There is legitimate outrage but these remain accusations, not proven claims. The calls for immediate resignation dismiss any possible countervailing claims or information from Cuomo. While he showed little such concern for others in the past, poetic justice is not really justice
Unlike many, I was no fan of Andrew Cuomo and was highly critical of him in columns (Conversely, I was a big fan of his father). Yet, there has to be a modicum of due process in such controversies even in our hair-triggered political and media environment.
...Stewart-Cousins just said that one more woman would lead her to demand Cuomo's resignation. nypost.com/2021/03/04/ny-… Now there are two more women. However, there is an investigation being conducted that can afford both the accusers and the accused of a fair process of review.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There is talk of just stipulating to allow Rep. Beutler's statement into the record. If so, it would be odd since Rep. Raskin already discussed the statement in the record. It would be an exit ramp back to where the Senate was before Raskin threw the Senate trial into disarray.
...If this is the result, it would clearly show that Raskin sandbagged the Senate Democrats who did not want to be seen as opposing the managers (despite just saying that they did not want witnesses). jonathanturley.org/2021/02/13/wit…
...It is a stipulation. The resolution shows that Raskin sandbagged the Senate Democrats. This merely enters hearsay into the record. However, the statement of Beutler also contradicts the House managers that this is truly new evidence.
Questions are likely to start tonight. A few questions for the managers would help clarify some of these issues...
1. You did not give the President a chance to formally respond and did not call witnesses before or after the snap impeachment. You then told us that we should consider due process a "privilege" and not required in a Senate trial, but ....
...shouldn't due process be the expectation of both the Senate and the American people in a constitutional trial? The Senate should consider basic principles of fairness and due process in judging the House case, correct?
Raskin is detailing reckless comments by Trump for years and is suggesting that he has been inciting violence for years. It is an argument that opens the door for similar pictures and arguments of rioting for years from the left by the Trump team. jonathanturley.org/2021/02/11/rec…
Again, this is not an argument designed to convict on the specific charge of incitement to insurrection. It is more of an argument to enrage than to convict on the specific article of impeachment...
...Raskin is now detailing the Whitmer kidnapping plot and suggesting culpability by Trump. The plot was uncovered and prosecuted under the Trump Administration. This is the type of argument that would be barred in an actual court...
Raskin just did precisely what I discussed in this column in citing the news story just before the trial. The House did nothing for weeks to lock in such testimony in hearings but is now citing witnesses from media reports. jonathanturley.org/2021/02/09/mod…
...The House could have called a dozen witnesses to lock in their testimony on what Trump said and did during this period. Why? It seems to prefer to try the case largely on circumstantial evidence and media accounts of what these witnesses have said.jonathanturley.org/2021/01/30/why…
The managers are again quoting aides from statements in the media, the very witnesses that the House has declined to call for testimony for the last four weeks. Why? jonathanturley.org/2021/01/30/why…
More heat than light from the defense so far. The team needs to focus on the constitutional claims and history. David Schoen is tearing into the Democrats when the Senate needs argument on the constitutional issues.
...The defense has eaten roughly half of its time without landing a glove on the constitutional questions. Schoen was said to be the one who would present an "erudite" analysis of the constitutional issue.
...It is interesting that the defense team is focusing more on the prudential concerns not the constitutional issues related to retroactive trials. jonathanturley.org/2021/01/29/a-q… Certainly, such prudential arguments might be able to pick up a couple votes.
Raskin just argued that the Senate can clearly try the impeachment because the House properly impeached the president before the end of his term...jonathanturley.org/2021/01/22/the…
...However, that ignores the possibility that you can have a constitutional impeachment but an unconstitutional trial. Raskin cited the British Hasting case. However, the legendary Justice Joseph Story noted that not only is the trial of former officials unconstitutional but...
he expressly noted that this is a point of distinction between American and British impeachments. Story is widely cited as the gold standard on the meaning of the Constitution.