| | |  | BY SAM STEIN AND TYLER WEYANT | Presented by |  |
|
| DAY 1 IN THE BOOKS — Trump’s second impeachment trial began today. In case you were a bit busy watching America’s foremost feline jurist, here’s a rundown of what happened:
| 
| — Opening with video: Democratic impeachment managers opened their case with an approximately 13-minute video graphically depicting the Jan. 6 insurrection that overtook the U.S. Capitol. The video stitched together footage from an array of sources inside and outside of the building during the deadly assault, and featured some of the most notorious images captured that day, including a U.S. Capitol Police officer with blood streaming down his face pleading for backup as he was being crushed inside a doorway. — An emotional leadoff: Rep. Jamie Raskin, the lead House impeachment manager, gave an emotional speech, remembering his late son, whom he buried the day before the Jan. 6 attack, and breaking down while talking about being separated from his daughter during the deadly siege. — The defense’s opening: Bruce Castor, Trump’s defense lawyer, opened his remarks by condemning the Capitol riot as “repugnant” while also praising senators as “extraordinary people.” His comments included a wide range of philosophical musings: He evoked democracy’s origins in Ancient Greece and claimed an impeachment conviction would lead to a “slippery slope.” Castor said only the Senate could stop the “bitter infighting” from decaying the country’s republic and denounced the trial as an “attack on the Constitution.” — Witness, juror, judge: Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chamber’s president pro tempore, pledged fairness and an equal say for Senate lawmakers as he presides over the trial. “My intention and solemn obligation is to conduct this trial with fairness to all,” Leahy wrote in a letter to his Senate colleagues. — The trial continues: In a 56-44 vote, the Senate declared it is constitutionally permitted to try Trump on the House’s charge that he incited the Jan. 6 insurrection, sidelining the former president’s primary defense in the impeachment case against him. Six Republicans voted with Democrats to support the ability to try a former president, a case that has won support from legal scholars of all ideologies but that Trump’s team said was unconstitutional. — GOP unhappy with Day 1: For Trump, the opening day of his second impeachment trial did not go as planned or to his liking . Cocooned at his Mar-a-Lago estate, Trump watched as his defense attorneys responded to an emotional presentation by House impeachment managers with a series of dry, technical and at times meandering arguments about due process and the constitutionality of the proceedings. And the jurors weren’t happy either: “President Trump’s team was disorganized. They did everything they could but to talk about the question at hand,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said. “And when they talked about it, they kind of glided over, almost as if they were embarrassed of their arguments.” — Today in 180 seconds: Watch.
| 
| Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out at sstein@politico.com, tweyant@politico.com and rrayasam@politico.com, or on Twitter at @samstein, @tweyant and @renurayasam.
| |
A message from Energy for Progress: Meeting energy needs and tackling climate change isn’t either/or. We have to do both. Across the board, natural gas and oil companies are implementing advanced technologies to better manage their infrastructure. From preventing methane leaks to inspecting operations deep underwater, these technologies are helping streamline operations while keeping net imports at an all-time low. Let’s make even more progress together. | | | WHAT IMPEACHMENT AND MTG HAVE IN COMMON — White House editor Sam Stein emails Nightly: The Biden White House’s official policy on Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) is they don’t talk about Marjorie Taylor Greene. Which may seem odd, considering that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s unofficial policy on Marjorie Taylor Greene is to make her the living embodiment of the Republican Party. How can the top Democrat have such a vastly different approach than his House campaign arm? To hear the White House tell it, it’s because they don’t want to lend a national stage to a wild conspiracy theorist. Fair enough. But the divergence in approach sheds light on a recurring debate in politics: How wise is it to elevate your most outlandish opponent? Instinctively, most political practitioners would say: Always. And yet there is ample history to suggest that the strategy fails as often as it works. The clearest example of this is playing out this week in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the ultimate case study in being careful whom you wish for, or engage with. Back in 2011, the Celebrity Apprentice host was making a big stink about President Barack Obama’s birthplace. Trump left the then-president with a choice: Ignore him or try to nip him in the bud. Obama tried the first option until he determined he needed to do the second one. The crescendo was a vicious bit of public mockery at the White House Correspondents' Dinner that helped convince Trump to run for president. And so began a years-long saga that posed the same question to the body politic: Ignore Trump or engage him head on? During the 2016 primary, Trump’s fellow Republican candidates ignored him before they attacked him. When Hillary Clinton ran against him, she was advised to both attack him and ignore him. Democrats in 2017 pledged to be a bulwark against Trump, until they decided to not talk about him. By the time 2020 rolled around, Democrats were still openly wondering whether it was wise to combat Trump or stay above the fray. And now, here we are again, with Republicans questioning whether Trump should be dealt with directly by a Senate conviction or ignored and left alone — ideally, they privately say, to slink off into retirement. Trump, of course, is an extreme example of how complicated this debate can be. But he’s far from the only complex case. For years, Nancy Pelosi has been the archetypal boogeyman for conservatives. Hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising has been devoted towards making her — to use the hackneyed phrase — the “face” of the Democratic Party. In some cycles and races, it worked. But, well, she’s Speaker now. And a Quinnipiac poll released one week ago had her as the most popular of the congressional leaders. Were those GOP ad dollars well spent? All of which is not to say that the elevate-your-worst-opponent gambit is a money pit, much less one that will ultimately result in that opponent becoming president. Hardly. Often, it works quite well, like in 2012, when Obama chose to make Rush Limbaugh his bête noire. He did so with a strategically timed phone call to a Georgetown Law School student who had been victimized by the conservative radio host for advocating that birth control be covered by insurance. Sandra Fluke was as shocked as anyone to hear the president on the other line as she waited in MSNBC’s green room. But she certainly couldn’t have imagined what was to follow: Limbaugh being portrayed as the Republican Party’s pied piper, “war on women” becoming a campaign rallying cry for the Democrats, and Fluke herself getting a speaking spot at the convention that nominated Obama for his second term in office. So what does the Sandra Fluke episode tell us about what’s next for impeachment and Marjorie Taylor Greene? For one, it’s better to elevate your opponent when it fits into your larger argument. Limbaugh’s remarks made sense to highlight because Democrats were trying to win over women voters. But it also says a lot about how politics has changed dramatically, even in just the past decade. There are not just fewer guardrails within the system but a much wider range of vehicles for the demonized to drive through them. Trump can be chopped down in a room full of Washington’s most “important” people. He can be impeached by the House a second time. But those aren’t the platforms that gave him his power in the first place. Democrats may make some gains by placing Greene in the spotlight that Trump has vacated. They may raise money too. But so has Greene, who has been showered with news coverage, and — with remarkable self-awareness — blessed her opponents for the platform they’ve provided her. “When you draw attention to a troll you also empower that troll. It’s just a decision you have to make. It is mutually assured attention,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the former senior Obama aide. “Everyone wins and America loses.”
| |
| | THE INDISPENSABLE GUIDE TO CONGRESS: Looking for the latest on the Schumer/McConnell dynamic or the increasing tensions in the House? What are the latest whispers coming out of the Speaker's Lobby? Just leave it to Beavers... New author Olivia Beavers delivers the scoop in Huddle, the morning Capitol Hill must-read with assists from POLITICO's deeply sourced Congress team. Subscribe to Huddle today. | | | | | | | WHAT TRUMP SAID TO PUTIN — Few Trump-era mysteries are as intriguing as what the 45th president said to Vladimir Putin in at least a dozen rambling, off-the-cuff calls and meetings over four years. Understanding what was said between the two could help illuminate whether Trump ever revealed sensitive information or struck any deals with the Kremlin leader that could take the new administration by surprise, Natasha Bertrand and Daniel Lippman write. Now that President Joe Biden is in the White House, he can see for himself. “They don’t need our approval to see those [records],” a former Trump White House official said, referring to the new Biden national security team. “Biden owns all the call materials. There is only one president at a time.” The Biden White House did not comment on whether it had seen the content of the calls. But so far, at least, the National Security Council has not registered any complaints with their ability to access relevant call records from the previous administration. “It is a national security priority to find out what Trump said to Putin” over his four years in office, said one former national security official who is close to the new president. “Some things, like what happened in some face-to-face meetings where no American translator or note-taker was present, may never be fully known. But I would be very surprised if the new national security team were not trying to access” the call records.
| |
| |  
| | | | | COVID COURT STILL IN SESSION — Do you have an unresolved disagreement over Covid risk management with a relative or colleague? Or do you have questions about the virus or vaccine that haven’t been answered? Ask Renu to issue a ruling! Email your pandemic disputes to nightly@politico.com.
| | — WH opposes Newsom recall: The White House publicly declared today that Biden opposes the effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom. — Dominion hires PI to find Powell: Facing a more than $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting systems, former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell dodged the company’s legal team for weeks, forcing Dominion to hire private investigators, the company claimed in a filing. — No new findings in WHO Covid China mission: Scientists investigating the pandemic’s origins as part of a mission to China were unable to provide much clarity today on where the virus began. The leader of the WHO’s team, Peter Ben Embarek, told journalists that after a month-long mission to the country, the investigation didn’t significantly change previous understanding. — Lin Wood doubles down: The prominent Atlanta lawyer, who brought several unsuccessful lawsuits challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election, filed an affidavit in federal court today reaffirming bizarre allegations he made about Chief Justice John Roberts and branding former Vice President Mike Pence as a traitor.
| |
| | JOIN WEDNESDAY – A PLAYBOOK INTERVIEW ON TRUMP’S SECOND IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: After weeks of tension following the January insurrection at the Capitol, all eyes are on the Senate as the second impeachment trial against former President Trump begins. Join Playbook co-author Rachael Bade for a discussion on the ins and outs of the historic proceedings with former Ambassador Norman Eisen, a senior fellow in Governance Studies at The Brookings Institution, and a former special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee. What arguments will Trump's lawyers and House impeachment managers use? Where will this leave things on Capitol Hill? REGISTER HERE. | | | | | | | CRACKDOWN IN MYANMAR — Police cracked down on demonstrators opposing Myanmar’s military coup , firing warning shots and shooting water cannons to disperse crowds that took to the streets again today in defiance of rules making protests illegal. Reports of many injured demonstrators drew strong concern from the U.N.’s office in Myanmar. “According to reports from Nay Pyi Taw, Mandalay and other cities, numerous demonstrators have been injured, some of them seriously, by security forces in connection with the current protests across the country,” the U.N. said. “The use of disproportionate force against demonstrators is unacceptable,” said Ola Almgren, the U.N. Resident Coordinator in Myanmar. Water cannons were used in Mandalay, Myanmar’s second-biggest city, where witnesses said at least two warning shots were fired in early attempts to break up the crowd. Gunfire could be heard on videos from the city, some of which showed riot police flailing wildly with their batons at people trying to flee. Reports on social media said police arrested more than two dozen people there.
| | | |
“More than 1,000” The number of tweets Neera Tanden, Biden’s pick for White House budget director, told senators during a confirmation hearing today that she had deleted in November because she “regretted” her tone. Tanden apologized during her first hearing for a history of publicly vilifying Republicans, including several of the GOP senators who will vote on her confirmation to head the Office of Management and Budget. |
| | | MAXIMUM DODGING ON MINIMUM WAGE — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he’s working with the Senate’s parliamentarian to see if a minimum wage increase can survive the Senate’s rules, though he declined to say whether he was confident it would pass muster under the chamber’s arcane procedures. Led by Bernie Sanders, many in the Democratic Caucus are hopeful that their pursuit of a coronavirus relief bill without GOP votes can include an increase in the minimum wage to $15. But Biden, himself a longtime former senator, has raised doubts about the pay increase surviving a challenge to its inclusion in a budget reconciliation bill. And Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has said he would increase the wage only to $11 an hour even if the minimum wage provisions survive the parliamentary battle. At a press conference flanked by 10 committee chairs this morning, Schumer said the Democrats “are trying to work as well as we can with the parliamentarian to get the minimum wage. That’s all I’m going to say.” He would not respond to Biden’s prediction that the minimum wage would get tossed out under Senate rules. “No more questions,” Schumer said after the press conference as he walked to his office. “I said all I’m going to say.”
| |
A message from Energy for Progress: Meeting energy needs and tackling climate change isn’t either/or. We have to do both. The future of technology is here — and it’s enabling natural gas and oil companies to operate faster, more safely, and more accurately than ever before. New technology makes it possible for energy companies to improve worker safety, protect the environment, and explore new solutions to better position the industry to meet the nation’s energy needs. Let’s make even more progress together. | | | Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here. | |
|
| | Follow us on Twitter | | | FOLLOW US
|
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.