Connect with us


Trump’s Second Impeachment Trial To Start Tuesday



  • Former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial will officially start Tuesday, making him the first president ever to be tried twice for impeachable offenses.
  • Trump’s legal team filed a brief on Monday outlining their two main arguments: that Trump bears no responsibility for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection, and that it is unconstitutional to try a president who has already left office.
  • In a briefing filed last week, House impeachment managers argued Trump was “singularly responsible” for the insurrection, and that there was precedent for removing a former official from the 19th century trial of a former war secretary.
  • Top leaders are still hashing out the final details of the trial’s structure and timeline, but the whole process could end as early as next week, making it the shortest impeachment trial in American history.

Impeachment Arguments

The second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump is set to start Tuesday, nearly a month after the House voted 232 to 197 to charge him with “incitement of insurrection” following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

On Monday, Trump’s legal team filed their official pre-trial brief, where they condemned the case against him as “political theater” and outlined the two major arguments they will make in the former president’s defense. 

First, they will claim that Trump “did not direct anyone to commit unlawful actions” in his speech before the attack and deserves zero blame for the conduct of a “small group of criminals.” Secondly, they will argue that the Senate “lacks jurisdiction” to try a president who has already left office and thus is a private citizen.

The filing responds to an 80-page brief filed last week by the House impeachment managers, which stated that Trump was “singularly responsible” for the insurrection and argued that he intentionally whipped his supporters into a frenzy that “endangered the life of every single member of Congress” as part of an intentional effort to cling to power.

“If provoking an insurrectionary riot against a joint session of Congress after losing an election is not an impeachable offense, it is hard to imagine what would be,” they wrote.

The House managers also attempted to preempt the constitutional argument in their brief. They noted that many legal scholars, including prominent conservatives, have argued that the founders never intended to exempt a president who was impeached while in office but left before senators could try him.

The Democrats also pointed to the fact that in the 19th century, the Senate voted to try a former war secretary, arguing that proved there was precedent for holding a trial for an official who had left office.

Additionally, others have noted that Trump’s power over his supporters has become a major theme in the federal criminal cases brought against more than 185 people involved in the insurrection so far.

According to The Washington Post, court documents show that more than two dozen people explicitly cited Trump and his calls to gather on Jan. 6. Dozens of other cases where he is not explicitly named also allege that the rioters were largely motivated by the false election claims he spent months spreading.

Structure and Timeline

As far as the structure of the trial, top leaders are still hashing out the final details, including how long the proceedings will take and whether or not witnesses will be called.

According to The New York Times, top Senators are closing in on a bipartisan agreement that would start off Tuesday’s proceedings with up to four hours of debate on the constitutionality question, followed by a vote on the matter.  

A simple majority of senators must agree to move forward, which can be expected with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie. After that, both sides will get up to 16 hours to present their cases starting at noon on Wednesday, meaning that the trial will be incredibly quick and likely wrap up as early as next week, making it the fastest in American history.

Still, the big question remains: will enough Republicans vote to convict Trump?

If all Democrats vote in favor, 17 GOP members would need to sign on. While Democrats have framed the decision as a referendum on whether or not Trump should ever hold public office, it is unclear if that incentive is big enough for many Republicans who view his supporters as key to their base, as well as those who do not want to be primaried by a far-right candidate.

Already, the party has signaled that it will not ultimately decide to convict, with all but five members voting in favor of a resolution to throw out the case on the grounds that it was unconstitutional in a key test case at the end of last month.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (NPR)


Jan. 6 Committee Prepares Criminal Charges Against Steve Bannon for Ignoring Subpoena



The move comes after former President Trump told several of his previous aides not to cooperate with the committee’s investigation into the insurrection.

Bannon Refuses to Comply With Subpoena

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection announced Thursday that it is seeking to hold former White House advisor Steve Bannon in criminal contempt for refusing to comply with a subpoena.

The decision marks a significant escalation in the panel’s efforts to force officials under former President Donald Trump’s administration to comply with its probe amid Trump’s growing efforts to obstruct the inquiry.

In recent weeks, the former president has launched a number of attempts to block the panel from getting key documents, testimonies, and other evidence requested by the committee that he claims are protected by executive privilege.

Notably, some of those assertions have been shut down. On Friday, President Joe Biden rejected Trump’s effort to withhold documents relating to the insurrection.

Still, Trump has also directed former officials in his administration not to comply with subpoenas or cooperate with the committee. 

That demand came after the panel issued subpoenas ordering depositions from Bannon and three other former officials: Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, and Pentagon Chief of Staff Kash Patel.

After Trump issued his demand, Bannon’s lawyer announced that he would not obey the subpoena until the panel reached an agreement with Trump or a court ruled on the executive privilege matter.

Many legal experts have questioned whether Bannon, who left the White House in 2017, can claim executive privilege for something that happened when he was not working for the executive.

Panel Intensifies Compliance Efforts

The Thursday decision from the committee is significant because it will likely set up a legal battle and test how much authority the committee can and will exercise in requiring compliance.

It also sets an important precedent for those who have been subpoenaed. While Bannon is the first former official to openly defy the committee, there have been reports that others plan to do the same. 

The panel previously said Patel and Meadows were “engaging” with investigators, but on Thursday, several outlets reported that the two — who were supposed to appear before the body on Thursday and Friday respectively —  are now expected to be given an extension or continuance.

Sources told reporters that Scavino, who was also asked to testify Friday, has had his deposition postponed because service of his subpoena was delayed.

As far as what happens next for Bannon, the committee will vote to adopt the contempt report next week. Once that is complete, the matter will go before the House for a full vote.  

Assuming the Democratic-held House approves the contempt charge, it will then get referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to bring the matter before a grand jury.

See what others are saying: (CNN) (The Washington Post) (Bloomberg)

Continue Reading


Senate Votes To Extend Debt Ceiling Until December



The move adds another deadline to Dec. 3, which is also when the federal government is set to shut down unless Congress approves new spending.

Debt Ceiling Raised Temporarily

The Senate voted on Thursday to extend the debt ceiling until December, temporarily averting a fiscal catastrophe.

The move, which followed weeks of stalemate due to Republican objections, came after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) partially backed down from his blockade and offered a short-term proposal.

After much whipping of votes, 11 Republicans joined Democrats to break the legislative filibuster and move to final approval of the measure. The bill ultimately passed in a vote of 50-48 without any Republican support.

The legislation will now head to the House, where Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said members would be called back from their current recess for a vote on Tuesday. 

The White House said President Joe Biden would sign the measure, but urged Congress to pass a longer extension.

“We cannot allow partisan politics to hold our economy hostage, and we can’t allow the routine process of paying our bills to turn into a confidence-shaking political showdown every two years or every two months,’’ White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement.

Under the current bill, the nation’s borrowing limit will be increased by $480 billion, which the Treasury Department said will cover federal borrowing until around Dec. 3.

The agency had previously warned that it would run out of money by Oct. 18 if Congress failed to act. Such a move would have a chilling impact on the economy, forcing the U.S. to default on its debts and potentially plunging the country into a recession. 

Major Hurdles Remain

While the legislation extending the ceiling will certainly offer temporary relief, it sets up another perilous deadline for the first Friday in December, when government funding is also set to expire if Congress does not approve another spending bill.

Regardless of the new deadline, many of the same hurdles lawmakers faced the first time around remain. 

Democrats are still struggling to hammer out the final details of Biden’s $3.5 trillion spending agenda, which Republicans have strongly opposed.

Notably, Democratic leaders previously said they could pass the bill through budget reconciliation, which would allow them to approve the measure with 50 votes and no Republican support.

Such a move would require all 50 Senators, but intraparty disputes remain over objections brought by Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Az.), who have been stalling the process for months.

Although disagreements over reconciliation are ongoing among Democrats, McConnell has insisted the party use the obscure procedural process to raise the debt limit. Democrats, however, have balked at the idea, arguing that tying the debt ceiling to reconciliation would set a dangerous precedent.

Despite Republican efforts to connect the limit to Biden’s economic agenda, raising the ceiling is not the same as adopting new spending. Rather, the limit is increased to pay off spending that has already been authorized by previous sessions of Congress and past administrations.

In fact, much of the current debt stems from policies passed by Republicans during the Trump administration, including the 2017 tax overhaul. 

As a result, while Democrats have signaled they may make concessions to Manchin and Sinema, they strongly believe that Republicans must join them to increase the debt ceiling to fund projects their party supported. 

It is currently unclear when or how the ongoing stalemate will be resolved, or how either party will overcome their fervent objections.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading


California Makes Universal Voting by Mail Permanent



California is now the eighth state to make universal mail-in ballots permanent after it temporarily adopted the policy for elections held amid the COVID-19 pandemic. 

CA Approves Universal Voting by Mail

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill Monday requiring every registered voter in the state to be mailed a ballot at least 29 days before an election, whether they request it or not.

Assembly Bill 37 makes permanent a practice that was temporarily adopted for elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. The law, which officially takes effect in January, also extends the time mail ballots have to arrive at elections offices from three days to seven days after an election. Voters can still choose to cast their vote in person if they prefer.

Supporters of the policy have cheered the move, arguing that proactively sending ballots to registered voters increases turnout.

“Data shows that sending everyone a ballot in the mail provides voters access. And when voters get ballots in the mail, they vote,” the bill’s author, Assemblyman Marc Berman (D-Palo Alto), said during a Senate committee hearing in July.

Meanwhile opponents — mostly Republicans — have long cast doubts about the safety of mail-in voting, despite a lack of evidence to support their claims that it leads to widespread voter fraud. That strategy, however, has also faced notable pushback from some that a lot of Republicans who say it can actually hurt GOP turnout.

Others May Follow

The new legislation probably isn’t too surprising for California, where over 50% of votes cast in general elections have been through mail ballots since 2012, according to The Sacramento Bee. Now, many believe California will be followed by similar legislation from Democrats across the country as more Republican leaders move forward with elections bills that significantly limit voting access.

Newsome signed 10 other measures Monday changing election and campaign procedures, including a bill that would require anyone advocating for or against a candidate to stand farther away from a polling place. Another bill increases penalties for candidates who use campaign funds for personal expenses while a third measure increases reporting requirements for limited liability corporations that engage in campaign activity.

“As states across our country continue to enact undemocratic voter suppression laws, California is increasing voter access, expanding voting options and bolstering elections integrity and transparency,” Newsom said in a statement.

“Last year we took unprecedented steps to ensure all voters had the opportunity to cast a ballot during the pandemic and today we are making those measures permanent after record-breaking participation in the 2020 presidential election.”

The news regarding California came just in time for National Voter Registration day today, giving Americans another reminder to make sure they’re registered in their states. For more information on how to register, visit or any of the other resources linked below.

See what others are saying: (The Hill) (Los Angeles Times) (The Sacramento Bee)

Continue Reading