Takeaway Time

And we don't mean calling your favorite restaurant and then picking up dinner to eat it at home.

The New York Times:

• Trump is acquitted for the second time.
• McConnell votes to acquit and then unloads on Trump in a speech shortly thereafter.
• Trump's lawyer, Michael van der Veen, threatened to call 100 witnesses.
• There was a bipartisan agreement not to call witnesses.

The Washington Post:

• Trump's rebuke—including seven senators from his own party—was one for the history books.
• Democrats had the power to call key witnesses and then backed down.
• Republicans chickened out by voting to acquit on technical grounds, thus failing to address the real issue.
• Will Trump ever be held responsible for his actions?

CNN:

• Democrats let Trump off the hook by not calling witnesses.
• Donald Trump still owns the Republican Party.
• But a Twitterless Trump is a much quieter force.
• Republican women are the profiles in courage (Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Liz Cheney).
• Mitch McConnell is not a profile in courage.
• This is not the end of the story.

ABC News:

• The Senate was surprised to get a request for witnesses.
• Every senator's legacy will be their vote on this impeachment trial.
• McConnell faces a backlash for his speech excoriating Trump.
• None of the senators who voted to convict are likely to be defeated as a result of it.

To this list one might add:

• Going forward, the president is a king unless his party turns on him big time.
• The impeachment clause is not a threat to any president any more, and they will all know it.
• Senators who voted to acquit are going to have trouble with college-educated suburban women.
• A hundred years from now, Trump's presidency will be reduced to the riot and the trial.
• Republican senators agree: Better to be seen as a cowardly senator than a brave former senator.

Of course there will be more fallout, but a lot depends on: (1) whether Trump supports candidates in 2022 and how well they do and (2) whether he really runs in 2024 or just pretends. In particular, if Trump-endorsed candidates largely lose to traditional Republicans in the 2022 GOP primaries, then it will be clear that Trump is a spent force and will probably fade away. (V)

How Brave Were the Anti-Trump Seven?

The media are going wild noting how courageous seven Republican senators were in voting to convict Donald Trump. Let's take a closer look at them. What did they say after their vote, and how much danger are they in on a scale of 1 (no risk) to 10 (deep doodoo)?

• Richard Burr (NC) said: "The President promoted unfounded conspiracy theories to cast doubt on the integrity of a free and fair election because he did not like the results. As Congress met to certify the election results, the President directed his supporters to go to the Capitol to disrupt the lawful proceedings required by the Constitution." Burr is 65, is worth an estimated $1.7 million, and is leaving the Senate in Jan. 2023 in the midst of a bit of an insider trading scandal. He sold lawn furniture before getting into politics. He could do that again if he had to. There is really nothing Trump can do to him. Risk: 1.
  
  
• Bill Cassidy (LA), a surprising last-minute vote for conviction, said: "Our Constitution and our country is (sic) more important than any one person. I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty." Holy smokes. What a straightforward statement. He's not rich at all (estimated net worth is $200,000) so he needs the $174,000 salary a senator gets. But he just won reelection in a very red state by 38 points. By 2026, almost everyone in Louisiana will have forgotten his vote and moved on. Risk: 3.
  
  
• Susan Collins (ME) said she was concerned. Well, more specifically, she said: "My vote in this trial stems from my own oath and duty to defend the Constitution of the United States. The abuse of power and betrayal of his oath by President Trump meet the constitutional standards of high crimes and misdemeanors. And for those reasons, I voted to convict Donald J. Trump." Collins is probably feeling pretty giddy. She just survived an election against a talented and extremely well funded Democrat who ran a good campaign, yet she triumphed in a walk. The people of Maine apparently really like their senator, or at least they are used to her. Once in a while she refuses to toe the party line and Mainers seem to appreciate that. She will be 74 in 2026 and is worth an estimated $1.7 million, so she could retire comfortably in 6 years if she thinks she is doomed then. However, her vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court didn't doom her, and this vote probably won't either. Risk: 4.
  
  
• Lisa Murkowski (AK) said: "It's not about me. This is really about what we stand for. And if I can't say what I believe that our president should stand for, then why should I ask Alaskans to stand with me?" She's the only one of the seven up in 2022, she's only 63, and she's not filthy rich (estimated net worth: $900,000), so she really did stick her neck out. On the other hand, she was primaried in 2010, lost, ran as an independent, and won. Her biggest problem was getting people to spell her name correctly, and "Lisa Ann M." doesn't count. She gave out thousands of pens with her name on them. Since Donald Trump has specifically said he would support a challenge to her, she took a big risk here. For someone who got her seat in the Senate because Dad appointed her (Frank Murkowski was governor at the time of the vacancy), she has turned out to be a pretty gutsy senator. Risk: 7.
  
  
• Mitt Romney (UT), who is always cautious, said: "After careful consideration of the respective counsels' arguments, I have concluded that President Trump is guilty of the charge made by the House of Representatives." Lots of passion there, as usual. But Romney didn't run for the Senate with the intention of having a long career there (he is currently 73). Besides, he is extremely popular in Utah and his net worth is north of $200 million, so he isn't going to starve if he loses his $174,000 job (which is exceedingly unlikely). Besides, he is not up until 2024 and might decide enough is enough at the age of 77. Risk: 2.
  
  
• Ben Sasse (NE), a former university president, said: "But here's the sad reality: If we were talking about a Democratic president, most Republicans and most Democrats would simply swap sides. Tribalism is a hell of a drug, but our oath to the Constitution means we're constrained to the facts." He may be right about that (although maybe not—ask Al Franken). Sasse just won an election by a margin of over 40 points and won't have to face the voters of Nebraska until 2026. He's not terribly rich (estimated net worth $700,000), but is young (48), telegenic, and a potential presidential candidate in 2024 if the Republicans can break their addiction to Trump and decide they want a very smart, good-looking, principled conservative. In a national election, his vote could bring in lots of votes among conservative and moderate Democrats, especially if the Democrats run someone who is not a straight white man. This is not to say Sasse made a crude calculation here, but he is not going to suffer any penalty in Nebraska. And if Trump is in prison and Trumpism dead in 2024, he'll look pretty good. Risk: 3.
  
  
• Pat Toomey (PA), who is retiring in Jan. 2023, said: "He began with dishonest, systematic attempts to convince supporters that he had won. His lawful, but unsuccessful, legal challenges failed due to lack of evidence. Then, he applied intense pressure on state and local officials to reverse the election outcomes in their states. When these efforts failed, President Trump summoned thousands to Washington, D.C. and inflamed their passions by repeating disproven allegations about widespread fraud. He urged the mob to march on the Capitol for the explicit purpose of preventing Congress and the Vice President from formally certifying the results of the presidential election. All of this to hold on to power despite having legitimately lost." Pretty strong words, but then again, Toomey is retiring for some reason (probably because he doesn't think he can win). He's only 59 and worth about $1.1 million, so it is unlikely he will just sit around and do nothing for the rest of his life. He used to be a banker. Maybe he can become a lobbyist for a bank. While Trump can't easily punish him, his future is uncertain, so he did take a little bit of risk. Risk: 2.
  

All in all, only Murkowski really stuck her neck out. The others are not likely to feel any real pain due to their votes. The net worth figures are from 247wallst.com, which got them from Roll Call and financial disclosure statements. They are probably not very accurate.

A number of senators tried to have it both ways. They voted to acquit and afterwards said he was guilty. If only the trial were constitutional, then they would have voted to convict. Bravery, huh? Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) gave a damning speech in which he said Trump was clearly guilty. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) said: "My vote to acquit should not be viewed as exoneration for his conduct on January 6, 2021, or in the days and weeks leading up to it." Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) said: "The actions and reactions of President Trump were disgraceful, and history will judge him harshly." Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) said: "I condemn former president Trump's poor judgment in calling a rally on that day, and his actions and inactions when it turned into a riot. His blatant disregard for his own Vice President, Mike Pence, who was fulfilling his constitutional duty at the Capitol, infuriates me." And the coward-of-the-year award goes to...Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), who said: "I have said that what President Trump did that day was inexcusable because in his speech he encouraged the mob, and that he bears some responsibility for the tragic violence that occurred." Some responsibility? Portman is worth $9 million and is retiring from the Senate after this term. There is no way Trump can damage him, yet he didn't vote to convict and couldn't even manage a full-throated condemnation. No profile in courage to see here. (V)

Poll: Americans Believe Trump Was Responsible for the Capitol Riot

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll released Saturday shows that 71% of American adults, including half of all Republicans, hold Donald Trump at least partially responsible for the Capitol riot. About half the respondents wanted to see him convicted or barred from holding office again. A full 30% think Trump was completely responsible for the riot, with another 25% thinking he was largely responsible and a further 16% holding him somewhat responsible. Only 29% said he had no responsibility at all. To put that in context, 29% is also the percentage of the American public that believes COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab. (V).

But Will the Senate Vote Even Be an Issue in 2022?

Politicians are always looking at the next election, and now with the Senate vote behind us, 2022 is clearly on the horizon. Right now the trial looms large, but will that still be the case in Nov. 2022? Many insiders think it won't be. After all, how big a role did Trump's first impeachment play in the 2020 election? Basically no role at all, and Trump himself, the man who tried to extort a foreign leader, was on the ballot. Other issues, especially the coronavirus and the economy were the main issues. In 2022, some action Joe Biden took or some bill Congress passed could dominate. People have short memories.

The vote will certainly play a role in Alaska, as Trump is surely going to back a challenger to Lisa Murkowski, but none of the six other Republicans who voted to convict will be on the ballot. The states where it could conceivably play a role are swing states where a Republican who voted to acquit Trump is on the ballot. These might include Florida (Marco Rubio), Wisconsin (possibly Ron Johnson), and Missouri (Roy Blunt). If enough moderate Republicans are angry with their senator for being a coward, the vote could be a factor. But most political operatives think the anger will have passed and other issues will dominate.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), who is chairman of the NRSC, thinks the election will be about job creation. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), who voted for acquittal, said that the issues will be different in every race, depending on what is important in that state.

The impeachment could conceivably play a role in open-seat races. Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC), who is running to replace Richard Burr, is already attacking Burr for voting to convict Trump. Burr won't be on the primary ballot, but he makes a convenient foil for Walker to demonstrate his Trumpiness. Still, stuff changes and there is a pretty good chance something else will be on everyone's mind in 2022 and the vote will be but a distant memory. (V)

Some in Congress Want a Bipartisan Commission to Examine the Riot

After the Senate acquitted Donald Trump of inciting sedition, some members said that Plan B was to use the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent him from running for office again. However, that idea has gotten no traction and seems dead. Currently being discussed is Plan C, an independent bipartisan commission to study what happened and make recommendations how to prevent future riots in the Capitol. One part of it is straightforward: more and better-trained Capitol police with better weapons and more physical barriers. The other part is a bit harder. How about a law making it a crime to incite sedition against the United States? Oh, wait. We already have that. Still, a detailed report could potentially make Trump's role in the riot crystal clear for future historians.

Such reports are common after traumatic events. Think about the Warren Commission after the assassination of John Kennedy, the report on the Sept. 11 attacks, and the Mueller report about the Russian interference with the 2016 election. This one could be added to the collection. Democrats definitely want such a report and even some Republicans in Congress would likely support creating it, certainly the House members who voted for impeachment and the Senate members who voted to convict. Although some Trumpish Republicans may not be keen on creating a commission that could put the blame on Trump, they might be willing to go along simply to save their own skins in the event of another riot.

The chances of such a commission being formed are high, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said: "We will have an after-action review. There will be a commission." She wouldn't say that if the votes weren't there in the House. Mitch McConnell said: "In the near future, Congress needs to smartly transition to a more sustainable security presence." With those two leaders clearly on board, some sort of commission is likely to be formed, although there could be an argument about whether its primary mission is: (1) determining how to better protect the building or (2) figuring out why the riot happened in the first place.

Typically with this sort of commission, the president picks the members. That alone could determine what the report concludes. A commission with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as co-chair would probably come to a different conclusion than one with former senator Jeff Flake as co-chair. If the commission is created, Joe Biden will have to be careful about whom he appoints to it to avoid a whitewash of the whole affair and simply to report back that the Capitol police should henceforth be armed with AR-15s and given helicopters and tanks to repel invaders. (V)

McConnell Is Now Leading a Fractured Republican Party

RNC Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel may think she is leading the Republican Party, but now that Donald Trump is stuck in Florida without a Twitter feed, the real leader of the Party is Mitch McConnell, and certainly not the hapless House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). McConnell has his work cut out for him trying to win the House and Senate in 2022. His biggest task is somehow unifying the Party. Voting to acquit Trump and then trashing him won't solve the problem of the Party being split between Trumpers and anti-Trumpers.

McConnell's biggest goal is getting his old job back (followed closely by making Joe Biden a one-term president). To achieve #1, he has to avoid losing any (potentially) winnable Senate seats in 2022. First case in point: Arizona. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) is on the ballot for a full 6-year term in Arizona in 2022. However, the state Republican Party has been taken over by the wackos, who recently condemned former Republican senator Jeff Flake and Cindy McCain for not being Trumpy enough. If the state party tries to run a Trumpy candidate (for example, state chair Kelli Ward) McConnell made it clear that he will intervene and try to defeat such candidate in the primary. Second case in point: North Carolina. There Trump's daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, who has no political experience—except cheerleading for her father-in-law—is toying with a run for the open Senate seat in 2022.

Unlike Trump, McConnell is honest about his goals and intentions. He said: "My goal is, in every way possible, to have nominees representing the Republican Party who can win in November. Some of them may be people the former president likes. Some of them may not be. The only thing I care about is electability." That is typical McConnell. What he cares about is power, not ideology. If the people of, say, Wyoming, want a super Trumpy Senate candidate, that's fine with him because any Republican can win in Wyoming. In swing states like Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia, Trumpy candidates probably can't win statewide anymore, so McConnell is going to open the money spigot to defeat them in the primaries. The Trumpish wing of the GOP won't take that lying down, so there are going to be fireworks ahead.

Complicating McConnell's plan to defeat Trumpish senatorial candidates in winnable states is that some of his members are: (1) very Trumpy and (2) planning to run for president in 2024 as "new, improved Trump" look-alikes. These include Sens. Ted Cruz (TX), Josh Hawley (MO), and Rick Scott (FL), among others. That could lead to situations in Arizona, North Carolina and other states in which McConnell is busy funneling money to a traditional Republican in a primary while Cruz and Hawley are out there vigorously campaigning for that candidate's opponent in order to demonstrate their Trumpishness. Trying to keep the Party together will test McConnell like he has never been tested before. The only thing all Republicans agree on is that Joe Biden is the most left-wing pinko Commie president in the nation's history and his radical agenda would embarrass Karl Marx and Che Guevara. (V)

Trump Is Coming Out of Hibernation

Donald Trump has been hibernating at Mar-a-Lago for weeks now, but with the threat of being barred from running for public office no longer looming, he is about to dehibernate. It won't be quite as easy as it was in 2015 when he was a novelty, however. To start with, his main weapon of choice—Twitter—has banned him for life. John Matze, who founded Parler, would love to have him on board, which would work fine except: (1) Parler is still offline because no company will host it, and (2) the board, led by Rebekah Mercer, fired Matze on Jan. 29. Another little detail is that the Republican Party is deeply divided over Trump. Specifically, while he is still popular with the base, most Republican politicians want him to go away, although they are scared silly to say this in public. But the secret ballot on whether to remove Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) from the House leadership made it quite clear that Republican politicians have had it with Trumpism, even though they defend it and him in public.

How will Trump communicate now? He will start by doing interviews with friendly media outlets. Although he attacked Fox News bitterly for calling Arizona for Joe Biden on Election Night, now he needs Fox more than Fox needs him, so he will have to make nice with them (although Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity never really abandoned him). Certainly OANN and Newsmax can expect him to drop by from time to time as they supported him through thick and thin.

One project high on his agenda is exacting revenge on people who opposed him. Specifically that means the Republicans in the House who voted to impeach him and the Republicans in the Senate who voted to convict him. Other targets are Republican officials who refused to break the law in order to help him. Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) are prime targets here.

And while Trump is a huge fan of sticks and eats his carrots only grudgingly, he might be willing to help Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who will be top targets—for both parties—and can use all the help they can get.

Of course, some things are beyond Trump's control, especially the criminal cases being prepared in Georgia and New York. And we don't know what Merrick Garland will do once he is confirmed as AG and can read the unexpurgated X-rated Mueller report. (V)

Are the Democrats Powerless Now?

In the aftermath of the Senate trial, it looks like the final score is Republicans 1, Democrats 0. Donald Trump will probably get off scot-free. Well, except maybe for state cases in New York and possibly Georgia, and one or more federal cases in Washington. He is also facing lawsuits from Summer Zervos and E. Jean Carroll, but most likely he could end those suits quickly by offering the two women substantial cash settlements in return for their signing NDAs.

The real takeaway from this episode is that Republicans do not take their oath to the Constitution seriously and are so intimidated by Trump that they don't consider his unleashing an angry mob hell-bent on killing them as a "high crime." Can Democrats now play nice with them, pretend that nothing happened, and let Republicans block all of Joe Biden's agenda? If the tables were turned and Democratic senators had voted to protect a Democratic president who had unleashed mob violence (say, to avenge the killing by police of an innocent Black girl), would Republicans just turn the other cheek after an acquittal?

Greg Sargent, among others, has argued that Democrats simply can't trust Republicans to negotiate in good faith and have to take unilateral action now on some big issues. It is hard to imagine that many Democrats really expect the Republicans to work with them on any issue that Trump opposes. Sargent's prescription (and that of many others) is to get rid of the filibuster and then pass H.R. 1, which is basically a new voting rights act. It would end many of the practices that Republicans use to gain power with only a minority of the voters supporting them.

Abolishing the filibuster outright will be hard to do because Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is at least nominally opposed to doing so. But in the current rules, there are already three things that can't be filibustered: (1) reconciliation bills, (2) confirmations of judges to the lower courts, and (3) confirmation of justices to the Supreme Court. It shouldn't be hard to add a fourth one, eliminating the filibuster for statehood bills. Then D.C. and Puerto Rico could be admitted as states. Given Del. Stacey Plaskett's (D) stellar performance as an impeachment manager, maybe the U.S. Virgin Islands could also be admitted so Plaskett could become a senator. Unfortunately, the name "United States Virgin Islands" is not an ideal name for a state, and "Virginia" has already been taken, so a new name is needed. The argument for admitting these states is: "No taxation without representation," something every fifth grader can repeat, even if he or she doesn't know what it means.

All this has to happen quickly since history suggests that the 2022 midterm could be brutal to the Democrats unless they really get a lot of popular things done quickly. And maybe they don't even have 2 full years. A dozen Democratic senators come from states with Republican governors (see this list) and if just one of them were to die of COVID-19, the Democrats would lose their Senate majority, at least for 5 or 6 months if a special election has to be called, and in some cases until Jan. 2023. (V)

Trump's Business Partners Are Squeezing Him

Now that Donald Trump's business partners are no longer afraid that he will turn the full power of the presidency against them, they no longer see him as an apex predator, but as prey. In particular, Trump has a 30% stake in two very profitable commercial buildings, one on Sixth Avenue in New York (Avenue of the Americas to non-New Yorkers), and one in downtown San Francisco. His share is worth $784 million, but he has loans of $285 million on the properties. Vornado Realty Trust owns the other 70%.

This division of the stock means that Vornado's powerful chairman, Steven Roth, gets to run the show. In particular, he is considering stopping the cash flows on the properties, something a managing partner who controls more than half the stock is well within his rights to do. Given the $400 million in debts that Trump has coming due in the next 4 years, Trump needs the cash flow. By turning off the money faucet, Roth could put the squeeze on Trump and force him to sell his 30% share back to Vornado at fire-sale prices. Roth knows very well that Trump's hotels and golf courses are hemorrhaging money due to COVID-19 and that they won't bring in much in a forced sale, so Trump's only choice may be to sell his good-performing properties—the ones he owns in common with Vornado—to Roth at a big discount. Nobody ever said that mega-real estate moguls are soft and cuddly.

As an example of how bad it is, revenue at the Trump International Hotel in D.C. was off by 63%, down to $15 million last year. And the chance of Arab sheiks or Russian oligarchs ever holding a big bash there again is basically zero. Revenue at Trump's Doral property was off by 43%. Those are expensive properties to maintain, and if Trump skimps on maintenance, their revenues and market values will continue to drop. Revenue at Mar-a-Lago was up 13%, but members who joined because they wanted access to Trump are leaving in droves, so it will probably be in the red in 2021.

Dan Alexander, a senior editor at Forbes, noted that when the leases for commercial tenants (who are paying millions of dollars a year to Trump) expire, they will have to decide if they want to be associated with Trump. Given that many companies have discovered that certain workers are just as productive at home as at the office (think: lawyers and bankers who mostly interact with clients by phone, as well as computer programmers and others who sit in front of a screen all day), the demand for commercial real estate may drop in the coming years, and current Trump leaseholders may either scram or demand much lower rent, neither of which is good for Trump's bottom line. Forbes estimates that Trump's net worth has probably dropped from $3.5 billion to $2.5 billion. If being president costs you a billion dollars, maybe nobody will want the job in the future. (V)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger