The Daily - An Impeachment Manager on Trump’s Acquittal

Episode Date: February 16, 2021

There was a sense of fatalism going into former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial. Many felt that it would almost certainly end in acquittal.Not the Democratic impeachment managers. “You cannot go into a battle thinking you’re going to lose,” said Stacey Plaskett, the congressional representative from the U.S. Virgin Islands who was one of the managers.Today, we sit down with Ms. Plaskett for a conversation with Ms. Plaskett about the impeachment and acquittal and what happens next.Guest: Delegate Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands, an impeachment manager in the second trial.For an exclusive look at how the biggest stories on our show come together, subscribe to our newsletter. You can read the latest edition here.Background reading: Who is Stacey Plaskett? She could not vote to impeach President Donald Trump, but she made a case against him in his Senate trial.As one of the few Black lawmakers to play a role in the impeachment proceedings, Ms. Plaskett plans to turn her newfound prominence into gains for her constituents.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

Over this past weekend, my 11-year-old daughter, I overheard her telling one of my sons, Mommy doesn't seem really nervous about the impeachment trial. To which that son, sounding like an older brother, said, Talia, you'll learn that most of the time, Mommy really seems to have it under control. Now we know as parents, that's not always the case. But I've learned throughout my life that preparation and truth can carry you far, can allow you to speak truth to power.

I've learned that as a young black girl growing up in the projects in Brooklyn, housing community on St. Croix, and now as an adult woman representing an island territory speaking to the U.S. Senate. And because of truth, I am confident today speaking before you because truth and facts are overwhelming that our president, the president of the United States, incited a mob to storm the Capitol to attempt to stop the certification of a presidential election. From the New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro.

This is The Daily. Today, the acquittal of Donald J. Trump through the eyes of an impeachment manager who sought his conviction. A conversation with Democratic Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands. It's Tuesday, February 16th. Oh, hello. Hey. Congresswoman, good morning. Good morning. It's a terrible slate for the host to arrive after the guest, so I would like to apologize for that.

Oh, don't. I'm early. Well, that is a wonderful thing. So how are you feeling about the instructions we sent you for the possibility of you recording yourself with a phone? Does that feel burdensome? Do you want to just... No, I can do it. I'm about to do it right now. Okay, wonderful. I was about to ask you when you wanted me to hit the button.

I think you can start. I think you can pretty much start now. Got it. Done. Okay. Perfect. So, Congresswoman, I just want to start by thanking you for making time for us. It feels like everyone knew how this trial was going to end. So I want to go back to

the beginning and understand how you approach a trial in which you basically know you're not going to win because there wasn't really a possibility that 17 Senate Republicans were going to vote to convict. That wasn't really in question. So I wonder if you could take me back to those early conversations that you and your fellow impeachment managers had about what your mission was. How did you see your mission in this trial? Well, interestingly, we came into this with the sense that we could win. with the sense that we could win, that this was such a horrendous betrayal of our country. I would hear people saying, so you've got to find 17 senators to come over to your side.

Our position was that we were speaking to 100 senators and that the American people and the world were going to be witnessing us. And so if you listen to our words, we were very, very intentional in our language to address what we believed would be themes that would speak to the Republicans as well, such as dereliction of duty, to focus on the fact that the president was attempting to have his vice president assassinated because he was fulfilling his constitutional oath. Those are things that we believed would resonate with some of the Republican members. And so trying to show the pattern and practice of the president's actions, as well as his abdication of his duties as commander-in-chief after the siege

and after recognizing what was going on. But when you say that you thought you could win, and that really stands out to me, you don't mean that you thought you could win, and that really stands out to me. You don't mean that you actually thought you might win over 17 Republican senators, right? I mean, so what would it mean to you? Yes, yes, we did. Yes, we did. You cannot go into a battle thinking you're going to lose. You can't.

You're not going to be your best if you go in thinking you're going to lose. You can't. You're not going to be your best if you go in thinking you're going to lose. And so in our minds, we had to go in there thinking that this could be won. And so the passion that you saw, the surgical precision of how we were doing things was not just to be evocative for the American people, but to actually try and win over two-thirds or more members of the Senate. Right. So you're describing a mindset that even though you stand excruciatingly little chance of prevailing, you need to prosecute the case as if you could prevail. Exactly. Exactly. You know, and that therefore, when I was speaking with people about, listen, I can understand the angst of so many Americans who were like, you should have brought more

witnesses. You should have, you should have done the shock and awe. First of all, just in process, there was not going to be any individual who stood before the Senate, raised their hand and spoke. These were going to be depositions that we would have to do and then videos that were brought to the senators. And we had those. We had three Capitol Police officers speak on video

about their feelings afterwards, what happened to them, had body cams of Capitol Police officers during that time. We had insurrectionists say what they believed the president was calling them to right there in real time. And they had Eugene Goodman, my God, sitting in the gallery during the entire trial, the man who had saved them. We laid out in meticulous detail what had happened. And so I can understand people's angst with wanting more witnesses. That was not going to win these individuals over.

wanting more witnesses, that was not going to win these individuals over. They had entrenched themselves in their partisanship, in their desire to maintain their power in their seats, more than they had a desire for justice and for right and for the Constitution and their duties to their oath. Right. Nothing was going to win them over. So I wonder, heading into the trial, what as managers your ultimate goal here was about what you hoped you would accomplish? senators the truth of Donald Trump, the truth of a betrayer and a traitor, a seditionist to this country who maintained the highest office in our country during the time of that betrayal. And just to put a very fine point on it, and with your indulgence, why do that? Why

was that important to you? in American history. It was a conviction to the world, what we showed and what will transpire going forward. That was important to me. And as a student of history, one of the things that was very, very clear to me was that we could not have unity. We could not have a reconciliation until there was a reckoning of what had happened on that day. And not just that day, but what had been going on in our country that led up to that day, that we could allow the hatred and the frustration and the anger of a base of people be galvanized by an individual who was drunk with power and wanted to maintain power at any cost, even the cost of our republic and our democracy. So you were seeking a conviction for the record books, essentially a conviction for history, regardless of whether you got one in that Senate chamber.

Correct. And also, one of the things I wanted to harken back was, you know, after the Civil War, things I wanted to harken back was, you know, after the Civil War, I believe that our government made a mistake in not making those individuals who had seceded, the leaders of the secession, had brought them to a reckoning and to some kind of justice as well for being traitors to the union. for being traitors to the union. They were able to go back home to their plantations, to the South, and continue to wreak havoc on the most vulnerable people that were left behind, that being Black people, African-American people. And my concern is, is that if we do not continue

to recognize the betrayal of Donald Trump and those individuals who were with him, that we will have a second Jim Crow, or at least that same kind of terror in this country against the individuals that that group were going after, calling police officers who were protecting the Capitol, our seat of democracy, calling them the N-word, dragging them and beating them with the American flag. And, you know, listen, I was not living in the South during that time,

but the kind of, and it's been well documented, that having individuals like Woodrow Wilson sitting in the White House who gave screenings of Birth of a Nation and having individuals who perpetrated treason against our country being able to go back home and do what they wanted, putting in the amendment, the clause that allowed Black people to be held hostage and prisoners to continue the economic development of the South through creating them as slaves, in fact, through prison and chain gangs. I don't want us to forget that that has happened. And history can repeat itself, maybe in a more sophisticated and nuanced way in this new age, but that those individuals that directed their frustrations at their own lives on our Capitol

and all the things that Donald Trump stood for being against the Americanism, right? What Donald Trump stood in direct contrast to and hated was the notion of Americanism, that we are in fact a melting pot of people that are continually reinventing itself. And if we don't make him and those others pay a price for that, they will be emboldened.

So that's what this trial was for you. For me. For me. Is that what motivated you to approach this as if you had to win because you're winning for history, not repeating the mistakes of the post-Civil War period in America? Correct. Okay, so with all of that, Congresswoman, as the backdrop, and the sense of purpose that you feel you have in that chamber, you end up playing a very prominent role in the prosecution. Mr. President, distinguished senators,

I'm Stacey Plaskett, and I represent the people of the Virgin Islands. Well, you know, I had two parts in the presentation. One was creating the foreseeability of what Donald Trump was doing. And that was showing leading up to January 6th, before the election and thereafter, his recognizing and encouraging violence, his galvanizing that group of individuals, and then utilizing them as kindling, as part of the logs that he was placing to start this fire that was then directed at the Capitol. start this fire that was then directed at the Capitol. Some of you have said there's no way the president could have known how violent the mob would be. That is false. Because the violence, it was foreseeable.

Really trying to meticulously connect the dots for everyone. It was months of cultivating a base of people who were violent. In terms of his speech regarding the Proud Boys, the caravan. Trying to run a bus off the highway. The second Million MAGA march. And who else was there? The Proud Boys standing by. His involvement in the development of the march itself on January 6th, his development

of the speakers and the music and changing the permit from remaining at the Ellipse throughout the certification process to having them march on the Capitol all show that he knew what he was doing and who these individuals were. This is what he said. We're going to the Capitol and we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. you're not going to have a country anymore and that's why this is different and that's why he must be convicted and disqualified and then of course my second part was then his direction of that anger and that crowd to stop the certification on january 6, and that by stopping it, meaning by any means necessary, whether that is shutting the Capitol down or even assassinating, killing

his vice president. Radio communications from the Metropolitan Police Department highlight how during and following President Trump's speech, Trump's supporters descended on the Capitol and became increasingly violent. What you are about to hear has not been made public before. Multiple Capitol entries! Multiple Capitol entries! 1318. I have started dismantling the reviewing stand and throwing metal poles at us. My thought was the videos and the evidence speaks for itself in terms of its shock.

Right. There was a moment I don't think I'll ever forget where you described what was happening in the Capitol, the efforts to seek out Vice President Pence and Speaker Pelosi. We need Capitol Police, I think, coming to the hood. They're pounding the doors trying to find her. Yeah. You can hear the pounding in the background as that staffer is speaking. in the background as that staffer is speaking. And you said that it was President Trump who, quote, put a target on their backs and his mob broke into the Capitol to hunt them down.

Again, 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. You were essentially making the case that having laid the groundwork for this riot and summoned those rioters to the Capitol, the president was unleashing them on the leadership of the United States government. Of course, because it is the vice president and the speaker of the House who gavel in the joint session and who are the ones who accept the electoral college votes and conduct the certification, correct? So without that second and third in line to the presidency, right,

the actual event itself would be in disarray. And where would we be today? We'll be right back. I wonder if you could say more about what was going on in that room as you were presenting this case. How did it feel in there? What were the expressions and responses to this presentation, to these videos that you were showing the senators? I recall at one point when I talked about how the videos showing where the mob was on a model of the Capitol. When I first saw this model that was created for this, I thought back to September 11th.

I know a lot of you senators were here. Some of you might have been members on the House side. I was also here on September 11th. I was a staffer at that time. My office was on the west front of the Capitol. I worked in the Capitol and I was on the House side. This year is 20 years since the attacks of September 11th. And almost every day, I remember that 44 Americans gave their lives to stop the plane that was headed to this Capitol building. I thank them every day for saving my life and the life of so many others. And when I was talking about that, seeing several Republicans hang their head and seeing two actually start to tear up. Those Americans sacrifice their lives for love of country, honor, duty, all the things that America means.

The Capitol stands because of people like that. And none of those that I've just mentioned to you voted to convict the president. But they were moved by your reminder of the terror of that day in 2001 when people actually wondered if a plane was going to be flying into the Capitol. And never mind our terror, but the fact that 44, you know, as we say, average Americans recognize their duty and their loyalty to country and were willing to give up their lives for this country. And just to be clear, you're speaking of the passengers on United Flight 93 who tried to take back control of the plane from the hijackers and ultimately did prevent it from reaching the U.S. Capitol. The Capitol. Correct? Right? Mm-hmm. from reaching the U.S. Capitol.

The Capitol, correct? Right? 44 individuals on that day, as I reminded those senators, saw duty to country and their loyalty to our America as stronger than their life. And gave their life for this Capitol building and for us that are in it and for democracy. And now they can't vote to convict this man because they're concerned about their seat as a senator? Sad. So you were summoning that courage that you saw among the passengers on that plane on September

11th in these senators. And so when they hung their heads in what you're describing as shame, you think there was a moment of recognition when they were realizing that they would not be doing that? I don't know if they recognized that they wouldn't be doing it, but I think they recognized that those 44 individuals were better than the 43. In that room, the senators. Exactly. And you'll recognize that all of the senators, well, with the exception of a handful, they all believe that we proved the case, that we were in fact correct. I had Republican senators coming up to me during the trial and saying, you guys are outlining this perfectly. You guys are doing an amazing job.

These are Republicans. These are not Democrats who were saying this to me. How present was the reality that everyone in that room had lived through what you were presenting when you were reconstructing January 6th? That they were both the jury and in many ways, they were the targets. They were the witnesses. Right. They were the witnesses and they were the victims. It was very present. It was exhausting for all of us to relive that. In preparation for it, you know, as we as managers were going through the scripts and, you know, we were very careful to be not being wordy. Nobody wanted to be hyperbolic. Everyone wanted to diminish ourselves and let the evidence transcend us. And so stripping out words, stripping out phrases, but going through the scripts. You know, there were times when members broke down. You know, the managers broke down.

Your team. Yes. Remembering what we had gone through. I mean, it's still difficult thinking about that. Yes. Remembering what we had gone through. Mm-hmm. I mean, it's still difficult thinking about that. Right. It was true for you, too. I don't think there can be many other examples in which the prosecution lived through the thing they are prosecuting. Right. And then, of course, the defense team begins their case, and you're just standing a few feet away.

Mm-hmm. And they start out by praising you. Oh, did they? Did you think that's what that was? What did you think that was, Congresswoman? I thought it was a bunch of garbage from beginning to end. I thought that they were speaking to their client and his base. That's what I thought that they were doing. Well, the defense made a lot of arguments.

For example, playing a loop of Democrats using the word fight or fight like hell out of context to suggest that it would be foolhardy to make the case that words can incite violence. But in terms of what turns out to make the case that words can incite violence. But in terms of what turns out to be the argument that Republican senators latch onto most forcefully to explain their ultimate acquittal vote, it is that the trial itself wasn't constitutional, that a former president cannot stand trial. And what's your response to that argument, knowing that it ends up being

pretty much the most important defense argument? Right. And the most successful? That there's no overcoming that. No amount of arguing is going to overcome that when over 100 legal scholars on both sides of the aisle say that that's not in fact the case and the Senate itself rejects it so that we can have a trial and it continues, you know that you're not going to overcome something like that. So, I mean, I also had Republican senators say to me, you know, in the hallway, to me, you know, in the hallway, that was fantastic. And, you know, I'm very undecided. I think what you're saying is correct. But I'm going to, I believe I'm going to vote to acquit because I just don't think you can convict a former president. And I look at them and I just say, I'm not even going to argue with you because you know that's BS.

That's what you would say to them. That this one particular person who I'm close to, that's what I said. I said, you know, I'm still prepping. And if you are going to follow that and you know that's not the case in your heart, you know that's not the case, but you need to do that,

then you're going to do what you're going to do. I even said, why don't you vote to convict, but then don't vote to disqualify? Because we only need a majority to disqualify. You can hang your hat on not voting to disqualify. And he said, yeah, well, you're never going to get to, I've been looking and you're not going to get to the 17, even with mine to be able, for me to be able to get to that second vote. Well, once the acquittal occurs,

we arrive at this fascinating moment, which is Senator Mitch McConnell's speech. January 6th was a disgrace. In which he very clearly says... President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. What Trump did was wrong. He is responsible for it, but I could not convict him.

But in this case, the question is moot because former President Trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction. He points back to this argument that we have just been discussing. We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen. Which is, it's not constitutional, he's a private citizen. Which is, it's not constitutional, he's a private citizen. But this underscores that impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice. He can't be held accountable.

And I think that brings us to this essential question of accountability. And with this acquittal, and I'm sure this has crossed your mind, Congresswoman, the only people who will truly be held responsible and accountable for what happened on January 6th are the rioters themselves. Not the president who, in your own words during your presentation, gave the orders. Not the president who, in the words of your fellow impeachment managers, was singularly responsible for what happened that day. And how does that sit with you? They will be charged, sentenced, imprisoned, but he will not. Well, you know, it's not over. What do you mean? I mean, you know, we lost the impeachment trial,

but it appears there are other things that are going on as well. He may be prosecuted as citizen Donald Trump, correct? You think there's a possibility that former President Trump will be held accountable outside of the impeachment process in a meaningful way? Sure. You know, let's see what happens in Fulton County, Georgia. in a meaningful way? Sure. You know, let's see what happens in Fulton County, Georgia.

Let's see what happens in New York City with the New York Attorney General, New York State Attorney General. Let's see what happens with, in the District of Columbia for their charges as well. You're surely aware of this. Many rioters are now making, and will continue to make, a similar argument to the one that you all did in the Senate this past week, which is that they were taking orders from the president

when they stormed the Capitol. They'll frankly look to the progression of video evidence that you presented. And by that logic, how responsible are the rioters and should the rioters be? What kind of consequences should they face if the president himself for now is facing no consequences? every consequence for their actions. Explain that. What's to explain? They committed crimes. They should be held responsible. No one made them do it. They followed a man that utilized their hatred, their already demonstrated hatred,

their frustrations and their anger, and just directed it in a manner and channeled it for himself. But they're the ones who stormed the Capitol, who fought with valiant police officers and individuals who were trying to defend the Capitol. They're the ones who broke glass, desecrated the desk of the Speaker of the House, of the Senate chambers. They're the ones who spread feces on the walls of our seat of government. They should face every consequence available under the law. Mm-hmm.

You may remember this, but you were asked during the trial, Congresswoman, what would happen if Donald Trump were acquitted? It was a question submitted by a senator. And you said, and I'm going to quote you some of this back. You said, the extremists who attack the Capitol at the president's provocation will be emboldened. All our intelligence agencies have confirmed this. This is not a House manager saying this. They are quite literally standing by and standing ready. You're re-invoking something Donald Trump said during the campaign about the Proud Boys. And you went on to say, Donald Trump told them this is only the beginning. They are waiting and watching to see if Donald Trump is right, that everyone said this was totally appropriate. Right.

Do you fear that's what happened? That that message was sent? Of course it was. They've heard that and they're hearing from him now. But I think it's for us to continue to fight to maintain our republic. And I am encouraged by the fact that more, a majority of senators agreed that what he did is not the right thing and that we are going to fight against it, as well as, you know, our administration is going to be vigilant in attempting to ensure that those individuals,

while they may be emboldened, are not successful in their attempts to destroy our democracy. This is my final question for you, because you are a student of history. When the history of this era and of January 6th and of this trial is written, what do you think it will say? And will it say what you hoped it would say when you set out to prosecute this trial? When the history is written, I cannot know what the history will say. Let's hope that there are many Herstorians who are going to be putting this together,

who are able to show the total truth of what happened, the good and the bad. And, you know, I just pray that they will look kindly upon nine individuals along with our leadership and the tremendous staff that we had that we fought a good fight. Are you proud of the role you played in this? I'm humbled by the role that I played in it. I'm grateful to be given the opportunity to play a role in this. And I know I fought my damnedest.

Congresswoman Plaskett, thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you for listening and for hearing the story. Our pleasure. On Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that Congress would establish an independent commission to investigate the events of January 6th,

a commission similar to the one that investigated the September 11th terror attacks. In a statement, Pelosi said that it was clear from the impeachment trial that, quote, we must get to the truth of how this happened. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. New daily cases of the coronavirus in the U.S. continue to fall, from a high of 300,000 in early January to below 64,000 on Sunday. Health experts say that the declines, which are occurring in dozens of states from California to Pennsylvania, are due to the end of the holiday travel season, wider adoption of social distancing measures, and vaccinations. So far, about 38 million people

have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, including about 14 million people have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, including about 14 million people who have been fully vaccinated. Today's episode was produced by Michael Simon-Johnson and Lindsay Garrison. It was edited by Larissa Anderson and Paige Cowan and engineered by Chris Wood. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.