The Senate Trial of Donald J. Trump

The+Senate+Trial+of+Donald+J.+Trump.jpg

Topics Discussed

  • The Senate Impeachment Trial

  • Moment of Hope: Covid-19 Decline

  • Outside of Politics

Thank you for being a part of our community! We couldn't do what we do without you. To become a tangible supporter of the show, please visit our Patreon page, purchase a copy of our book, I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), or share the word about our work in your own circles. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook for our real time reactions to breaking news, GIF news threads, and personal content. To purchase Pantsuit Politics merchandise, check out our TeePublic store and our branded tumblers available in partnership with Stealth Steel Designs. To read along with us, join our Extra Credit Book Club subscription.

Episode Resources

Transcript

Sarah: This is Sarah

Beth: And Beth, 

Sarah: You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.

Beth: The home of grace-filled political conversations.

Sarah: [00:00:00] Hello everyone. And welcome to another episode of Pantsuit Politics. We are so thrilled to be here with you today. We're going to be talking about impeachment. I'm sure that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. We have some moment of hopes to share, and of course, we'll end the show with what's on our mind outside of politics.

What we love is when all of you share what's on your minds, both political and non, and we put a lot of that incredible insight into our weekly newsletter. So if you are not subscribed, go to Pantsuit PoliticsShow.com and scroll down and enter your email at the box at the bottom of the page, because you're missing out if you're not getting our Friday newsletter. 

Beth: [00:00:34] A huge, thank you and warm welcome to Sarah Greenup, our newest executive producer. If you'd like to learn more about supporting Pantsuit Politics and get lots of bonus content that we put tons of hard work and thought into every week, you can head over to patreon.com/pantsuit politics. Sarah, thank you. We're so glad you're here. 

Sarah: [00:00:52] We should say, we just recorded a very salty, Nightly Nuance this week, where we go off on both the New York times decision to fire Don [00:01:00] McNeil and the coverage of COVID in the media. So if you want a little spicier tactics, the Thursday night lane nuance is where it's at.

Beth: [00:01:08] Well, let's talk about impeachment and I have a feeling they're going to be some spicy takes here too, but considered spice. I hope is what we do, complex spice.

Let's just begin by talking about the way this trial started. It is ongoing as we're recording. Certainly things will develop after this conversation and before or you hear the podcast. We do know though that we have some Republican senators who are very dug in on the idea that the Senate should not be having this trial at all. So dug in that they even voted against the bipartisan plan for the rules of how much time everyone would get. 

Sarah: [00:01:50] Well, let me just roll right in with the spicy take. They're dug in because it gives them an excuse, right? Like, do we actually think that they're all pouring over constitutional law [00:02:00] documents and have just really carefully considered that despite the fact that we've done it previously in our history that the constitution does not allow us to impeach former officials?

No. We, this gives them a process argument to lean on and not take a vote for conviction that they don't want to take that's politically risky for them. I mean, you can look at what has happened in the few days since GOP Senator, Bill Cassidy from Louisiana, switched his vote and voted that it was in fact constitutional to impeach a former president to see why they're so terrified to vote for a conviction. I mean, he's been censured, he's getting called out. He's taken all kinds of heat just for simply saying, this is a constitutional proceeding.

Beth: [00:02:41] I am of two minds about the jurisdictional component. And if you don't know what we're talking about, when we say jurisdiction, I do think that's kind of the wrong word to use here.

It is really a question of the Senate's power to try a former official versus a current one. And I [00:03:00] think this argument was made inelegantly, to be generous during the trial, by the former president's lawyers, but it's not a banana's argument. It makes sense to say the constitutional imperative tied to impeachment is removal of the president.

That's certainly how ordinary citizens think of it, that you impeach a president in order to remove the president from office. There is though the power under the constitution to also prohibit the former president or other government official from seeking office again. And so the argument that the Senate doesn't have power here is that removal comes first.

And if you remove, then you may also bar from running for office again. And the contrary argument that was advanced very, very competently by the house. Impeachment managers, is that the constitution doesn't in any way, say that. They are both [00:04:00] there and that the constitution doesn't contain an exception for the president's behavior in January.

And that in fact, it's more important to be able to regulate the president's behavior in January, because our democracy is at its most fragile during the transition from one administration to another. But I think I don't want to be too dismissive of the jurisdiction argument because it isn't nonsensical. 

I think people are hiding behind it because the facts are bad. And they tell you all the time in, in law school, you know, when you are arguing the law, it's because the facts aren't on your side. And sometimes you argue the facts because the law is not on your side. And in this case, as we'll discuss, I think the law is on the side of the facts and the facts on the side of the law.

I think it all hangs together pretty congruently, but I do want to say that I'm bugged a little bit by the concept of precedent in the Senate. Because while I understand that the Senate looked at this [00:05:00] exact issue around the secretary of war, under president Ulysses S grant and decided in favor of exercising its power, there are lots of places that we're currently having conversation about, whether what the Senate used to do still makes sense. 

And I think we undercut some of those arguments when we say in one context, precedent is totally binding, but not in another. And I think we undercut the notion that an impeachment trial is just political and I worry whenever we layer on all kinds of legalistic terms that really don't apply because the fact of the matter is the senators set the rules here and the senators can change the roles. So I don't think it was wrong to consider this question at the outset of the trial. I do think the question has now been decided by this Senate and that we should move on to a full consideration of the facts.

Sarah: [00:05:54] When I was watching the house impeachment managers make their case that the Senate has the power [00:06:00] to impeach a former president, which I thought they made very well. I thought the January exception argument was incredibly compelling. That basically you're saying they can do anything they want that last month.

There's no accountability that our, that the goal is accountability, not necessarily removal, but it felt like what they didn't respond to but what I feel is the undercurrent of the argument on the other side is, yeah, we might've impeached former officials, but they weren't president.

 And it feels like one more time and in one more way, That the Republican party is pushing this sort of unitary theory of the executive. That basically once you're president, you can do whatever you want and this isn't new to Donald Trump. It just, the manifestations of it under Donald Trump were even more dangerous and obvious, right?

But this was a huge issue during George w Bush's presidency. We know Bill Barr is a big believer in this theory, and it just feels like this is one more brick in a wall of the idea that [00:07:00] the president does whatever he or she wants. And how is that constitutional? How is that in any way, shape or form living up to our idea of checks and balances and three co-equal branches?

Like I felt a little bit of it when house manager Raskin was arguing, like he's trying to decide the senate as powerless. But it's almost like what I wanted him to say is like, you've taken enough of your power away. Y'all have impeded the power of this body over and over again for decades. And this could be the final nail in the coffin. That do you want Congress to remain powerful at all? Do you want Congress to remain as a check on the executive branch?

 Because sometimes it feels like you don't, sometimes it feels like you believe that the president is all powerful. Once you're in the executive branch, you're in charge. And it just felt like a really clear manifestation of that argument that I'm not sure they ever responded to, but feels like even if it's not what's exactly being articulated [00:08:00] is like the theory underneath it, which is especially bizarre.

Beth: [00:08:04] When you look at some of the senators who are dug in on this, because they are typically opponents of the unitary executive idea. Senator Paul from Kentucky, our home state rails against the notion that the executive is all powerful, right? There is a sense from him that the legislature should absolutely be the strongest body and especially on matters of war and national security.

We've let the executive get way out of control. So I'm really confused about the philosophical underpinning of his understanding here. I think in another universe you could put a Ted Cruz in that category. You could perhaps put Mike Lee in that category. So I'm trying to put it side my instinct to say, well, everything is happening in bad faith.

And to really grapple with the pieces of this that I think could be taken seriously, and that are hard questions in some ways. [00:09:00] And I struggle when I match the human beings, advancing the arguments with the pieces of philosophy that I could take seriously and argue against, because I see such inconsistency.

Sarah: [00:09:11] I mean, it's hard not to think or give any sort of benefit of the doubt when you read the reporting that Josh, Holly's up there with his feet up in the gallery, not listening at all, but, um, I will be grudgingly admit, you know, not everybody on the Republican side is Josh Holly, but it did feel to me like, you know, and I don't, I don't necessarily think it's totally hypocritical on the Republican side, because I do think that they have been advancing this argument for a while, Ran Paul aside.

 But it just feels like such a scary uh, articulation of that idea that like once the, like the president can do with the president wants to do without legal consequence, without congressional consequences, without electorial consequences, a lot of ways. And to hear that, you know, so clearly articulated by the house managers [00:10:00] and really walked through it just, yeah. It's I can't, I don't understand how you listen to that particular day one argument, see it play out over the next couple of decades and say, no, it'll be okay. 

Beth: [00:10:11] I think the more compelling argument is that impeachment is such a severe remedy that we should only employ it when the public can't speak on a question.

And that the public has spoken on the question of president Trump. Now, again, I don't find that compelling because I am persuaded by the fact that the transfer of power is so fragile that for the future, this trial is much less about Donald Trump to me than about future presidents and future public officials and what we expect of them.

And so I am persuaded that we need to set that precedent for the future, but as to Donald Trump, and I think if you're on his defense team, this is the way you have to take it. As to Donald Trump, the [00:11:00] public has rendered a verdict. The public has spoken. And so I can see thinking, why are we going through this exercise when in some ways he has suffered the ultimate accountability of losing?

And I think that's how you try to separate this January exception idea from an October exception for nominating people to the Supreme court. I mean, we've got lots of discussion in the Senate going on over the past five, six years, about what happens when we're close to an election. And especially what happens when elections keep spreading.

We're always in election season in some ways. And so I think it's perilous for us to establish these timeframes under which constitutional powers don't operate, whether we're talking about the court or impeachment or anything else. And that's something worthy of discussion. So I'm going to say something now that contradicts my attempt to really understand the good faith of this.

I just want to acknowledge that. On the other hand, if you are [00:12:00] one of the senators who is really dug in on jurisdiction, but you don't a hundred percent buy it, I think it's particularly insidious to hide behind that argument because it is denying the American public the trial. And the trial itself, whether you vote to convict or not is a form of accountability.

And it's a form of allowing the American public to process what is a historically significant and unusual and dangerous event. And so if you don't a hundred percent believe that the Senate lacks power to have this trial, and you're kind of hiding behind that argument. I think that's really fundamentally lacking in integrity.

Sarah: [00:12:46] Well, you know, we've given great emphasis to the legal argument, but I think honestly, the impact on day one in particularly day two, was the sort of emotional [00:13:00] intensity of the argument made. You know, on day one, in the midst of this jurisdictional debate, the house manager has played a 14 minute video of footage from January 6th that was incredibly powerful and incredibly impactful. 

You know, I choked up numerous times during the, just this jurisdictional argument. I thought that house manager Raskin's moment where he said, you know, I hope one day you can come back to me, to his daughter. And she said, dad, I don't want to come back to the Capitol and him choking up about that was so effecting and just so sad.

You know, I, I know professor Raskin and that's how I know he was a law school professor of mine. And I worked on his very first campaign for the Maryland Senate. I, you know, knew his children as little bitty kids and so just to, to, to hear him and to know like, The dedication of his life to [00:14:00] these causes and how much he believes in our democracy and to know to become a constitutional professor and then run for office and do all this.

And then of course, his intense, personal tragedy losing his son, Tommy, and then coming to the certification and bringing his daughter and his son-in-law and all this and to know that he's really dedicated his life. And I just, in that moment, I, like, I knew how heartbreaking that had to be, to hear from one of your children saying like, I don't want to come, just broke my heart.

It broke my heart. And I thought that all of them, but particularly house manager, Raskin walked that line of making an incredibly clear legal argument and also not neglecting. The emotional impact of what we're talking about. 

Beth: [00:14:49] It is very unusual circumstance that every person sitting in that room has a personal connection to what's happening. You know, Twitter went ablaze at the end of day [00:15:00] two because Mike Lee moved to strike from the record something that was said about a phone call placed to him in error by the president and Twitter starts going well, Mike Lee just made himself a witness. Well, he's already a witness. And so is everybody in the room.

And in a way, the way the trial is proceeding under the rules that the senators agreed to, you're getting all kinds of witness testimony without the benefit of cross examination. And that's something that the president's lawyers have to figure out how they want to respond to and I think that they wisely understand that cross-examination is probably not going to be helpful in this matter, but I really respect that the house managers are not trying to compartmentalize their own experiences from the presentation of the trial.

And I also appreciate how, in addition to the emotional, psychological kind of spiritual impact on every one of having lived through this violent day, [00:16:00] they're not compartmentalizing how this relates to what they all do. You heard them saying, what would it be like if in your races, you went on television in your state and said, stop counting while I'm ahead, we do not do that.

Sarah: [00:16:17] Well before move on to day two, which I definitely want to dive into in great detail and move on from the jurisdictional question that was on day one. I think we're going to have to spend a moment, moment or two on the Trump defense team, Bruce Castor and David Schoen went and they, they spoke some words.

Um, I'm willing to say that they spoke some words. I'm not sure, particularly Bruce Castor made an actual argument. It was truly some of the worst legal work I've ever seen and that's saying something and I don't think that that isn't a hot or spicy take it all. It seems to be the [00:17:00] consensus, the conclusion of like Republican senators, Donald Trump himself. Basically everyone. Like it was a very, very poor showing.

Beth: [00:17:09] It was illustrative of what a difficult task it is to represent the president in this matter. It's just very hard. It's very hard to make any kind of reasoned argument that he was unconnected to what unfolded at the Capitol. You can talk about it as a matter of degrees, but it's also hard because you have a client in the president who wants to be defended.

Absolutely. If this were a criminal trial, The president's attorneys would be advising him that the best thing you can do here is cop to some guilt and remorse and say, narrowly, I understand this was unwise. But it did not rise to the level of criminal. That's the best you can do. I think representing the president with integrity and competence in a matter like this, and you've got a client who doesn't want that.

He wants a defense. He [00:18:00] wants absolute vindication, right? And I don't think that's available in this case for him. And that's, it's really difficult. Plus you have a client who's been very erratic about who's defending him for a variety of reasons. Wanting certain arguments made that some lawyers weren't willing to make it's been reported.

There have been payment disputes. So I think the most gracious way you look at the performance of Castor and Shoen is to say number one, this was really tough. And number two, they didn't really have as much time to prepare as it seemed like they should have to prepare because people got switched in and out the team wasn't really solidified until the last minute.

And then I think the third thing is in order to get yourself to a place where you're willing to take on this incredibly difficult representation, I think you have to create a little bit of a bubble for yourself, and I don't think they were prepared for how graphically on day one during the legal presentation, that bubble was going to be popped by the emotion of what the house managers [00:19:00] presented.

I think they probably should have been more prepared for that. I have been chewed out in the hallway of a large law firm for a lot less preparation for an internal conversation, let alone one of the biggest representations I could ever take on in my life. But I think that they were genuinely emotionally affected too. And that's, that's tough. 

Sarah: [00:19:19] Yeah. You know, there's been some, like, a lot of moments as someone who used to work in the Senate, that things have bubbled up and I thought, Oh, you don't understand senators. Or like even a reminder myself of like, Oh right. Senators, this, this has been made to senators. One is senators do not like to have their time wasted.

And I mean, I do think in large part, bill Cassidy's vote that it was constitutional to impeach a former president, which was a flip from his previous vote that it wasn't was just like, how dare you waste my time? Like, how dare you get up there and not even know what you're talking about and to like babble on for 30 minutes.

And like, you could hear it in the frustration and [00:20:00] all their voices. They don't like to have their time wasted. The defense team is providing them zero cover. Right. No cover at all for taking a vote to acquit, which is going to make them mad. And, you know, speaking to some of the, the real effecting, like videos, especially I think on day two, it's like, you just realize that part of the reason they don't like to have their time wasted is because they're very busy.

 Like I think in my head, I thought like, Oh, well they're all like, they have a full and complete picture. They were probably like getting security briefings on what went down, but like, no, the very next day on January 7th, much less the night of January 6th, they were still senators.

They still had to do their work. They still had to go about their job. They're still getting peppered with media requests to respond to whatever's happening right then that day. And like, it's, it's intense to realize, like they actually, haven't had a moment to not only be fully assessed of what happened, but to like see it all put together for them.

[00:21:00] And just on so many levels realizing like, Oh, like they've been senators since January 6th, until today being busy, doing all the fundraising and policy work and media requests that fill a United States Senator schedule. And they don't often have to just sit still and listen and take in what's happened to them and to their colleagues. And I think that to me was like, really, really hitting home throughout the day one in particularly day two.

Beth: [00:21:29] I also think it's difficult if you are part of Trump's defense team to actually analyze what the stakes are for him to decide on the best strategy, because in some ways, the stakes for Donald Trump as a human being are sort of low compared to what they could be in a bunch of other different scenarios. His legacy is going to be that he was twice impeached, whether he gets convicted or not, and his legacy is going to be understood however it's understood in [00:22:00] historic context around this event. His age has to be a factor when you think about how devastating it would be, or not for him to not be able to run again.

Even if he can't run again, and I don't know that he would, or that it would get any traction by the time that rolls around. But even if he can't run again, he can have all sorts of influence in the party through a pack or through media appearances or through creating his own channel or whatever.

So in some ways I think, does it really matter to him if he gets convicted here? I know it does psychologically, but as a lawyer, who's trying to put some concrete stakes around this and figure out how to make my best presentation. I think that's rough. And on the other side of things, he's also going to have whatever criminal and civil exposure that he's going to have regardless of the outcome of this trial. 

And in some ways I might be talking to him about how a conviction from the Senate could possibly help me in the [00:23:00] criminal context. If I get in a criminal, I'm not saying that this would absolutely work, but I'd rather have it than not to say, listen, he was the president when this happened and the accountability for the president has been assessed. 

Sarah: [00:23:14] It like links, you, it, it almost extends the, the liability protection. You could argue that would they fall for it? Maybe not, but you could definitely argue that. 

Beth: [00:23:22] Like, if I don't know how persuasive that ends up being, but I think it's, it's a nice thing to have if you are actually dragged in to court on criminal charges, which the state of Georgia is looking hard at. And I think there will be other people who look hard at that. And so I, I just think figuring out how to be his lawyer here is a really difficult task.

Sarah: [00:23:48] All right, let's move on and talk about day two, where I thought the house managers were again, highly organized and walked us through [00:24:00] step by step what they were arguing. Like I never was lost. Right. So we started with the buildup to January six. So let's talk about what he was saying pre-election, what he was saying during the election, what he was saying post-election.

 Let's look at the tweets. Let's look at the speeches at his rallies. Let's look at his reaction to his supporters enacting sort of physical violence on that Texas highway, which I had forgotten about, to undermine the election, to really build up this strategy of stopping the steal quote unquote, that was really pointing to January 6th and then Lord Stacey Plaskett.

Whew, that woman slayed in every sense of the word, like walking us through that actual day with all this, you know, they kept saying we have footage people haven't seen yet. It's very effecting and they were not lying. They were not over-delivering and under promising. We saw [00:25:00] security footage of Eugene Goodman running and warning Mitt Romney he was going in the wrong direction. And then Mitt Romney turning around and running. 

We saw Chuck Schumer with a security detail with who had a dang machine gun running up, down, like going up a ramp and then realizing they were about to confront the mob, turning around and running back. We saw the senators themselves as Eric Swalwell so, you know, dramatically put it we're 58 steps away from the mobs as they were being evacuated. 

We see vice-president Pence and security footage being evacuated. And like, they have this, this really great model where you can see where the mob is during all these evacuations. And I just thought, and not only was she so like brilliant as at walking through all this very like, kind of technical here's where they were. Here's where, where you guys, where all that stuff.

 But I also thought some of her like more emotional moments in particular when she was siding the sacrifices of the [00:26:00] people on 9/11, you know, because the reporting was that the plane in Pennsylvania was headed for DC. We don't know if it was the white house or the Capitol, but like siding, like we were there.

Like we all remember the sacrifices those people may to protect the Capitol that he incited this mob to attack was credibly emotional for me. And just the way that they walked through that entire day and also what happened that day and then his actions during that time and his inability to stop it, his clearly like had no desire to stop it, the way that he was sending the tweets out about Mike Pence, why Pence was under threat.

 I thought that the video of the guy with the blow horn reading the tweets to the crowd, not to mention they're like all wrapped up in his flags, throwing his flags, like javelins at people. I mean, it just, all of [00:27:00] it, they were so meticulous at every corner.

I was listening to an NPR reporter say like in the first impeachment, but like, like you couldn't be mad at yourself if you lost focus because it was so technical and it was kind of boring at parts. He was like, but this was not the case here. Like there was no moment where you could look away. 

Beth: [00:27:17] What day to day instilled for me is that this is not a trial about speech. It's a trial about conduct. Hmm. I think in the coverage. And especially if you are listening to people who want to defend the president, the best way to defend the president is to try to make this about speech and to narrow the question to where the words spoken by Donald Trump to the crowd on January 6th enough to incite this violence. That's the narrow question you've got to bring it around too, if you want to get away from finding the president culpable.

Sarah: [00:27:54] Right. And I think they're anticipating that's what the defense is going to do. Right. They're going to try to like, look at, let's just look at this sentence. [00:28:00] And I thought they were so brilliant at being like, Oh no, we're not going to pull one little word or one little sentence out. We're going to give you the entire picture and don't, you dare look away. 

Beth: [00:28:07] Well, that protection for the president is an extension of the last four years of, oh I don't like the tweet, but at what he does works for me.  Day two's presentation by going all the way back to the summer when the president is saying, I will not accept the results if we lose. He's saying that all the way back into June, it shows how, because he was the president. And because honestly, he's so good at branding and marketing that he drives a very consistent message.

 And because he saw in real time how that message was developing into action on the part of his supporters, he saw people plotting to kidnap the governor of Michigan. He saw people surrounding the homes of election officials. He saw people in almost all 50 States showing up at polling [00:29:00] places, armed and ready to create disruption because he so consistently drove home the message for so long, because he watched the consequences of that escalating, that it wasn't about him giving one speech.

It was about what he knew about using his own power. And how he chose to use that power to drive people to the Capitol and how he chose not to use that power once they were in. If you are a person who doesn't want to convict the president, I think you have to grapple not only with whether you think he incited people to breach the Capitol. I think you have to grapple with once they did, how he responded. 

Sarah: [00:29:47] Yes. Yes. I thought that part was so so impactful in their argument where they're saying like, okay, fine. But then you, you were calling him to try to get him to [00:30:00] call off the mob. So how are you got of one side of your mouth going to say he had no control over these people and then watch people in their tweets, people who used to work for him saying, they'll only listen to you, call it off.

 It doesn't work that they only listen to you to stop, but they don't listen to you when you say go, that is an inconsistent argument and I think they all know it. It is so difficult. That's me being nice because the word I really want to use is infuriating, to watch all these videos, to hear this truly, truly tight argument, but to watch these videos of the senators run and to know they're going to go on cable news and say, I haven't heard anything that'll change my mind.

It is just hard. It's like I can be in this very intellectual, analytical place. Here are the legal arguments, think through them, even sort of sit with my emotions and then to come back around to this most likely will not change a thing. It is [00:31:00] so, so hard to sit with that, to listen to Lindsay Graham on cable news say, well, they're converting more people to acquittal. Like it just, it makes me feel like my entire body is a flame. 

Beth: [00:31:16] I think there's a personality aspect that Lindsey Graham is banking on. The idea that an emotional presentation per se backfires, because Republicans like to think of themselves and I can say this because I was one and this was true of me, as more dispassionate.

And so that the length fee hammering home of this emotion, I think Senator Graham is banking on people who identify as Republicans rolling their eyes at that. I've been trying to make, like for myself, the best case I can for not convicting the president, because I do want to try to stay in a place where I understand what other people are thinking.

I don't think it's the [00:32:00] first amendment argument, because I think that if you decide that the president's speech is protected from congressional oversight, by the first amendment, the oath of office doesn't mean anything and the incitement exception to the first amendment is gone. Not just for the president for everyone.

I think if you decide in this case that his speech was protected, you are saying in no scenario, can someone speak in a way that subjects them to liability from the government. And I don't think that's where we are. I also don't think the best reason for not conviction is doing the well, don't take him literally thing that we've been doing for five years.

 Because we are talking about a pattern of conduct, more than one speech, I don't think it's, this is a waste of time. We need to move on as a country. Number one, it's just so clear how traumatized everyone is that we cannot move on. Like we could desire to move on and still not be able to. And when you have this lingering [00:33:00] sense among members of Congress, that there are people among them who they can't trust and are dangerous, that that has to be figured out.

So we really can't move on. And I also think it's super nihilistic to say, like, we just got to get onto the next thing, because this is too painful that that's led us wrong as a country in so many respects. And if you say this is a waste of time and you're a Senator, well, you get to decide if it's a waste of time or not.

Like if you're telling us that it's a waste of time, then you've just made a decision for it to be so because you're there in the room. You can impact whether it is time well spent or not. And I don't think it's the sort of, if this, then that argument, like if we're going to hold the president accountable here, then what about Maxine Waters?

Or what about Corey Booker or what about Democrats who've told people, Hey, get in their faces. Tell them you don't like what they're doing about the Trump administry. Because number one, all things are not equal. And number two, [00:34:00] This is a really good forum to set a standard of conduct going forward. This is a good forum for everybody to consider what their words drive people to do. 

And I think that's important for the country. I think setting a new standard is, is a very good outcome of using this time. And so the best argument I could come up with those are all the things that I tried and discarded. The best argument that I could come up with is something about the intersection of individual responsibility and leadership. The house impeachment managers, I think very wisely have not been condescending at all about Trump supporters.

They have talked about the people who breached the Capitol, mostly as human beings who listened to the commander in chief, give them an order and believed in a genuine way that they were supposed to follow that order. Yep. Who believed in a genuine way that the election was stolen and that they were there to defend the [00:35:00] country the same way people they have been taught to lionize from the American revolution did.

 And I think that is politically very savvy. I don't think Republican operatives can cut footage from this trial to say, see how the Democrats think we're all picks or whatever. On the other hand, I think there is a risk in making it so much about Trump, that you absolve individuals of responsibility for their choices, because certainly there were people who would even go so far as to say the election was stolen, who would not have made the decision to get violent in the Capitol, the way the mop did.

I I'm, I'm ultimately not persuaded by that argument either, because I think we can do two things at once. I think there is a leadership level of accountability and an individual level of accountability, and I think we can hold onto those things, but that's the best argument that I could come up with for why you wouldn't convict Trump.

I [00:36:00] think it is so clear that he has involvement that, but for Trump, I think he is the causation at every level. But for Trump, people would not have believed the Eagle election was stolen, but for Trump, they would not have gone to the Capitol, but for Trump, they would not have ransacked the Capitol and gotten violent.

But for Trump's inaction, the Capitol could have been secured much earlier in the day. Like he is the causation through and through. I can sort of get myself to a place where you say, yeah, but these people did it. I understand that. I just think you have to hold it together. 

Sarah: [00:36:31] I'm glad you're going through that mental exercise. I'm not, I cannot get my self to a place. In any way, shape or form where I believe that a vote to acquit is anything than a purely cold political calculus. Now I will say this. This is what I thought through. I don't understand even under the most crave and political analysis, why you would still vote to acquit.

I don't understand why if you are a Republican and plan on continuing to be a Republican, you [00:37:00] want to double down on casting your party's lot with a man who lost you, the house and the Senate and the presidency. Really I cannot. He is bad for the party. I'm glad you've decided that he riled up some rural support that wasn't there before, but they will not continue once he has gone, even if they'll continue now and you've lost so much by gaining that small piece.

 I just, I don't understand again, under the most Craven political analysis, why this is still a smart vote. I really don't. I really, really don't. I mean, maybe if you're up in election in 2022, maybe, maybe, but otherwise, what are you doing? What are you doing? Like, I think the, the piece that analogized Trump to Sarah Pailin was so smart because I do think that that's much closer to what the rest of his political career will play out to be like, [00:38:00] this man never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

You think that's going to stop now? Like you think that every choice he's going to make from here on forward is to shore up the Republican party in his base. Y'all what are you doing? That's what bothers me about it is like I get that it's a political vote and I still think it's a bad political vote.

Beth: [00:38:19] That's similar to something that I've been thinking about. I think it's a bad political vote depending on the timeline that you're operating in. I think your point about when you, when you're up for election and what you think is happening in your district is all fair. What I don't understand is as a Republican elected official, wanting to maintain the status quo of being so beholden to him and voters who like him, don't you want out of this? 

Sarah: [00:38:43] Yeah. I mean, it's still, I think Bill Cassidy does. I think that's part of what we're seeing. I think he was like, I'm done. I don't want to be like this. I don't. I want some freedom. Why are you going to hustle and kill yourself to be an elected official and then be totally dependent, not even dependent, generous, [00:39:00] scared of this man for the entirety of your career. 

Beth: [00:39:04] I was reading Matt Yglesias's analysis of the Biden COVID relief plan this morning, and he used a term in it. He was talking about economics and about, um, high multiplier investment. So the idea that certain ways of stimulating the economy end up paying quick and large dividends because they are high multiplier ways of investing. 

And then there are other ways, and in his mind, he would put regressive tax cuts in this category that are low multipliers, right. You invest a lot in the economy and you don't get much in return. And I was thinking about how the impeachment trial could be a very high multiplier event for America.

Because one, it's a big deal just have days of everyone conceding that this was a fair election. You even heard the president's lawyers conceding that Joe Biden [00:40:00] won and he won fairly. And that's important and hearing this stop the steal referred to as the big lie over and over, I think that pays big dividends for American confidence, not only in the Biden administration, but in future elections.

I also think that matters a ton when you have people like Josh Mandel in Ohio, who are saying, they're going to run in the next cycle on the idea that 2020 was a stolen election. This trial has the potential to really shut that stuff down, or at least shut down the effectiveness of it. And I would think that Republican elected leaders would want that.

I think it could be high multiplier in that sense of setting a better standard of conduct for people. I think it could be high multiplier in wrestling with individual responsibility and leadership responsibility. It seems to me that this is your best chance if you are a Republican elected official to get yourself out of being beholden to intrests that I think for the fast majority of [00:41:00] them, they are sick to death of.

ONe more aspect of this that I wanted to ask you about, Sarah? Impeachment is done, the trial itself is being discussed and written about both by senators and by everyone else as just a foregone conclusion. We talked on our last podcast about how maybe not. My maybe not has grown a little bit because of Senator Cassidy's decision and because of how effective, I think the presentation has been so far, despite comments from people like Senator Graham, Senator Scott.

I just think it's really important for us to think about the circular nature of talking about things in politics, elections, polling, votes on particular issues as foregone conclusions. I just think we are strangling ourselves and our potential to actually function as a democratic Republic by pretending that everything is already [00:42:00] baked in.

Sarah: [00:42:01] Yeah. You know, this is my beef with some of the porting around poles. It's not just my beef. It's lots of people's beef. That it, the something that's supposed to become observational or descriptive becomes prescriptive and becomes the story. Like it's supposed to be a part of the story. 

You know, you wouldn't be doing your job if you're reporting on impeachment or if you're a political pundit and you're talking about impeachment without saying without, you know, correctly assessing that this will be a tough vote and that the Republican party has shown that they're willing to stand by Donald Trump and that, that most likely will continue. It's like we can't ignore that. I think it would be naive and inaccurate to say like, they're all walking in there totally objective, who knows how it'll come out.

Like that's not accurate either, but to make, but you can say that without making it and describing it as a foregone conclusion and like [00:43:00] in, in perpetuating that idea. And because I think it, it leaves voters in a place where they are citizens in a place where they feel like they have no role to play because it's already done, the goose is already cooked.

And, you know, I plan on calling both of my senators, who I'm pretty sure I know how they're going to vote because I still think it's important to say, I expect you as your constituent to look at this evidence and vote to convict. And I just think when we talk about it that way, like people just feel like it's a process happening outside of them and their role as citizens.

Beth: [00:43:36] And it's so tough because I don't expect my senators to take a raw count of what they're hearing from constituents and make a calculus. I want them to exercise their own judgment. The best thing I've heard Mitch McConnell say as one of his constituents and a very long time is this is a vote of conscience and you should take it as such.

I want them to, I don't want people to just [00:44:00] represent their districts in such a raw way. That is part of the cycle that I would think elected leaders are anxious to get out of. Yeah. I want them to be more in that trustee model where, when I vote for them, I'm not saying, hey, now go do what I ask you to do.

I'm saying, Hey, I'm, I'm putting my confidence in you and I'm trusting you to go make some decisions. And I want you to take what we have to say about that into account, but I don't want you to take it as gospel. Yeah. I just worry that when you see that the questions reporters are asking, and this is not to be like the media is the worst, because I don't feel that way.

I especially have thought so much about how hard this has to be, to cover for people who also experienced it. The journalists, there are also victims, right. And are dealing with their own trauma from this day. When the question though is put to it, have you changed your mind? Instead of what did you learn today?

Or where are you now, or how has this shaping your thinking? I worry that we just [00:45:00] give permission to people, you know, it's kind of like children will rise to the standard that you express you believe they can, they can handle, right? If you talk to your child with higher expectations, they will meet those expectations. And I worry that we're talking about our senators with such low expectations, that they are meeting those expectations. 

Sarah: [00:45:18] Yeah. They're in there's this also, you know, kind of drawing these two threads together. There is this sense that Donald Trump gets away with it because no one calls them to the mat and no one calls them to the mat because Donald Trump gets away with it.

That is so circular to me. That feels like this is your chance to disrupt this. This is your chance to exhibit leadership, which is what, you know, we've all been saying. And I think, you know, The reality is United States senators have a deeper and more complex picture because I think the narrative in the United States as just [00:46:00] citizens, is nobody ever steps to him inside the Republican party, but the truth is there's been a massive Exodus from the Republican party and that they saw lots of people stepped to him like Jeff Flake, like Bob Corker and who, a bunch of other people retiring or tons of representatives who left and were like, it's not worth it.

 And so I don't think it, you know, I don't want to be so dismissive as like they've never done it, but because people did do it and suffer political consequences for it. And I'm sure that is very ever like ever present in their minds. But at the same time, like I just, I do feel like there is this self perpetuating idea that like, he can continue to act with impunity because there is no leadership. 

And if there was enough leadership inside the party, we wouldn't be in this spot or we could at least, you know, I don't know what, what I'm saying way I'm not a Republican. Never have been, but like putting them on a different path. And I don't know, I just, [00:47:00] it feels so circular, like, of course it never happens because you've never done it. And I don't know. It's just, it's very, very frustrating. 

Beth: [00:47:08] Well, and I think everyone has an interest in what's happening with the Republican party cause we just have the two parties. We just have the two. So we do need them both to work on some level. 

Sarah: [00:47:18] Well, before we move on from impeachment, I want to say one more thing really quickly about the house managers that I was deeply appreciative of as a person who has lost a family member to suicide. I thought it was incredibly powerful that they continue to list both the officer who died that day and the two officers that died by suicide after January 6th in their list of victims of the insurrection. I think that that conversation has advanced tremendously in our culture and the way that they are speaking about those officers will continue to advance that conversation and increase empathy for those who died by suicide and those who love them.

[00:48:00] Beth: [00:48:07] We always want to make sure that we include a moment of hope in every episode. And today we have our first, I think COVID is on the decline moment of hope and it makes me really excited. 

Sarah: [00:48:18] Yes. I mean, COVID is on the decline. There is no debate in that sentence, right? Cases are down. Hospitalizations are down, deaths are down. Now that does not mean that we are done. That does not mean that things couldn't change. But for right now that trajectory holds nothing but positive news. 

Beth: [00:48:39] I like the Atlantic headline. The pandemic is in tenuous retreat. I think that is a totally accurate way to talk about. 

Sarah: [00:48:45] Yes. Yes. This was a thing I enjoyed reading, "In the US about 110 million people have likely had the virus, including unconfirmed cases researchers say, and another 33 million have received at least one vaccine [00:49:00] shot. Combined, these two groups make up about 43% of all Americans, which appears to be enough to slow the spread. So I think there's a lot going on.

I think there's a larger amount of our fellow citizens who have immunity for a lot of reasons. So listen, and some of them are bad. Some of them are bad reasons. That it's not good that 110 million people have likely had the virus, that number should have been smaller, but it is what it is and now we have a lot of immunity.

I read a thing that was like, People see the light at the end of the tunnel and are like doubling down their efforts, which is 300% where I am. I'm like, no, I did not make it this far to get COVID this late in the game. I think that's part of it. I was reading epidemiologists that says like you also just, they have about a three-month span where they really spike in the winter.

And so we might just be coming to an end of that. Like, I think there's a lot of things going on, but I do think it's really important to recognize like the trajectory is headed in a direction we want it to head. Again, can't toot the horn enough, the vaccines are a modern medical [00:50:00] miracle. And so there is lots of reason to hope.

Beth: [00:50:03] So, so the CDC tells us to make sure our masks fit correctly and that a good way to do that is to wear a surgical mask that has the wire pinch around your nose, and then a cloth mask on top of it. We'll just amend our saying, keep two masks on and your attitudes up. 

Sarah: [00:50:17] Right. But now if you're using, which is what I wear a KN95, they say there is not need to double them. I just want to clarify that.

Beth: [00:50:23] It fits more tightly around the face, right. 

Sarah: [00:50:26] It does. Mine leaves a Mark on my face, like right below my eyes. 

Beth: [00:50:29] So masks on attitudes up. We're getting through this. Sarah, what's on your mind outside of politics? 

Sarah: [00:50:35] Well, I do want to say such a huge thank you to our community who just feels really invested in my hip and me living my best life. And I appreciate that. I have already signed up for Happy Hips, which is a class on, which I thought was really helpful, talked about like the reason a lot of women's hips hurt, particularly [00:51:00] postpartum is we're asking them to do too much. That clicks for me.

 I've got a gate consultation. Like your, your actual gate, when you walk, consultation coming up, I got enlistee recommendations. I do want to, to clarify I'm fully in, on Birkenstock shell, don't worry. Like I have like four pair, like fully, fully in, on the Birkenstocks in the summer. Um, but I got really cool recommendations for house slippers and I really loved all the resources as far as like actual body mechanics and trying to tackle the problem from that perspective.

So just, I love y'all. The person who sent their recommendations and sign their email with, have the best hips available to you. I cannot, I cannot with this community you're too much. 

Beth: [00:51:40] I too have been reading all of the recommendations that came in and I was really convicted by one person who talked about what sounded like a modified version of legs up the wall, where you're lying on the floor and you're putting your knees yeah. At like a 90 degree angle with your feet on a chair for 20 minutes. And here's what convicted me about it.

 I am a long time [00:52:00] practitioner of Vion yoga and restorative yoga. And I, 100% believed this listener who said something happens at the 20 minute mark. I think that's right. I don't think that we trust, really in all aspects of life, how much good time does. And so it makes total sense to me. 

I'm absolutely tonight when we turn on the Queen's gambit, which we've got to finish, I'm, I'm so tired of miserable things happening to this poor woman, but I'm going to do it for 20 minutes and start to make that a habit because when she said that something in my brain went, yes, I see the truth of this. This is going to make my life better. I'm going for it. 

Sarah: [00:52:38] Well, our community is so smart, you know, and I think that that legs at the wall links this to something else for me, you know, when I was clenching my jaw at night, which I think so many people do. We used to have a bruxism beat on our other podcasts, The Nuanced Life, where I was like, really tackling this bruxism issue. Now they just call it COVID teeth. I don't know if you knew this, like dentists have a term, they just call it COVID teeth. 

And I [00:53:00] love the legs up the wall because I don't want to just get a mouth guard and treat the symptom. I want to figure out why, what my body is trying to tell me. And so I loved all these recommendations about like, exercises. And particularly the people who are like, let's talk about how our body's working and why, like what this is trying to tell you, what signal this is trying to send to you and respond there.

Because I think that was sort of my hesitation to the orthotics, to the light, comfy shoes all the time is it felt like, you know, you know, my friend's husband, who's a doctor, uh, calls the way her and I talk about this stuff, paleo medicine, like, but there's a sense of like, well, we obviously weren't wearing super padded shoes a hundred years ago, and we didn't have some of these issues. So like what's going on?

 I'm going to get a million emails about that and regret I said that, but you get what I'm trying to get at. Like, I don't want to just treat the symptom. I will and I think that's important, but I want to make sure there's not something deeper I'm missing as far as like my like body mechanics or muscular weakness or any of that.

And [00:54:00] that's what I, that's what I really, really appreciate it. Also people keep sending  me the cutest sneakers. Except somebody sent me these adorable new balances and they're sold out everywhere, but man, y'all have got y'all. You just, you came through with the recs is what we're trying to say here. 

Beth: [00:54:14] Well, another very cool outside of politics segment. We will move on from this topic on Friday, but we do appreciate all of your input and hot tips about taking care of our hips.

Sarah: [00:54:24] So, thank you again for all your recommendations. I hope everybody has the best hips available to them. We will be back in your ears next Tuesday with more Pantsuit Politics and until then have the best weekend available to you.

Beth: Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production.  

Sarah: Alise Napp is our managing director. Dante Lima is the composer and performer of our theme music. 

Beth: Our show is listener supported. Special thanks to our executive producers. 

Sarah: David McWilliams. Ali Edwards, Martha Bronitsky, Amy Whited, Janice Elliot, Sarah Ralph, Barry Kaufman, Jeremy Sequoia, Laurie LaDow, Emily Neesley,  

Allison Luzader. Tracey Puthoff,  Danny Ozment, Molly Kohrs, Julie Hallar, 

Jared Minson, Marnie Johansson. The Kriebs! 

Beth: Shari Blem, Tiffany Hassler, Morgan McCue, Nicole Berkless, Linda Daniel, Joshua Allen, and Tim Miller. Sarah Greenup

Sarah: To support Pantsuit Politics, and receive lots of bonus features, visit patreon.com/pantsuit politics. 

Beth: You can connect with us on our website, PantsuitPoliticsShow.com. Sign up for our weekly emails and follow us on Instagram.

Alise NappComment