It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy. 

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

TWO TAKES ON IMPEACHMENT
By Daniel Bush, @DanielBush ([link removed])
Senior political reporter

Now we officially know where both sides stand in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.

House Democrats and lawyers for former President Donald Trump submitted memos Tuesday outlining their arguments for and against conviction. Spoiler: Democrats think Trump is guilty of inciting insurrection; Trump’s attorneys think it’s unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial against a former president.

The memos were the latest step in the preliminary phase of the trial. Senate Democrats and Republicans have not yet agreed to rules governing the trial, but opening arguments are scheduled to start Feb. 9. (In another development, Trump brought on two new attorneys this week after he parted ways with his original defense team.)

Here’s a guide to key questions, and where both sides came down in their memos.

Did Trump incite the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol?
* House Democrats: Yes. The House impeachment managers noted that Trump urged supporters to “fight” the election results numerous times in the weeks leading up to Jan. 6, and again at a rally that morning, hours before a violent mob stormed Congress in an effort to block the final Electoral College count. Democrats further noted that several rioters said they were acting on Trump’s request, and argued Trump did nothing to stop them once the mob turned violent. Democrats also argued that Trump’s remarks at the rally were not protected by the First Amendment. “President Trump’s responsibility for the events of January 6 is unmistakable,” they wrote.
* Trump’s defense team: No. Trump’s new attorneys, Bruce Castor and David Schoen, denied that Trump incited violence in his Jan. 6 speech. Trump’s call for supporters to “fight like hell” was “clearly about the need to fight for election security in general,” they said. The lawyers also argued that Trump was covered by free speech protections under the First Amendment. They further denied that Trump threatened Georgia’s top election official or endangered national security for his role in the Capitol attack, two other claims Democrats made in their memo.

Can the Senate hold an impeachment trial for a former president?
* House Democrats: Yes. They argued that the framers of the Constitution clearly gave the Senate power to conduct impeachment trials of current and former officials -- and wanted to ensure officials would not abuse their power on their way out of office. “It is unthinkable that those same Framers left us virtually defenseless against a president’s treachery in his final days,” they wrote. Failing to convict Trump would send the message that future presidents can resort to violence in their final days in office to try to hold onto power, they argued. Democrats also noted that the Senate has held impeachment trials of former officials in the past.
* Trump’s defense team: No. They argued the Constitution’s impeachment clause only applies to current officials who can be removed from office. “The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President because he holds no public office,” they wrote, referring to Trump. Because of that, they said, the House article of impeachment against Trump is “moot.” The attorneys also argued that the House denied Trump due process by holding a rushed impeachment proceeding; Democrats in their memo argued Trump’s speech before the attack was public and did not require a lengthy investigation.

Can Trump be blocked from holding office in the future?
* House Democrats: Yes. Democrats noted that under Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution, someone who is convicted by the Senate can be removed from office but also separately disqualified from holding office in the future. They argued that the Constitution does not block the Senate from disqualifying Trump from holding future office simply because he is no longer president.
* Trump’s defense team: No. The former president’s attorneys argued that, under the Constitution, removal from office “must occur before, and jointly with,” disqualification from holding future office. Trump cannot be barred from holding future office because the “Senate presently is unable to remove” him from the presidency, they said.

FIVE OVERLOOKED POLITICAL STORIES FROM THE PAST WEEK
By Ian Couzens, @iancouzenz ([link removed])
Politics production assistant

Bureau of Land Management exodus: Agency lost 87 percent of staff in Trump HQ relocation ([link removed]) - Jan. 28. Most of the agency’s Washington-based employees quit in the year and a half since Trump’s announcement, an effort critics contend was meant to dismantle an agency that at times stands in the way of the development of public lands. Why it matters: The mass exodus means the agency, which reviews the impact of government regulations on the environment, lost a lot of expertise, putting the Biden administration at a disadvantage as the new president tries to enact his agenda. -- The Hill

State lawmakers are pushing to curb governors’ virus powers ([link removed]) - Jan 28. Angered by the use of executive orders meant to address the pandemic, such as limiting business operations and mandating mask wearing, legislators in Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, Maryland, Kentucky, Indiana and Pennsylvania are pushing to strip governors of these powers through constitutional amendments. Why it matters: Governors are arguing that they need the authority to act quickly and decisively in emergency situations where action is critical to saving lives. -- The Associated Press

Three post-Trump vacancies will allow Biden to place his stamp on Maryland’s federal trial court ([link removed]) - Jan 29. Trump often touted the large number of conservative judges he placed on federal benches, but the federal district court and the federal appeals court handling Maryland cases were relatively unchanged during his term, and remain dominated by Democrat-nominated judges. Why it matters: Three nominations now, with possibly more to come, means Biden will be able to leave his legacy on some of the nation’s highest courts, which handle a lot of politically charged cases. Each nomination is also one fewer vacancy that a Republican gets to fill in the future. -- Baltimore Sun

Trump left Biden a $30 billion fund used for trade wars. Biden has other plans for it ([link removed]) - Jan 31. The Commodity Credit Corp, a depression-era financial institution, became a signature tool of the Trump administration, which used it to dole out billions of dollars to farmers hurt by his trade war, accounting for 40 percent of their income last year. Why it matters: Before the Trump era, the CCC was used in narrow ways, but he left behind flexible programs that now Biden’s administration could utilize more broadly to combat climate change, support restaurants during the pandemic and move forward with other programs without having to wait for congressional action. -- Politico

This Bill Has Experts Worried the Pennsylvania GOP Could Gerrymander Judicial Districts ([link removed]) - Feb. 1. The measure calls for abolishing statewide elections for appellate court judges, replacing them with district races. Why it matters: Districts are typically drawn by the party in power in order to maintain that power, which means the courts, which are meant to be non-partisan, could be dragged into some partisan campaign fights, which experts fear could also lead to declining public confidence in judges. -- Slate

#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Kate Grumke, @KGrumke ([link removed])
Politics producer

Today Pete Buttigieg became the first openly LGBTQ member of a presidential Cabinet, going down in history among other firsts like Frances Perkins, who became the first female Cabinet member as President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s secretary of labor and Lauro F. Cavazos, who became the first Hispanic Cabinet member when he served under President Ronald Reagan as secretary of education.

Our question: Who was the first Black Cabinet member and which president did they serve?

Send your answers to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.

Last week, we asked: Who holds the record for the longest filibuster in history?

The answer: Strom Thurmond

Former Sen. Strom Thurmond holds the record for the longest individual speech in Senate history, but that record was fueled by racism and is widely considered a dark footnote in Senate history. Thurmond was filibustering the 1957 Civil Rights Act. At the time, Thurmond was a Democrat from South Carolina, although he eventually became a Republican in 1964. Thurmond filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes in opposition to the civil rights legislation. For more on the filibuster, check out Lisa’s great explainer ([link removed]) from last week.

Congratulations to our winners: Bob Schmid and Brad Robideau!

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.

[link removed]


** Photo by Leah Millis/Reuters
------------------------------------------------------------


** Sweeping new report examines the roots of the U.S. Capitol attack
------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
Copyright © 2020 NEWSHOUR LLC, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
3620 South 27th Street
Arlington, VA 22206

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
** update subscription preferences ([link removed])