- During the first day of former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, senators focused mostly on the question of whether it was unconstitutional to try a president who had already left office.
- House impeachment managers tried to appeal to the senators’ emotions in their opening statements and showed a graphic 13-minute video of the insurrection, intercut with Trump’s remarks throughout the day.
- By contrast, Republican senators criticized Trump’s defense lawyer for using his opening remarks to deliver a confusing, unfocused speech that appeared to be largely off-the-cuff and ignored the constitutional question at hand.
- Senators ultimately ended the four-hour debate in a 56-44 vote agreeing that the trial proceeding is constitutional.
Senate Votes on Constitutionality Question
Former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial kicked off Tuesday with several hours of debate between the prosecution and defense over whether or not it was constitutional to try a president who had already left office.
The debate ultimately ended in a 56-44 vote that it was constitutional. The same five Republicans that broke party lines on a similar resolution last month again voted with Democrats, though this time they were also joined by a sixth Republican, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La).
The overall outcome of that vote was expected, and the more notable parts of the day did not come from the arguments each team made, but rather how they presented them and the reactions they got from the Senate jury.
Democrats Appeal To Emotion
Leading up to the trial, Democrats said that the best evidence they had was already on the public record: that the insurrection and Trump’s incitement of it all happened in real time on national TV, and that the senators on the jury were witnesses.
As a result, their strategy has been focused on an appeal to emotion. House manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md) opened the trial with a stirring and graphic 13-minute video that he said showed the timeline of events both inside and outside the Capitol on Jan. 6.
The video presented a violent visual record of the insurrection, including explicit, disturbing rhetoric and rally cries used by Trump’s supporters. The footage was intercut with Trump’s remarks at the rally before the attack and comments he made throughout the day.
According to pool reporters present, some senators looked away while the video played. Raskin later closed by recounting his own experience that day in an emotional speech. He argued that even though Trump is no longer in office, a president should be responsible for their speech from their first day in office to their last.
“A January exception is an invitation to our founders’ worst nightmare,” he said.
Trump Team Delivers Perplexing Opening
By contrast, the opening remarks delivered by Trump’s attorney, Bruce Castor Jr., were criticized by both Democrats and Republicans as meandering and confusing.
During his nearly hour-long speech, Castor took the senators down a winding path that largely ignored the constitutional question at hand and did not appear to end in a cohesive argument. Much of the speech appeared to be off the top of his head, and at times his remarks even seemed to undermine his own case.
“I’ll be quite frank with you. We changed what we were going to do on account that we thought that the house manager’s presentation was well done,” he said at one point.
Notably, Castor also acknowledged a few times that voters had chosen a new president and that Trump had in fact lost the election.
Trump’s other defense lawyer, David Schoen, later took the stand and attempted to remedy Castor’s blunder. He also made several arguments against the constitutionality of trying a former president, claimed the move was just a partisan ploy, and asserted that Trump’s speech was protected under the First Amendment.
What To Look for on Day 2
While the first day was focused on the constitutionality question, the remainder of the trial will be centered around whether or not Trump incited the attack.
The House managers are expected to continue their appeal to emotion and hammer home the point that Trump was responsible. Raskin has also said he will show previously unseen security footage.
As for team Trump, it is largely unclear how they will use their time moving forward. So far, most of their arguments outlined both before and during the trial have mainly focused on the now-settled claim that it is unconstitutional.
It is possible the defense will continue to make that argument, but they will at least be pushed to address the heart of the accusations head-on. At the same time, it seems all but ensured that there will not be enough Republicans who will vote to convict Trump, so it is very possible his team will just go through the motions without really trying because the outcome is already secured.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (NPR) (The New York Times)
Trump’s DOJ Allegedly Obtained Phone Records of WaPo Reporters Covering Russia Probe
- Former President Trump’s Justice Department secretly obtained phone records from Washington Post journalists covering Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, the outlet reported Friday.
- The DOJ seized records of the work, home, and cellphone numbers of three reporters from April 15 to July 31, 2017. Those records included who the calls were with and how long they were, but not what was said.
- Many journalists and Free Speech activists condemned the action and called on the Biden administration to end the practice of record subpoenas, which are often used by the government to find clues about possible sources and can harm key newsgathering.
- A DOJ spokesperson defended the previous administration’s actions, arguing that the news media are not the targets of such investigations but rather, “those with access to the national defense information who provided it to the media and thus failed to protect it as lawfully required.”
Washington Post Reporters Subpoenaed
The Washington Post reported Friday that the Justice Department under former President Donald Trump secretly obtained phone records from some of its journalists regarding reporting they did on Russia’s role in the 2016 election.
According to the outlet, the DOJ sent three separate letters dated May 3 and addressed to three former Post journalists to inform them they were “hereby notified that pursuant to legal process the United States Department of Justice received toll records associated with the following telephone numbers for the period from April 15, 2017 to July 31, 2017.”
The letters, which listed work, home, or cellphone numbers, also stated that prosecutors had gotten a court order to obtain records for the reporters’ work email accounts, but that they did not ultimately not obtain those records.
The phone records, the outlet said, “included the numbers of all the calls made to and from the targeted phone over the specified time period, and how long each call lasted, but do not include what was said in those phone calls.”
“Investigators often hope such records will provide clues about possible sources the reporters were in contact with before a particular story published,” it added.
The Post reported that the letters do not say why the DOJ was seizing the phone records. However, it did note that toward the end of the time period outlined, the three reporters had written a story about classified U.S. intelligence intercepts that indicated then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions had discussed the Trump campaign with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. when he was a sitting senator in 2016.
The alleged move is significant because it is rare for the DOJ to use subpoenas in order to obtain records of reporters in leak investigations. In fact, the last high-profile seizure of communication records was part of an investigation into a source cited in 2017 reporting that was also about the investigation into Russian election interference.
Also very notably, these subpoenas need to be approved directly by the attorney general. A spokesperson for the DOJ told The Post that the records had been requested in 2020, meaning it would have likely taken place under Attorney General William Barr, who stepped down on Dec. 23.
The allegations immediately drew criticism from First Amendment advocates and journalists, who have long opposed the practice of obtaining these kinds of records, and argued that attempts to identify sources of leaks hurt critical news gathering and reporting.
“We are deeply troubled by this use of government power to seek access to the communications of journalists,” said Cameron Barr, the current acting executive editor of The Post. “The Department of Justice should immediately make clear its reasons for this intrusion into the activities of reporters doing their jobs, an activity protected under the First Amendment.”
Many other journalists also demanded that the Biden administration ensure such practices are not replicated, noting the escalated efforts to subpoena reporters records under both the Trump and Obama administrations.
However, a DOJ spokesperson defended the previous administration’s decision to subpoena The Post reporters in a statement to the outlet.
“While rare, the Department follows the established procedures within its media guidelines policy when seeking legal process to obtain telephone toll records and non-content email records from media members as part of a criminal investigation into unauthorized disclosure of classified information,” the spokesperson said.
“The targets of these investigations are not the news media recipients but rather those with access to the national defense information who provided it to the media and thus failed to protect it as lawfully required.”
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Variety) (CNN)
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Signs Restrictive Elections Bill Into Law
- Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a sweeping elections bill into law Thursday that critics say will significantly limit voting access.
- Among other measures, the bill will impose new restrictions on ballot drop boxes, add barriers to mail-in voting, and limit who can hand out materials to voters at polling locations — a provision many believe will ban the distribution of food and water.
- While Republicans claim the bill is necessary to provide election security and transparency, Democrats and voting rights advocates argue that it will suppress voters, particularly voters of color.
- DeSantis also received widespread backlash from critics and the media for taking the unprecedented step of blocking all journalists from attending the signing ceremony for the law, which was broadcasted exclusively on Fox News.
Newest Voting Restrictions Law
Florida became the latest Republican-led state to impose new voting restrictions Thursday when Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a broad elections bill into law.
The new law contains many provisions similar to the dozens of pieces of legislation aimed at restricting voting access that have been proposed and approved in the months following the 2020 election.
Among other measures, the Florida law will:
- Limit the use of drop boxes and impose new restrictions on where they can be placed.
- Add more identification requirements for requesting absentee ballots.
- Require voters to request absentee ballots for each election, rather than getting them automatically through a voting list.
- Limit who can collect and drop off ballots.
- Give more power to partisan observers during the ballot-counting process.
- Expand a current rule that bans outside groups from engaging in actions that could influence voting within a 150-foot radius of a polling place, which voting rights experts say could be used to prohibit people from giving out food and water to voters waiting in line to vote.
On top of that, critics have also said the new law could result in longer lines for both early in-person and Election Day voting. Democrats and voting rights advocates have also argued that this is just a transparent attempt to suppress voters, and specifically voters of color.
Republicans, meanwhile, have claimed the new law is necessary to make elections more secure — claims that were reiterated by DeSantis during the signing ceremony.
“Me signing this bill says, ‘Florida, your vote counts,’” he said. “Your vote is going to be cast with integrity and transparency, and this is a great place for democracy.”
DeSantis Blocks Media From Bill Signing
In addition to backlash against the new law itself, many condemned DeSantis for speaking about transparency but then completely shutting the media out of the signing, which was broadcasted exclusively on Fox News.
Numerous individual reporters and outlets were blocked from accessing the event, including Jay O’Brien, a reporter for the local CBS affiliate, who tweeted that the station was supposed to film pool footage of the event to feed to affiliates nationwide.
“This isn’t a story about the press being locked out of an event,” O’Brien later added. “It’s about Floridians who had their eyes and ears in that room cut off. @GovRonDeSantis signed a law today that will impact ALL Floridians. And only some viewers were allowed to see it. That’s not normal.”
That disbelief was also echoed by other outlets, like The New York Times, which explained that “Giving exclusive access to a cable news network was unusual, if not unprecedented.”
The Flordia law, which was immediately challenged by civil rights groups in federal court, comes just months after Georgia passed a similar, widely controverisal bill.
Meanwhile in Texas, Republican leaders are ignoring the pleas of major corporations like Dell, Microsoft, and American Airlines by moving forward with legislation that would make the state one of the toughest to vote in throughout the entire country. That proposal, which has already been passed by the state Senate, could see a full state House vote as early as next week.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CBS News)
Biden Administration To Reunite Four Migrant Families Separated Under Trump
- Four migrant families split up under former President Trump’s child separation policy will be reunited this week, Biden administration officials said Sunday.
- More than 5,500 children were separated from their parents from 2017 to 2018. Around 1,000 families remained separated when Trump left office and over half had not been contacted by the administration.
- Shortly after taking office in January, President Biden formed the Family Reunification Task Force, which has located at least 200 more parents. The families that will be reunited later this week mark the first that the task force has connected.
- While immigration advocates applauded the move, they also criticized Biden’s team for not moving faster or pouring adequate resources into reunification efforts.
Four Migrant Families To Reunite
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas announced Sunday that four migrant parents who were separated from their children and deported alone under former President Donald Trump’s controversial family separation policy will be allowed to return to the U.S. and reunite with their kids.
The “zero tolerance” policy, one of Trump’s most notorious actions on immigration, was formally enacted in April 2018 and ended just months later in June after a federal judge forced the administration to stop.
It was later revealed that the administration had actually been regularly separating families throughout much of 2017. According to government documents, over 5,500 children were separated from their parents in 2017 and 2018.
Most of those families were later reunited, but at least 1,000 parents remained separated because a parent had been deported. More than half of those parents — an estimated 645 — still had not been contacted by the time Trump left office.
President Joe Biden has said reuniting families would be a top priority as he begins undoing the complex network of immigration policies set by Trump. This latest move marks the first families that will be reunited through the Family Reunification Task Force, which Biden created shortly after taking office in January.
So far, that task force has managed to find around 200 of the 645 remaining parents and recently reported that it’s looking into 5,600 files from the first few months of the Trump administration that may have evidence of even more separations.
Immigration Advocates Call for More
While immigration advocates and lawyers applauded the move, they also criticized the slow rate of reunification. Some also accused the Biden administration of taking credit for the reunions despite doing very little to facilitate them.
“Despite what Secretary Mayorkas would have the public believe, DHS has done nothing to facilitate the return and reunification of these parents this week, other than to agree to allow them in,” said Carol Anne Donohoe, a managing attorney for the reunification project run by immigrant advocacy organization Al Otro Lado.
“The only reason these mothers will be standing at the port of entry is because Al Otro Lado negotiated their travel visas with the Mexican government, paid for their airline tickets and arranged for reunification,” she added.
Many advocacy groups have also slammed the Biden administration for not doing enough to plan what happens next for these families. Some have urged them to provide permanent legal status to parents so they cannot be separated from their children again, as well as support services and potential financial compensation.
The parents arriving this week will be allowed to temporarily stay in the country under what’s called humanitarian parole, their long-term immigration status and what happens from here is largely up in the air.