Donald Trump, President Trump, Senator discussed on Nightside with Dan Rea
Through Friday night from eight until midnight. And a historic day in Washington today, we're gonna talk about The on trump impeachment trial. 2.0 it began. I guess you could argue today. Maybe it begins formally tomorrow. These these things they're sort of fluid. Today. The argument was a redo of the motion that I believe it was. Send a rien Paul filed a couple of weeks ago. Basically trying to knock out the trial is being unconstitutional and it went down. By a vote of 56 to 44. There were six Republicans who joined all Democrats who all 50 Democrats, along with six Republicans, Cassidy of Louisiana. Collins of Maine, Murkowski of Alaska, Romney of Utah sass of Nebraska and Toomey of Pennsylvania. That number six is well short of the 17 Republicans that would be needed to actually Convict Donald Trump. So we're gonna do is gonna open up the phone lines. I have a lot of sound that I would like to play from that It was broadcast on all of the Major networks, the main NBC, CBS and ABC, as well as CNN. And I'm assuming MSNBC, although I didn't check them out and Fox, so there were a lot of people who could have watched today, obviously. It ran from around one o'clock until I don't know fourth, well pretty close to five o'clock, actually, the Democrat House managers who are carrying the argument For the Democratic side played about a 30 minute video, which was put together very effective emotional video for the senator's tow watch. Of course, the senator's themselves who are the jurors on this trial. Would never be able to sit on a trial in the real world because they would all be stricken as jurors because they would have not only have formed opinions, but they would have been impacted by the trauma. Of January. 6th. In addition to be some questions raised about Theo, the one of the senators who's actually sitting In lieu of the chief justice of the Supreme Court. John Roberts has either decided not. He hasn't said anything as far as I know, but he is conspicuous by his absence. It has been explained away that the presence of this chief justice of the Supreme Court is only necessary when it is a sitting president. Who is in effect in the dock, and Pat Patrick Leahy, the 80 year old senator from Vermont, who has spoken out in advance on basically saying that Trump is guilty of incitement, insurrection. He is sitting as judge and conceivably, I guess will be one of the 100 jurors who would cast AH vote. Obviously, he cast a vote today because it was 50 50 Democrats and six Republicans who upheld The constitutionality of this this this event. Republicans going to call it a circus, and I'm sure Democrats going to see it as nothing more than justice delivered in an expeditious fashion, so Before I want to go to phones. That's what I want to do. Um, I do need to play a little bit. So let's let's just for those of you who missed some of it. Okay. Uh, we're just going to run through a couple of these very quickly just to give you a sense of it, so The lead manager of the house, the 17 members of the House who are carrying the ball for the Democrats. Eyes represented Congress men, Jamie Raskin, a Democrat of Maryland. Um, he after showing the video, and I think we've all seen the video of the day. Hey, this is what he had to say. This is cut 91, Rob cutting anyone? The president was impeached by the U. S. House of Representatives on January 13th for doing that. You asked for the high crime and misdemeanor is under our constitution. That's a high crime and misdemeanor. If that's not an impeachable offense than there is no such thing. Needless to say, the Republicans, the lawyers for much of the Republicans, the Democrats, but the lawyers for the president, including an attorney The former prosecutor out of Philadelphia. Bruce Castor, Um, see it quite differently, as you would expect. This is the president's leadoff lawyer, Bruce Castor, cut 101. This trial is about Is about trading liberty for the security from the mob. Honestly, No, it can't be. We can't be thinking about that. We can't possibly be suggesting that we punish people for political speech in this country. And if people go and commit lawless acts as a result of Their beliefs. And they cross the line. They should be locked up. One other well there. Several Democrats who spoke and this is a congressman Joe. No goose, I believe is how his name is pronounced his Democrat from Colorado, and he Addressed the the argument that now that Donald Trump is out of office, of course, the sanction in the Constitution is removal from office. If someone is convicted after the peach Mint, he made the argument that it is absolutely appropriate to try this case. Even though Donald Trump is now no longer in office. This is cut 94, please Rob Article one. Section two gives the House soul power of impeachment. Article one section pre gives the Senate Soul power to try all impeachments now based on President Trump's argument, one would think that language includes caveats. Exceptions. It doesn't It doesn't say impeachment of current civil officers. Doesn't say impeachment of those still in office. The framers didn't mince words. And again just to get a little bit of back and forth here, So you get a sense of it, asshole. What's going on here? Um, one of the president's other lawyers who spoke David shown I believe his house. Last name is pronounced. This will finish up with him for this segment Cut 1 11, please drop it is again for pure raw, misguided partisanship. Makes them believe playing to our worst instincts somehow is good. They don't need to show you movies to show you that the riot happened here. We will stipulate that it happened and you know all about it. This is a process fueled irresponsibly by base hatred by these house managers and those who gave them their charge, and they're willing to sacrifice our national character. To advance their hatred and their fear that one day They might not be the party in power. So here we are, Um, the impeachment trial. Uh, Trump impeachment Trump. Whose 2.0 is underway. If you have an opinion on it, and I suspect there will be very few of you who are ambivalent. The number 617254 10 30 Triple 8929 10 30. Is this long deserved justice. Or is this um Something less than justice. You. You tell me. I just want to give you the microphone. Open up an opportunity for you to say what you'd like to say. All points of view are welcome. I think that my feeling, as which I've expressed is this is an unconstitutional trial. Um I side with Alan Dershowitz and others. Who Who I respect immensely. They were citing some of the Republicans who Uh, who favored, uh, came down on the other side of the the argument on and one of them who they cited was former Solicitor general under Ronald Reagan. David Freed, Hey, is a unhealed early. I mean, a very elderly at this point, Um, a former law professor at Harvard. And freed has been wrong on a number of cases, including one that I was involved in in the same body case. His argument was that if the government put someone away Inappropriately and that individual can produce new evidence to prove his innocents within two or three of four years. That's wonderful. But if they don't produce that new evidence for 20 or 25 years, the longer they're away before they discovered the new evidence that.