Forty four spineless Republicans took the jurisdictional out we talk about in law enforcement, giving a suspect and out, like when we're trying to get a suspect in a homicide interrogation to admit that he's the one who killed the victim. But he didn't want to admit it, doesn't want to admit it, we give

him an out. The out is usually a self defense out. Well, you know that guy had a gun, that guy you killed, and I heard he was going to pull it on you, so you kind of had to kill him in self defense. And then the suspect you can see the wheels turning. They're like, that's right, I killed him in self defense. Well, no, you didn't, because the facts don't support that. But I'm glad we've now gotten over the hurdle of the fact that you killed him. Let's continue the interrogation. It's called

giving him an out. The forty four senators took the jurisdictional out and let me finish, not finish our conversation, but finish on this. You've heard this said in various ways, one hundred times by lawyers. You know, the lawyers. I'm not crazy about lawyers myself. Yeah, you've heard us say, we got the law on our side, Pound on the law right when we've got the facts on our side, Pound on the facts, when we've gotten either on our side,

pound on the table, make some noise distract. I'm going to add one line based on what I saw yesterday. If you don't have the law on your side, and you don't have the facts on your side, then pound on partisanship and cowardice and weakness, because nothing resonates with those Republican senators like partisanship, cowardice, and weakness. And forty four of them took the out and that is despicable.

It's unpatriotic. And if they are willing to sign up for insurrection, what the heck else are they willing to sign up for? This week on woke af Daily's Think Thursday show, I was also joined by legal analyst Midwind Charles, founder of Midwind Charles and Associates. Midwind tour into Trump's clown car legal team and the absurdity of Mitch McConnell delayed the Senate and impeachment hearing until after Trump had left office, only to claim that holding the trial after

he left office would be unconstitutional. I love talking with Midwind because, like me, she cuts through the bullshit. So be sure to check out our full thirty minute conversation at patreon dot com slash woke af With respect to the attorneys who were representing Donald Trump, who quite literally deserve no respect but please go ahead. It seems as though they got their law degrees at Trump University. That

was not. First of all, that was not lawyering. It was incoherent, it was unorganized, it was unclear what points they were trying to make, and most importantly, they didn't even address the very valid points that the House managers made in their opening, which is, if we don't go forward with this trial, you are effectively setting the precedent for a president to go on a crime spree the last week or week before he or she leaves office

and there would be no accountability. They didn't even address that, and to me, that's one of the strongest arguments as to why having this trial is constitutional. It is appropriate. And following the opening, the Senate did vote going forward in favor of this being constitutional, with I think six Republicans joining in with all the Democrats. And I also find that surprising because I'm like, why would Republicans who love power cast a vote that would limit their power?

But then again, they have never been a party to live by precedent. They have never been a party to be consistent. We know this with the Amy Cody Barrett hearing versus the refusal to have a hearing from Mary Garland. But I just thought the presentation by Trump's attorneys was abysmal. It was not helpful. There are some arguments that could have been made that would have been favorable to Donald

Trump that would be reasonable. I'm not saying that they would be persuasive, but there were reasonable arguments to make. For example, is it fair that someone should be held responsible for the actions of someone else? Right? A reasonable argument. They didn't really even make those kinds of arguments. Yes, they talked about First Amendment, but they didn't drive home this idea, the danger of holding someone responsible for the

conduct of someone else. So I just couldn't even quite understand what was happening as I listened to the two attorneys. It didn't make any sense to me. I mean, at one point I tweeted and I said, literally, someone tell me what is happening? Because I didn't go to law school, right, and so I always ask for clarification what I don't understand shit, And everyone was just like, I'm watching it too, and I don't know. I have no idea what we're looking at, and I don't know what I'm looking at.

You know, what was striking to me is Claire McCaskill on MSNBC. She said something that has stood out to me this week, which was that in any other situation, law firms, the top law firms in the country, would be clamoring to represent the president of the United States, because representing the president of the United States is essentially a career making moment, like presenting before the Supreme Court, right,

like it is a career making moment. So what does it say that what we know to this point Donald Trump has gone through seven different defense teams and now essentially, yes, I guess Trump University produced Trump Law School, because that's where these folks have come from. Because it looked like it didn't even look like a Barnum and Bailey circus. It looked like a circus put on by like a toddler in dogs like I don't even you know, it

just didn't It didn't make any sense. And when I watched, I wanted to get your reaction to Senator Cassidy, right, the only surprise out of the band of forty four Republicans who decided that insurrection is absolutely what they're doubling down on. They can bullshit all they want and say that Oh, it was unconstitutional. Note wasn't Mitch McConnell holding up Merritt Garland's seat for three hundred and sixty three

days that was unconstitutional? This no, especially the fact that Mitch McConnell had the option to bring this trial when Donald Trump was still in office, which is when he was impeached in the House, but chose not to. Right. So it's like, oh, it's too late to impeach him, and now it was too early to impeach him, right. And we know that Mitch McConnell is very kayle of holding a hearing and ramming through whatever it is issue it is that he wants and exhibit as is the

Amy Coney Barrett hearing. So the idea that there wasn't enough time it couldn't have been done because I believe the vote in the House to impeach Donald Trump was January thirteenth, so he had what seven more days until

the end of his term in transition. So we know, as we know from the Amy Coney Barrett that if Mitch McConnell really wanted to have that trial, he could have done it because we saw how quickly and how swift the Amy Coney Barrett hearings were done so the art, so whatever argument it is that he had to delay the trial isn't credible. And again, like I said earlier, bad faith, right, the idea, the idea that you would

delay a trial. And then when it comes time to vote as to the idea that you would delay a trial such that by the time it happens, Trump is no longer in office. And then a vote comes up as to whether it is constitutional to go through with the trial because he's no longer in office, and you vote no when you are the reason as to why

the trial is happening when he's no longer in office. Again, bad faith, bad faith, not someone with integrity, not someone with character, and not someone who can be trusted when they give their word. And I hope Democrats learn from this. I don't know how many times they have to see Mitch McConnell and Republicans do this and still try to deal with them in anticipation that maybe one day this will be the thing to get them to act with

good faith. Based on the willingness of forty four Republican senators to stand with their dear leader instead of the law, it looks like Donald Trump will be acquitted a second time, but we need to have these conversations to point out the lies, hypocrisy, and treason of the Republican Party. If you know me, you know I call out the bullshit every chance I get. So to hear me and all my fabulous woke guests pop off five days a week.

Subscribe at patreon dot com slash woke af five dollars a month get to you five amazing one hour shows every single week, including think Thursdays, Woke Wednesdays, and my favorite feel good Fridays. You don't want to miss any of the wokeness I'm bringing, and once your friends hear it, they won't either. So share the love until next time. Power to the people and to all the people. Power, get woke and stay woke as fuck.