Front Burner - What’s the point of impeachment?

Episode Date: February 15, 2021

Former president Donald Trump's second impeachment trial ended with another acquittal on Saturday. We ask CBC News senior correspondent Susan Ormiston why anger over the insurrection didn't lead to a conviction in the U.S. Senate and whether the impeachment process can produce accountability in the country.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Former President Trump's actions preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty. This might sound like a Democratic senator tearing into Donald Trump at his second impeachment trial. But it's not a Democrat at all.

It's not even one of the several Republicans who voted to convict. You're hearing the man who engineered some of Trump's biggest political victories, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. And he's speaking just minutes after voting for acquittal. There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.

No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. On Saturday, seven Republicans voted to convict Trump for inciting an insurrection at the Capitol. They joined 50 Democrats, the most bipartisan support ever for an impeachment trial.

But despite the fact that more Republicans, like McConnell, say they blame Trump for January 6th, the Senate fell 10 votes short of a two-thirds majority. Which has me wondering, what was the point of all of this? I'm Jamie Poisson, and today I'm joined by CBC senior correspondent Susan Ormiston to talk about what, if anything, this impeachment trial accomplished. Hi, Susan. Thanks so much for coming back into the podcast. Hi, Jamie. Yes, survived another impeachment.

Yes, impeachment too. So I'd really like to start today by talking about the speech from Mitch McConnell, which came after the vote on Saturday. Of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. And, you know, as I mentioned, he basically admitted that the House impeachment managers had made their case, except he had voted to acquit Trump. And talk to me about why.

Yeah, I mean, that was one of the most dramatic moments, and it came after the trial. You know, here's Mitch McConnell, the former Senate majority leader, got up, stood up, and started to lambaste Donald Trump. It was a blistering accounting of Trump's culpability in the attack. And most importantly, I think McConnell said, undeniably, Trump was responsible for inciting the rioters. So I'm hanging on his words and wondering, where is this all going? And it revealed itself. There was a big but there. There was a big however. So McConnell then said, however, this is a jurisdictional issue that the impeachment tool is very narrowly defined, that it other Republicans to say we couldn't convict here.

We recognize that his behavior was reprehensible. But on impeachment, no, he's in Florida. He's out of office. We're fine with that. Right, right. And what was the response to this sort of very narrow jurisdictional argument that McConnell was making by people who were criticizing for him? You know, I'm thinking about Nancy Pelosi, for example. Well, Pelosi had said, you know, it was Mitch McConnell who set the timeline for the impeachment trial in part, mostly, and he had the opportunity

to have that trial occur before the inauguration of Joe Biden on the 20th of January, but he decided not to. McConnell would say, well, yeah, there was no way we could have a trial in the 15 days between the riots and the inauguration. But you do wonder, don't you, Jamie, if this strategy may have been at the back of McConnell and other Republicans' minds at the time. other Republicans' minds at the time. So for Mitch McConnell, who created the situation where it could not have been heard before the 20th, or even begun before the 20th in the Senate, to say all the things he said, oh my gosh, about Donald Trump and how horrible he was and is, and then say, but the time that the House chose to bring it over, no, we didn't choose, you chose not to receive it. So I think that's really important. And again, and you know, there has been blowback on Sunday morning. You know, the political shows all quarterback what happened on Saturday.

And several Republicans, including, you know, influential Senator Lindsey Graham, said McConnell was an outlier and that Trump still has a powerful place and role in the Republican Party. And he was going to scoot down to Florida in the next week to talk about how Trump can help Republicans in the midterms. So I like him, Senator McConnell. He worked well with President Trump. I think his speech is an outlier regarding how Republicans feel about all this. I thought the impeachment trial was not only unconstitutional. I condemn what happened on January the 6th, but the process they used to impeach this president was an affront to rule of law. And so talking about that cover that this constitutional argument gave so many of them, it basically gave them the ability to ignore some pretty compelling evidence that was put forward. And first, there was new video from inside the Capitol. And can you tell me about that?

nook and cranny of the Capitol building on that day. We've all seen so much video of the storming of the walls, of the fighting with police, but this laid it out in a timeline. So as one thing was happening, this other thing was happening. And one of the new scenes that was developed was, what was Mike Pence doing and what was Trump doing at the same time during these riots? So they presented new surveillance video from inside the Capitol building showing Mike Pence and his family being hustled out of a Senate room and down the stairs to a safe area because he was under threat. I mean, you also saw pictures of people saying, yelling, hang Mike Pence, and a gallows constructed outside the Capitol.

Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! So security was rushing him out of danger. At the same time, according to prosecution, Donald Trump was tweeting that Pence didn't have the courage to do what Trump wanted him to do, which is to overturn the election. What they determined was that Pence and the rioters were only 100 feet apart when they were, you know, scuttling him off to safety. Right. And there was also video of people like essentially searching for lawmakers, right? Yeah. I mean, the new video that was tabled was, again, surveillance video showing rioters swarming into the hall around Nancy Pelosi's office.

Now, we had seen them in her office. But we hadn't seen this sort of drama of her staffers, you know, running for cover, really, from one room to another and barricading the door against the riders. And then riders swarming into the hallway and yelling, where are you, Nancy? Where are you? Nancy! Oh, Nancy! Nancy! Where are you, Nancy? Clearly, she also was in danger under threat at that time and was secured elsewhere in the building away from danger. But again, making the point from the Democrat side that these rioters were intent on harming people, and not only people, but the first and second in line to the presidency. I'm going to quote one of the House managers, the so-called prosecution here, Stacey Plaskett, who said,

That is a mob that was sent by the President of the United States to stop the certification of an election. The Vice President, the Speaker of the House, the first and second in line to the presidency, were performing their constitutional duties, presiding over the election certification, and they were put in danger because President Trump put his own desires, his own need for power over his duty to the Constitution and our democratic process. President Trump put a target on their backs and his mob broke into the Capitol to hunt them down. Now that's a pretty cogent, damning, you know, statement about what was going on.

Right. And I remember there were these, you know, posts, social media posts that they also presented that were really graphic. Yeah. One of the advantages they had in presenting the trial when they did was they're now getting documents and evidence from a number of trials that are going on or charges that have been laid against those rioters. So drawing on that, they pointed to one of the rioters, one of his Facebook posts at the time that said the mob was howling with rage. Crazy Nancy would have been torn into pieces, but she was nowhere to be seen. So giving evidence again to the senators that this was very dangerous threats to senior people in the U.S. government.

There were also recordings, audio and video, from police officers, right, and of police officers who were trying to push back a crowd, you know, hours after this riot started. And he was being threatened by, you know, a crowd of protesters, but one with a pole, you know, a Trump flag and a pole. And they were trying to beat him back with this. And you could see this from his point of view and numerous other examples of where the rioters really took issue with the cops who were there saying, you're traitors, you're traitors for protecting this house. It's our house. It's the people's house. And then, you know, they kind of sewed that up and said, you know, this was going on. Capitol Police officers and Metro Police were being bludgeoned up there on the hill. You know, what does this say about President Trump's, you know,

oft-repeated campaign theme of backing the blue? In fact, one of the prosecutors, you know, ended up this video, sewed it up and said, so much for back the blue. I can't help but think this is some really shocking stuff here showing, you know, something pretty traumatic that these senators went through only a month ago. And how do you think that that affected the tone in the room? You know, I think as Canadians, it's worth remembering the Capitol Hill is the citadel on the hill, the heart of American democracy. And we may not appreciate that as much as if you were an American. And the fact that they attacked this place struck at the very heart of

what a lot of people feel about America and their freedom and their center of government. And so you saw that play out. I was struck at how much emotion there was in this trial. There was a lot of anger, I was struck at how much emotion there was in this trial. There was a lot of anger, for sure. But there was crying, too, Jamie. I mean, the first day when Jamie Raskin opened the entire trial, this time on the constitutionality argument, you know, he talked about how on that day, January 6th, he had invited his daughter, Tabitha, to come to the Capitol. And after all the riots and after, you know, they'd gone home and talked about it that evening, he said to her, you know, Tabitha, next time you come to the Capitol, it won't be like this. And she said to him, I don't want to come to the Capitol again. And he broke down and cried in the trial. I told her how sorry I was. And I promised her that it would not be like this again the next time she came back

to the Capitol with me. And you know what she said? She said, Dad, I don't want to come back to the Capitol. I mean, this is a constitutional lawyer, a Democrat congressman. He was really, you know, he was so emotional about that fact. Now, I must say here, I mean, human drama. Jamie Raskin and his family lost their only son five days before that riot. He committed suicide because of depression, and Jamie Raskin was very open about that. But consider for a moment losing your son on New Year's Eve, having the ride on the 6th of January, and then go on to be the impeachment, the lead impeachment house manager in Donald Trump's case. It's such an extraordinary story. I remember seeing an interview with him a few weeks back on CNN on Jake Tapper's show where he said, like, essentially he decided to take on the job because he wasn't going to lose his son in 2020 and his country in 2021. Yeah, he said that. And, you know, it wasn't only him.

I mean, on the defense side, equally one of the first lawyers to get up, David Schoen, again, talking about dry constitutional arguments. But at the end of his presentation, he read a favorite poem of Abe Lincoln's back in 1849 by Longfellow. It was called Building of the Ship. And at the end of it, he too teared up, emotion caught in his voice as he wrapped up his argument. So to me, what that spoke to was how traumatic this event was for all Americans. Each sudden sound and shock, tis of the wave, excuse me, tis of the wave and not the rock, tis but the flapping of the sail and not a rent made by the gale. And speaking of the defense, I do want to spend a little bit of time on their arguments.

You know, of course, we know that the defense made this constitutional argument, you know, the constitutional argument that McConnell and so many Republicans fell back on. But what else were they saying in defense of Trump in the face of all of this evidence, video and otherwise? Yeah, the defense just in general was quite surprising in that, you know, this was a new team assembled only a week before. We were continually reminded by the defense lawyer, one of them, that he'd only had about eight days to figure this case out. But they did have at least three main points. figure this case out. But they did have at least three main points. And one was, look, a lot of focus had been on January 6th on President Trump's speech that day when he said, you got to fight like hell. You know, you can't be weak. If you want a country, you have to fight like hell. Using those words, they came up repeatedly. And what the defense

said is, look, fight like hell, fighting. They're robust words. They're aggressive words used by all politicians all the time on either side. And then they delivered an 11-minute video of the word fight from Democrats, all Democrats, including Joe Biden, including the now vice president of the United States, Kamala Harris. And it went on and on and on. And it was scored with this dramatic soundtrack underneath. I kept thinking, oh, my gosh, this is a campaign video in the making. We're going to see more of this. Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight.

It was almost humorous, but that was their point. Look, everybody says this. So that was one. I thought he should have punched him in the face. I feel like punching him. I'd like to take him behind the gym if I were in high school. If you're in high school, I'd take you behind the gym. We will fight the fight. We will fight. We are in a fight.

The fight, fight, fight, fight. It is a fight. It is a fight, and it is a fight born out of patriotism. This is a fight, fighting. I say fight on, fight on. Right, right. And I know they had some other arguments, too, as well. Right. Yeah. I mean, they looked at this defense of free speech as a fundamental freedom and that Trump had the right to say what he wanted to, that all Americans need to be protected, that all politicians are protected by free speech. And that, you know, they were saying the words were not an incitement to insurrection. Now, that, of course, was at the substance of the trial. And many people say he did not have the right to incite violence against Americans, which is what they were arguing he did. And then the

last thing is, and this was also very political, they made the point that, look, Democrats have been after Donald Trump for years. They've wanted to impeach him since the moment he became president. And then they showed yet another video of a, you know, edited of all the Democrats over the years who've said, we want to impeach this president. He should be impeached over and over again, making the point, of course, that this is politics, and that the whole point of this trial in the defense view was to remove a political opponent forever. I know another big question that was sort of looming over the trial was, you know, what Trump was doing and saying in the hours sort of after his rally. And this brings me back to this other revelation that I want to talk to you about, because on Friday, news broke. And, you know,

you got the sense that the Democrats felt like there was a bit of a smoking gun here. Yeah, I mean, Saturday morning, you know, we thought the trial was going to wrap up. Everybody said there was going to be a vote on Saturday. And then all of a sudden, Jamie Raskin pops up and says, well, wait a minute here. We have this really important evidence that we want to get in and we want to call a witness. And the witness was a Republican congresswoman from Washington state. And she had notes about a conversation that occurred between Kevin McCarthy, notes about a conversation that occurred between Kevin McCarthy, Trump's chief of staff, and Trump during the height of the riots on Capitol Hill. McCarthy was trapped on Capitol Hill and Trump calls him and says, well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you

are, suggesting that, you know, McCarthy could learn from their kind of devotion, you know, storming up to the hill. And apparently what McCarthy said was, do you realize who the F you're talking to? So that evidence made its way into the record, the public record of this trial. But in the end, they could do it without calling witnesses. And I think all the senators in that room, most of them anyway, big sigh of relief because they couldn't see the value of dragging this on and it wouldn't have made a difference to the ultimate count. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection.

Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast,

Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. Right. And, you know, we heard this argument from the Democrats afterwards. They didn't want to get bogged down in the lengthy process. They have stuff to do with the Biden agenda. But, you know, it did make me think, you know, with this news breaking, like what other stuff did they leave on the table here? What other unanswered questions did they leave on the table? There's a lot. I mean, Nancy Pelosi has called for a 9-11 type inquiry into the events on Capitol Hill before the trial began. And now we're hearing, events on Capitol Hill before the trial began. And now we're hearing, even on the weekend,

more voices adding to that, saying that because there were no witnesses, no evidence cross-examined, we don't know exactly what was going on in key areas. One is, what was President Trump doing in the hours of that violent riot? Was he really enjoying watching the experience and wondering why other people weren't celebrating with him, that his supporters were so loyal they were storming the Capitol? Secondly, what was the problem about the lack of security? Why weren't the National Guard called in early? These things are really important to what happened here and deserve examination. And a lot of people are now saying we need more of this. So I would say that the

impeachment trial of Donald Trump on this is a beginning, but not the end of the investigation into the events on January 6. And, you know, on the related question of whether or not the impeachment was worth it, I see the argument that this was an opportunity for the impeachment managers and the Democrats to lay out all of this new compelling evidence that they did. But, you know, I also have to think, Susan, like I look at this and I think to myself, like this is not a great tool for getting accountability. Like, first, it seems impossible to convict someone with two thirds of the Senate in such a polarized environment. But even if you could, there is now this unanswered constitutional question. So basically, you know, what this says

to me is that a president could just resign, or completely gum up the process, you know, arguing back and forth about witnesses, for example, until he or she is out of office. And, you know, what does this say to you about impeachment as a tool for accountability? Well, I think a lot of scholars that we've listened to and I've talked to over the last few months have suggested that impeachment is a blunt instrument that isn't very effective. So I think there will be a real examination of the whole idea of impeachment. I mean, has it lost its value when you have two impeachment trials in two years, both with the same result? I think, though, that if you were to ask Democrats the question, was it worth it? It would be undeniably yes. Because as one of them, Dick Durbin, said, you know, he said that they wanted to make sure that revisionists on the Republican side who were trying to blame everybody but Donald Trump had a record in front of the American people that was clear. And they did go to great lengths to present perhaps the beginning of that record. The defense took three hours to defend Donald Trump after days of prosecution evidence being led. So it was clear they wanted to move on. But that record is out there. It is part of Donald Trump's legacy. part of Donald Trump's legacy. And what they were looking for was they knew a conviction was politically unreachable. What they wanted was to set it out for the American people and put it out

in the court of public opinion. Right. And as you mentioned, you know, a lot of this will probably find its way into political campaigns pretty soon. Absolutely. Stay tuned. All right, Susan Ormiston, thank you so much for this. Really appreciate it. You're welcome. All right, so that is all for today. Thanks so much for listening to FrontBurner, and we'll talk to you tomorrow.