Anita: I agree with Kyle on this one. We saw a record number of tweets — many of them retweets — and the typical insults against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and and lead House managers Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler. But Trump still did other things — went to Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum, spoke at the March for Life and met with a group of mayors — and didn’t do anything that disrupted the trial. During a quick trip to Miami on Thursday, Trump gave a 90-minute speech at a Republican National Committee meeting but only a small part of it was about impeachment, according to a person familiar with his remarks. He mocked Democrats for what he dubbed “impeachment lite” and remarked that no one was watching the trial, but most of his remarks focused on the 2016 race and his accomplishments as president. Yes, he was more restrained than I thought he’d be.
What do the Senate’s media restrictions mean for your day-to-day work — and life?
Melanie: Some of our best news gathering — and source building — usually happens when we talk and walk freely with lawmakers throughout the Capitol grounds. Sometimes that means literally running after members who aren’t eager to talk to reporters. But we don’t have that ability during the trial. We’re being forced to stand in one area, meaning we can talk only to senators who are willing to come over and speak with the press. So we can’t do a critical component of our job: posing questions to senators, including — and especially — those who don’t want to be asked.
Darren: Yeah, it’s a pain in the butt. The Senate is hands down one of the most fun institutions to cover because of the access reporters have to individual members. So it’s not cool at all being rounded up into pens and blocked from walking with the senators. It makes an already tough job that much more challenging.
Kyle: The restrictions have made the news-gathering process a little more robotic than it might otherwise be. There’s limited value, for a reporter covering the factual arguments, to sitting in the chamber itself because you’re unable to document the trial as effectively as you can in a newsroom with a recorder and laptop. There’s incredible color to capture inside the Senate chamber, but for those covering the nuts and bolts of the trial, you might as well watch it on TV. That’s reinforced the importance of finding themes or undercurrents in the arguments that we can elevate for readers to get a deeper understanding of what’s going on.
Anita: I’m not there covering the trial day to day like my colleagues. But as a former Capitol Hill reporter, who knows what it usually is like, and now a White House reporter, who is restricted within the building to just a few areas with not many staffers, I understand what my colleagues are dealing with.
What are you most looking forward to seeing next week?
Darren: I’d say a final vote on the whole enchilada is the most anticipated moment — but it’s a giant “if” whether that indeed will come before next weekend. So as a backup, I’ll go with Ken Starr’s presentation — which we can say with greater certainty is likely to come as soon as Monday. Credit Trump for the drama that comes with adding to his impeachment defense team the last investigator to prompt a presidential impeachment. Democrats are already crying hypocrisy by noting that Starr is now taking a very different position on what constitutes an impeachable offense compared with where he was 20-plus years ago with Bill Clinton. It’ll be interesting to see how he squares that.
Kyle: I’m most excited about how the Senate resolves the quickly piling inbox of procedural fights that will tell us whether to expect a summary acquittal or a protracted trial featuring witnesses and documents. Most signs point to the former, but every day the trial remains open is another chance for new information or external forces to shift the politics. These questions won’t really be resolved by which side presents the most persuasive arguments but rather by the competing pressures facing lawmakers at home, from the White House and from the uncertainties of an election year impeachment.
Anita: We don’t know what the actual vote will be to acquit Trump, but we are nearly certain that he will be acquitted. That leaves the biggest drama over whether the Senate will want witnesses to testify — a vote that is likely to come next week. If the Senate calls witnesses, it will prolong the trial, leave open the possibility we will hear new evidence and even potentially alter the verdict (although there’s only an extremely small chance of that). I’m not a close Senate watcher, like some of my colleagues here, but even I’m interested in who votes for witnesses. Will all the Democrats stick together and vote for witnesses? What will Republicans Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — the three who are being targeted even by groups on the right — and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee do? Is there another Republican who will end up voting for witnesses?
Reader question: If the Democrats maintain their majority in the House and take back the Senate in the November elections, can the House impeach Trump again if he is reelected and have a better chance of having him removed from office with a majority in both houses?
Kyle: There’s almost no realistic scenario in which Democrats win the Senate but lose the 2020 presidential election: Are there really a lot of Trump voters who will pull the lever for a Democratic Senate candidate?
Melanie: That’s an interesting scenario. The threshold to convict in the Senate is still high — two-thirds — so it would still require Republicans to break ranks. But perhaps more GOP senators would be willing to remove Trump from office if they no longer have to worry about him being on the ticket in the future (especially if they blame him for losing the Senate). However, it’s pretty hard to imagine Democrats going down the impeachment road again, although Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said: Never underestimate Trump’s ability to “self-impeach.”
Anita: Can they do it? Yes. Will they do it? Very unlikely. First, there’s logistical hurdle: Democrats don’t just need a majority. They need two-thirds, or 67 senators. Even if Democrats take control of the Senate, the chance they would occupy 67 seats is slim to none. That means they would need some Republicans to join them and, as we can see from what the Republican senators are saying now, that would be a very difficult task. Then, there’s the political hurdle: Democrats don’t want to appear as if they’re just about impeachment. They want to appear as if they’re about getting bills passed and pushing for policies. Remember how reluctant House leaders were to launch an impeachment inquiry in 2019 even after allegations he obstructed justice during the Russia investigation, allegations he violated the Constitution by accepting U.S. and foreign government money at his resorts and allegations he made hush money payments to women he had affairs with? The bar would be even higher the second time around.
Source: politico.com
See more here: news365.stream
