Donald Trump Goes on Trial in Senate

It's hard to believe it was 22 years ago that I attended the impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton. Today it is private citizen Donald Trump who is on trial in the U.S. Senate for his conduct on January 6,2021 when rioters stormed the U.S. capitol. C-Span is covering it live.

They are now arguing over whether the Senate has the power to impeach someone who no longer occupies a desk in the oval office. Four hours has been alloted for these arguments. From the New York Times:

In a fast-paced and cinematic case, the House managers will argue before the Senate that Mr. Trump is guilty of inciting a deadly mob of his supporters to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6.

The prosecution plans to show videos captured by the mob, Mr. Trump’s unvarnished words and criminal pleas from rioters who said they acted at the former president’s behest. House managers are aiming for a conviction and to bar Mr. Trump from holding office again.

Democrats plan to both conduct the trial and work on passing federal coronavirus relief. The trial should be over this week.

Here is the Reply Brief filed today by the House Managers who are prosecuting the trial against Trump. Here are the procedural rules for the Clinton impeachment trial.

< Tampa Superspreader | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I wish that I could have the (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by desertswine on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 03:18:38 PM EST
    last hour back.

    I keep switching over to watch (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 03:55:30 PM EST
    And they are doing something that makes me keep going.

    Someone was just reading Dr Seuss.


    The House.Managers provided. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 04:17:58 PM EST
    an engaging, understandable and brilliant presentation.  Representatives Raskin, Neguse and Cicciline deserve the nation's gratitude--the scholarship and preparation were evident.

    Even if the fix is in (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Feb 10, 2021 at 12:04:25 AM EST
    ...and the perp skates, the trial will be conducted in front of the entire world, not in a courtroom without TV coverage.

    GOP Senators and congressmen will be forced to defend more and more lunacy over the course of the trial, and then spend two years justifying that vote to acquit. The Democrats will put the entire Republican Party on trial, and the only defense we will hear is, "Homina-homina-homina."

    The Senate is not the jury, the world is, and Trump is not on Trial, the GOP is.

    Really think (none / 0) (#37)
    by smott on Wed Feb 10, 2021 at 01:41:40 PM EST
    Dems should have used Committee and called witnesses.
    I'm w Armando on this.
    Rushing it through makes no sense. Of course GOP will acquit, but bringing in lots of witnesses will make it as politically painful as possible, load up talking points for Dems on TV, fuel attack ads in 22.
    No reason not to do it.
    And seriously, we have zero idea what Trump was doing between 2-9pm on the 6th. He never tried to stop it, he never went to the Sit Room to discuss w staff.
    We've no idea the details of the calls he and Rudy made, supposedly to get Senators to object to even more states and delay further.
    No idea the substance of calls re security made prior to the 6th to get the NG to stand down.
    All that goes to Trump's planning and intent.

    I'd love to get one or more of the SoDs up there to talk about what they knew that made them send that letter telling Miller to STFD.
    Bring in Dick Cheney! He's likely pissed at the GOP for crapp8ng all over his kid.

    Dems leaving a LOT of cards on the table by rushing this through. Big mistake IMO.


    There is (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 10, 2021 at 05:30:34 PM EST
    much to speak in favor, in my view, of the Democrats' impeachment trial strategy.  The Article of Impeachment is sharp and readily understandable. The senate trial tactics, with brilliant narratives by House Managers of.instructive and powerful images tells  the story-- a months- long plan to overturn the election results. And, Trump's violent and desperate effort after all other non-violent trys failed.  

    The tight approach draws effectively and efficiently the link between Trump and the insurrectionists.  The American people can see, step by step, how Trump violated his oath of office.  While there is always more to know and learn, the streamlined strategy skips nothing necessary to a conviction. And, does not risk distraction or a tiring.

    Aside from the impeachment trial,  there remains the need for a special commission to investigate, comprehensively, this American tragedy.


    If I were (none / 0) (#39)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 10, 2021 at 05:15:07 PM EST
    Any of them, I wouldn't accept an invitation from Dick Cheney to go hunting, that's all I'm saying.

    Mitt Romney (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 10, 2021 at 03:49:51 PM EST
    would have been killed if Officer Goodman had not been there and told him to turn around.

    And Romney said (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 10, 2021 at 08:38:19 PM EST
    he did not know how close he came to the mob until he saw that video today. He was grim,

    The use of graphics of the floor plan in the video is good.


    No wall after all (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2021 at 10:38:53 AM EST
    President Joe Biden has rescinded the emergency order used by former President Donald Trump to justify construction of the border wall, The Hill reports.

    Said Biden, in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "I have determined that the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border was unwarranted."

    He added: "I have also announced that it shall be the policy of my administration that no more American taxpayer dollars be diverted to construct a border wall, and that I am directing a careful review of all resources appropriated or redirected to that end."

    CNN (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 12, 2021 at 05:43:33 PM EST
    is busting a big story on a call between tRump and McCarthy during the insurrection. It is incredibly damning to tRump with multiple named and unnamed Republicans.

    So What Does This Say About The Competence (none / 0) (#53)
    by RickyJim on Fri Feb 12, 2021 at 10:15:22 PM EST
    Nothing (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 08:08:53 AM EST
    No witness will change a single vote. Except maybe Trump and that's not going to happen.

    The managers have done a great job.

    Make the closing arguments take the vote and get this over with.   Everyone is tried of hearing about Trump.


    That said (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 08:34:06 AM EST
    I guess McCarthy was on Hannity lying last night.  It might be fun to make him tell the truth.

    The question is, would it change anything.  Everyone knows he is a lying POS so no news there.   I don't think it would change a thing and I think it needs to be over.  


    I (none / 0) (#58)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 08:49:16 AM EST
    have been on the fence on the witness question but I would certainly not criticize the managers who have been spectacular.

    My thinking is that conviction was never even a goal of the impeachment, it would have been nice but no one expected it and frankly the managers are choosing not to pursue it by using all their tools(ie witnesses).

    IMO the Democrats are already playing with house money, cashing in their chips now makes sense.


    Yes (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 09:13:08 AM EST
    This trial was necessary.  It was a good and useful thing.

    But starting about now the message Trump supporters particularly are getting is, see, no matter how many facts they have or how many entirely logical arguments they make, we can do what we want.

    We don't have to be limited by their rules or norms if there is enough of us.

    Trump is going to call this a win.  And it is for him.  Cut your losses and use the votes against republicans.


    For example (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 09:14:55 AM EST
    As far as I can tell the only effect last night big phone call story has had is to make Mitch say he was voting to acquit.

    I'm Confused, Last Week the Trial was about... (none / 0) (#89)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 10:12:06 AM EST
    ...educating those good republican folks who don't like the news, how is not calling any witnesses furthering that line of thought ?

    They did a good job if flipping one person was the goal.  In reality they made some democrats feel good about themselves for not rolling over, a moral victory I guess.  

    Mitch, Kevin, and Lindsay have done way more to help democrats than the impeachment.  I'm still in the camp that they should have acquiesced to republicans; all voted that it was unconstitutional when Paul brought it up, then filed criminal charges.

    Subpoenas, witnesses, jury, actual consequences.


    well, (none / 0) (#90)
    by leap on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 10:36:50 AM EST
    OrangeAnus was impeached AND now he can be tried for crimes in New York state, Georgia, and DC. So, kind of a double win, even though he wasn't convicted by the shameless Senate Republicans. If he is convicted for Federal crimes in any of those venues, he can't run again for preznint.

    Here's one: (none / 0) (#91)
    by leap on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 10:43:19 AM EST
    A little used provision of the 1871 Ku Klux Act (none / 0) (#107)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 08:39:40 PM EST
    "(1) Preventing officer from performing duties
    If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; ...  in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators."
    42 USC 1985(1)

    So Long as Democrats... (none / 0) (#92)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 03:06:56 PM EST
    ...aren't running the show it just might not be half-a$$ed and so long as republicans aren't jurors, they just might get a conviction.

    But people who knew critical information should have been subpoenaed, people who forced to hide like rats should have been given opportunity to testify.  No victim testimony, no weeping police officer widow ?

    I think Mitch was itching to tell the world who was responsible.  I think this because he did it unprovoked, who else wanted to speak their mind from the right, why weren't they given the chance to, at the very least, take the 5th.  And if the jurors couldn't testify, then play their damn speeches from that night.  

    Not that it would have made a difference, but if you are going to impeach someone don't tread lightly to get it over as soon as possible.


    What Daniel (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 03:27:36 PM EST
    Goldman said who was the attorney for the house during the 1st impeachment trial was that they did talk to witnesses and the only one willing to testify was Jaime Herrera. So the others would have been hostile witnesses, lied or there would have been months spent in court with them fighting subpoenas. And every witnesses would have had to have been put up for the senate to vote in. It would have only taken a simple majority to approve a witness but it's not like you tell them to come testify and they automatically show up and tell the truth.

    There never has been a sadder sack in the history of politics than Mike Pence who Trump wanted to have killed and yet he does nothing to defend himself, even to the point of defending Trump.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#94)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 03:53:46 PM EST
    it was always going to be a win win for the Democrats. Conviction was never the goal, they proved their case without a doubt, go ask Mitch.

    Dragging this out with witnesses would have been wasting everybody's time. The whole world was a witness and even many Republicans who voted to acquit admitted he got off on a technicality. Americans can readily understand that.

    Now it's on to possible trials, where the long slow wheels of justice can function without the preening GOP fools turning into a circus.



    There's more than 200 (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 04:55:53 PM EST
    rioters now in the legal system.  Every day there will be someone saying they were taking orders from Trump.

    I think he is going to miss that presidential immunity


    I Don't Want to Argue About it... (none / 0) (#97)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 05:12:48 PM EST
    ...but it seems like democrats think this was a win.  I live in Trump country, almost everyone I know is a republican, I don't know of one person who watched the impeachment.  

    Dems are patting themselves on the back, good job, but the very reason this happened and the acquittal is republican voters and I don't believe any of them really care or view this anywhere near as bad as ANTIFA or BLM.

    Mark my words, one day we will look back and say Trump was the sane one, I'd like him back please, just like we did with GWB. The pendulum is not swinging towards reasonable republican candidates.

    Depressing thought, I was so proud of myself... getting out of the neighborhood, the old Wisconsin driver taking the wheel in the snow.  Went to the post office.  On my way back, Trump 2024 flag, not sure how I missed it going the other way unless they just put it up.  He probably won't run, but there will be a Trumpism candidate trying to prove how devoted(deluded) they are.  


    IMO, it is past time to (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 07:37:43 PM EST
    stop trying to win over the people you are referencing. Not going to happen no matter what the Dems do. Criticizing Democratic politicians for not tailoring their actions and policies to win over their approval is counterproductive.

    One very good thing (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 07:47:45 PM EST
    that is happening because of Jan 6 is a big spotlight has been turned on the whole big lie enterprise.  Not just the lie but the business that has developed around telling it. It's being commonly discussed in ways I don't think would have happened without an armed insurrection.

    He may try to avoid any responsibility for spreading it but even Mitch is spelling it out for republicans.  Pick a side.


    Seriously (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 08:06:40 PM EST
    Every day on CNN they are pointing out that Fox lies to their votes routinely and regularly. It seems they have one anchor devoted to debunking Fox lies.

    You (3.00 / 2) (#98)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 05:38:13 PM EST
    don't even have an argument, as far as I can tell. We all know that the hard core tRumpers will never change, that was never in the cards. Yet you deride the Democrats for failing to do so.

    One more time for the extra dense, impeachment is a political play. McConnell's full throated condemnation of tRump alone was worth the price. Pure political gold.


    The Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 10:19:07 PM EST
    got Representative Herrera Beutler's statement regarding her conversation with Minority Leader McCarthy stipulated by House Managers and Trump lawyers for entry into the record.  And, read at the trial.  

    Moreover, despite his vote for acquittal, the compelling case presented by the House Managers lead to the remarkable condemnation of the.Impeached former president by Senate Minority Leader McConnell.  The Trump lawyers and Senate supporters got nothing in return.  The Republican senators who voted for acquittal offered several reasons for their positions, but vigorous dispute of Trump's guilt or failure on the part of the Managers' to show his guilt were not among them.

    As for making the case for the American people, it was compelling and masterly for all those who care about democracy and the welfare of the country.  For the impeachment procedure, the case presented was adequate to the task.  There would, very likely, be a point of diminishing returns.  

    The impeachment and trial are not the end of the story. The civil and criminal cases as well as the proposed 9/11 type investigative commission continue.


    Yes, the Person Who Can't Express Thenselves... (none / 0) (#111)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 17, 2021 at 08:36:02 PM EST
    ..without insults is going to lecture on the best course of action for Congress.  Got it.  

    Funny how someone who hates 'tRump' uses the same tactics in dealing with dissent.

    FWIW some people might actually want justice and find the notion of using an impeachment for 'political play', insulting.  But you know, since you made it bold face, you almost got me, if only you had used caps... well then you your point would be irrefutable.

    Really, KeysDan a '5' ?


    I (none / 0) (#112)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 18, 2021 at 04:49:23 AM EST
    just call em like I see em. You are the only person I know who refuses to see the highly political nature of impeachment. Left, right, bright or dim everybody seems to understand this, yet you persist in your fantasy.

    Well Political Play... (none / 0) (#113)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 18, 2021 at 08:59:00 AM EST
    ... and every argument you make, as well as others, is the very reason impeachment failed twice.  It's all a giant game, the 13 dimensional chess match and the best gamesmnship wins elections right?  They didn't acquit because they don't think he is guilty, it's political play, no way they let dems win, period.

    Who cares if conviction was possible, that is beside the point.  Trust me I understand your argument better than you.  It's a fools argument that leaves us fighting each other rather than holding people accountable.  You think they don't make these foolhardy political play arguments over at Fox & NewMax.  If they didn't who would tune in, their bread and butter is precisely your argument.

    If what they think he did was criminal, get on with prosecuting him, stop playing this dumb game in which there was never any real consequences.  Otherwise it's just a bandage on a broken arm(seats in 2022) and it benefits no one but the people on top, like Trump, it's feel good, pat yourself on the back, phooey.

    It's certainly hasn't shut down Trump, he's making statements and I assume he is on Parlor talking about his grand victory.  You know that political play stuff the base loves so much.


    The Republican Party (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 07:15:41 PM EST
    Is officially in open civil war.

    No one can predict how that will go but the only thing certain is it's good for us.

    The democrats split the senate republicans with that vote.   There's now two different kinds of senate republicans.  

    The sane ones and the others.  There is an election next year that might be more important than 2020.  It will tell us what will happen to the Republican Party.  


    Trump or McConnell.... (none / 0) (#109)
    by desertswine on Wed Feb 17, 2021 at 01:02:47 PM EST
    Que es más macho?

    Cage match (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2021 at 04:01:51 PM EST
    Mitch would slaughter him.

    They (none / 0) (#59)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 09:04:09 AM EST
    are going for at least one witness, van der weenies threatens to call hundreds.

    Here we go (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 09:16:32 AM EST
    I hope (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 09:19:45 AM EST
    It's worth it

    One thing for sure (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 10:09:03 AM EST
    it won't be ending today.  

    It's probably worth it just to see how Kevin deals with it.

    Do we know she would testify?  Would she have a choice?


    No (none / 0) (#74)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 11:50:03 AM EST
    witnesses but the congresswoman's statement is stipulated as valid testimony(?) and read into the record.

    Sounds fair enough and Dems score a few points and the trial will end today with it's inevitable result.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#66)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 10:09:19 AM EST
    Lindsey Graham voted for witnesses, he is liable to demand Hillary testify. Bring on the clowns.

    On the other hand it seems like this latest drama may keep the public tuned in enough to make it worthwhile.

    Judging by yesterday's questions the Republicans seemed most concerned about what tRump was doing or not doing during the height of the attack(it was their skin on the line after all!).  Van der Weenie gave a particularly bad answer when asked about it, basically lying and blaming the Democrats for not finding out for themselves. Then this surprise witness shows up....stay tuned as the saying goes.


    Someone on tv (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 10:32:42 AM EST
    just mentioned the fact that hundreds of DOJ and FBI investigations are happening that could produce interesting things.  And possibly interesting witnesses.

    I hate this less the more I think about it.


    Those (none / 0) (#69)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 10:56:05 AM EST
    witnesses would bubble up in any case, that's why Democrats were in a win win situation. Barring testimony from tRump or his inner circle there is probably very little to come out of Senate witnesses that that isn't known or will come out eventually.

    There is still zero chance of conviction but I guess letting the Republicans roast a little longer is not a bad thing, especially with credible testimony showing that tRump appeared to be siding with the terrorists.

    The original goal remains, force a vote and frame it as being for the insurrectionists or for the constitutional order. This particular witness would seem to bolster that narrative.


    Not sure this is a good idea. (none / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    i think it might be a mistake. It will just delay the process and allow his lawyers another opportunity to make a mockery of the whole thing without changing the results. Wouldn't doubt that McCarthy would refuse to testify claiming privileged information or some such nonsense.

    The news is saying (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 11:13:05 AM EST
    this is not a done deal.  All kinds of things being considered instead of live in person witnesses.

    I think they are realizing exactly what it means to leap into this particular abyss and may well yet find a way to avoid it.

    Bottom line is if they do this we are talking about weeks if not months.  


    There (none / 0) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 11:24:32 AM EST
    is a bit of a risk, with regard the the delay but I think the mockery hurts the Republicans way more.

    Who cares if McCarthy testifies? He is liable to lie anyway. The Democrats have already said they would use negative inference against tRump for declining to testify so I imagine that would still be in play. Probably better off if he refuses.


    Seven (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 02:49:38 PM EST
    Republicans vote guilty. Burr was the big surprise and Cassidy was a coin flip going in, and the rest of the usual suspects.

    Any Democrat who is disappointed with those results needs to get a clue.

    And you (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 06:26:44 PM EST
    are our resident Debbie Downer on these types of things. LOL.

    Yeah, the number actually shocked me. A friend of mine was so upset about this and I said look the GOP will always embrace treason, sedition and Trump over America and Americans. I was actually shocked that it was 7. I thought probably 2-3 would vote to acquit.


    If They Were Competent, (1.00 / 3) (#70)
    by RickyJim on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 11:05:32 AM EST
    the House prosecutors would have deposed everyone who had any direct communication with Trump or observed him in the White House on Jan 6. They could have presented their case without being subject to the counter argument that "its all circumstantial and subject to interpretation."  

    Now Merrick Garland will have to wait until at least March to get his long denied hearing and who knows about the fate of the Covid-19 relief package.  Why the hurry to get impeachment over in February rather than waiting to send it to the Senate in say June?  Or best of all, let a special prosecutor decide whether criminal charges should be brought against Trump for the insurrection.  

    Possible Federal Charges (none / 0) (#75)
    by RickyJim on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 11:51:12 AM EST
    Neither conviction nor acquittal on a bill (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 12:03:58 PM EST
    of impeachment has any bearing on Tr*mp's liability to potential criminal charges. Two separate and independent tracks. But you knew that, right?

    Of Course (none / 0) (#77)
    by RickyJim on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 12:18:00 PM EST
    I (none / 0) (#1)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 02:57:25 PM EST
    was also wondering what Castor's point was. 'A rambling mess': Viewers baffled by Trump lawyer's incoherent opening remarks

    The next guy so far is just acting angry.

    A fine example (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 05:52:23 PM EST
    according to Twitter, of the University of Four Seasons Total Landscaping School of Law,

    These guys are by no means "bottom of (none / 0) (#23)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 07:00:24 PM EST
    the barrel" lawyers. Schoen is a highly regarded, successful criminal defense trial lawyer. I think he is a past member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (as is our host, Jeralyn). Castor was (briefly) Solicitor General and then Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and a successful (elected, then re-elected) District Attorney of my county. They just took a difficult case, and proceeded to make a spectacle of themselves doing horribly with it.

    presumably he/they (none / 0) (#24)
    by leap on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 07:28:58 PM EST
    didn't need to take on this case. I wonder what motivated them to do it, at the risk of trashing their reputations? ETTD...* They certainly should have known that by now. Sheesh.

    *Everything Trump Touches Dies


    The dangerous ego of (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 07:49:58 PM EST
    the successful trial lawyer? I had thought that South Carolina team looked pretty good, frankly.

    Nebraska: (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 08:17:23 PM EST
    All things considered, (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 08:55:19 PM EST
    I'd rather an Omaha steak.

    Well, to be fair, Peter, ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 11:42:39 PM EST
    ... they have a horrible client whose incapable of remorse, and with whom it's reportedly difficult to work even in the most optimum of circumstances and further, they had less than 72 hours to prepare for trial.

    I hope they asked for a hefty retainer up front. Trump's rather notorious for stiffing contracted labor.



    Also surprised to hear my idiot neighbor Castor (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 03:13:00 PM EST
    concede that the American electorate showed its wisdom and good judgment by voting Tr*mp out. I wonder whether he had his client's consent to make that argument, or felt he didn't need consent. In effect, Castor called Tr*mp a shameless liar in his endless "stop the steal" assertions.

    He (none / 0) (#7)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 03:27:38 PM EST
    seemed to forget that tRump is being impeached for actions after the election, all aimed at denying the wisdom and judgement of the American people. It seemed a very counter productive argument for him to be making.

    Well, in fairness, Castor's "point" (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 03:36:08 PM EST
    (grossly unwise though it was), was that having once shown their wisdom to vote him out, the American people can be trusted not to vote him back in, so he doesn't need to be barred by the Senate from future office.

    Quite surprised to see David Schoen, (none / 0) (#2)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 03:02:48 PM EST
    the defense lawyer, acting as the angry attack dog, after his co-counsel, Bruce Castor, the prosecutor, played-acted the reasonable guy.

    Schoen's Bill of Attainder argument (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 03:26:43 PM EST
    should have been left on the cutting room floor.

    Both (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 03:44:28 PM EST
    could have used a editor.

    So, he quit (none / 0) (#67)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 10:30:54 AM EST
    but was talked into coming back on the Trump team.

    Castor and Schoen (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 03:22:31 PM EST
    have a tough case, but still.  Castor-- let him go or there will be more violence. Maybe, better a criminal trial than an impeachment trial. Lock him up?  He should be able to run again and we have thrown the Trump supporters under the bus. What more do you want, let's all get together, lock elbows and dance with our beer mugs in hand,

    Schoen seems to believe that the louder and angrier the more persuasive.  And, no due process by Speaker Pelosi, no Chief Justice presiding, and Senator Leahy is nice but not fair, so dismiss it all. No snap decisions, but not fast enough.

    They (none / 0) (#11)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 04:08:35 PM EST
    got one more GOP Senator on board, Cassidy of LA.

    CNN keeps talking about how bad the defense was (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 04:32:41 PM EST
    and if it doesn't improve ........

    Seeming to miss the point that however bad it was Trump still only list one vote from last time.

    I didn't watch it, mostly, but watching the coverage it seems like they don't care how bad it was because they know the jurors don't care.


    Tapper just said what I was thinking (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 04:39:52 PM EST
    They might as well have said, yeah, he did it.   He incited them.  People died.  What are you going to do about it?

    And there still would not be 17 republicans.


    So far (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 10, 2021 at 05:09:55 AM EST
    at least it seems Trump has lost 5 votes from last time. Still not 17 though.

    These Republicans are going to have to answer for their Trump support until they are out of office.


    They (none / 0) (#15)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 04:49:40 PM EST
    just reported tRump was borderline furious.

    I watched some of the Democratic presentation and thought they did a good job, the video was good but I tuned out most of their talking points.

    I started watching the defense with the intent of tuning out within minutes but I got fascinated by the shear ineptitude of it. I did tune out the second guy as he reminded of Gym Jordan.


    The House Managers (none / 0) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 05:01:02 PM EST
    dominated the session and this will be the message to the American people-- who are (with the  exception of most Republicans) moving toward conviction.  While the odds are clearly against conviction by the disgusting Republican senators, I can't help but believe that this will be to the Democrats advantage and the Republican disadvantage.  If so, democracy will be strengthened.

    Note: the video images edited and curated by the Managers was powerful.  I was pleased that the cursing by the insurrectionists was not bleeped or otherwise sanitized.


    That video was powerful (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 05:06:44 PM EST
    here it is

    I really can't imagine how terrified those cops were.


    What I found most powerful (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 05:39:56 PM EST
    about the video was its coordination of the timeline between what was happening inside the riot with what Tr*mp was saying and tweeting at that moment.

    I Feel Like they Should Have Included... (none / 0) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 05:58:15 PM EST
    ...the Tweets/Video that lead up to all those people being there on that day.  

    That is not to say it's not very powerful, it is.


    Pretty sure (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 06:03:19 PM EST
    they will do that tomorrow.  

    It's said we will see evidence not seen before.  


    Also Last Night... (none / 0) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 10, 2021 at 08:13:04 AM EST
    ...one of the news station put together the 5 or so times Trump was asked if he would support a peaceful transfer of power.  Each time his reply was some version of 'depends on the results'.

    That was/is powerful.  
    I hope we see that on the big screen in the Senate.


    Senate approves constitutionality of the impeachme (none / 0) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2021 at 06:06:29 PM EST
    The Senate voted 56-44, affirming that the impeachment trial is constitutional.

    Republican senators Collins, Cassidy, Murkowski, Romney, Sasse, and Toomey all voted with Democrats. Senate leader Mitch McConnell, however, sided with the Trump defense on the question of constitutionality.

    They need 11 more republicans if the above is a sign on who is going to cross lines.

    Maybe 10 (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 10, 2021 at 08:09:55 AM EST
    Bill Cassidy
    "I think it's important to understand the nature of that vote," the Louisiana senator said during an appearance on NBC News' Meet the Press this past Sunday, referencing the procedural vote on Paul's motion(on Constitutionality). "It was called two hours before it. There was no debate and no explanation from either side."

    The under/over is 54.5, time to take the over.  
    I think they will get 62 votes.


    Sounds mean and short (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 10, 2021 at 09:04:00 AM EST
    House impeachment managers will show never-before-seen security footage of the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol in their presentation today, CNN reports.

    They also will not use their full 16 hours to argue the case.

    Shock and awe is not a bad plan.

    That's all fine, but they *must* (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 10, 2021 at 09:31:20 AM EST
    keep tying the actions of the Capitol rioters and insurrectionists directly to Tr*mp's own words and actions over the preceding six months, and especially the preceding nine weeks, as well as what he said and did on January 6, both at the rally and afterwards in the White House. What others did is only circumstantial evidence of what he did and intended to do.

    Jamie did (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 10, 2021 at 05:20:43 PM EST
    "Rep. Jamie Raskin, serving as the lead House impeachment manager, opened his argument with a video showing the events of the Capitol riot to help argue that the proceeding is constitutional. The video outlined shows footage of former President Trump's speech and of the actions of those who stormed the Capitol."


    I am so proud of Jamie.  He is my Congressman.


    Yes (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 10, 2021 at 09:49:34 AM EST
    I hope that is the plan.  But it's not a complicated story.  Ukraine was complicated.  This is not.  

    Afaik it is their plane to do the long version of yesterday's preview.  And tie it completely to Trump going back months or arguably years.


    "Hey, Mr. Plaid Sky!" (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 10, 2021 at 12:50:30 PM EST
    This should be the title of the Dems attack. "No," the Republicans tell us, "that sky isn't grey and about to rain hell, that sky is plaid and it's just fine."

    The sky is plaid.

    Bank on it.  

    I had to join a conference call (none / 0) (#44)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 11, 2021 at 06:14:03 PM EST
    at the exact time that Professor Raskin explained the First Amendment issues. How'd he do? If I can find a link to that portion, I may watch later.

    Representative Raskin's (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 11, 2021 at 07:06:08 PM EST
    As a criminal defense lawyer for the last (none / 0) (#45)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 11, 2021 at 06:17:17 PM EST
    40 or so years, I must say I am glad I don't have to get up there and argue the defense this time. Really not sure what I would say. How about you, Jeralyn? What would you argue (just assuming for a moment, just for the fun of it, that the jurors/senators were actually open to making a reasonable decision)?

    We probably (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 11, 2021 at 07:27:27 PM EST
    can expect a defense of "whataboutism".   What about Portland, Minneapolis- all those broken windows of Foot Locker.   And, no incitement--Just exuberant, bad guys took advantage.  Trump is the real victim.  Hillary did it.  

    Considering initial insurance estimates (none / 0) (#87)
    by coast on Sun Feb 14, 2021 at 06:03:11 AM EST
    are anywhere from $750m to $2b in losses, those were some of the most expensive windows I've ever heard of.

    Congratulations (none / 0) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 12, 2021 at 05:06:51 PM EST
    to Rubio for bringing Hillary into this, albeit without actually naming her.

    Seemed like (none / 0) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 12, 2021 at 05:22:40 PM EST
    the former president's counsel missed the cue.  Or, felt it best to morph the question into a general, slippery slope response.  Not like this guy to be considerate or polite.

    Let (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 12, 2021 at 05:29:37 PM EST
    it be known for now and forever that Rubio got the phrase "lock her up" into the the record.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 12, 2021 at 05:35:37 PM EST
    think the house managers missed the cue when Der Weenie said that an elected official should be held to a higher, I mean lower standard than an arsonist Fire Chief.

    Senators immediately(probably too soon) asked them to respond.


    Wonder what the threat was (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 08:36:04 AM EST

    Trump impeachment lawyer David Schoen briefly told the rest of the former president's legal team he was quitting last night, the New York Times reports.

    Donald Trump had to call Schoen to get him to rejoin the team.

    Mitch says (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 08:37:48 AM EST
    he will vote to acquit.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 09:56:33 AM EST
    they didn't want him to be acquitted on Presidents Day weekend

    "It's not lost on historians that Donald Trump's impeachment trial acquittal will fall on Presidents' Day weekend, a holiday celebrating the examples set by America's first president, George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln, who held the republic together through civil war and ended slavery," Axios reports.

    "Through his repeated efforts to overturn the election, Trump put the country through one of the toughest tests of democracy it has ever faced. Historians say his expected acquittal on a charge of inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection will have consequences we are only beginning to understand -- and they'll be felt for years."

    Wouldn't It Have Been Better (none / 0) (#78)
    by RickyJim on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 01:19:45 PM EST
    for the Democrats if they used the threat of initiating an impeachment trial if the Republicans continued to obstruct the Biden agenda?  Instead, we got this.
    Republicans, furious over the prospect of continuing a trial many of them have dismissed as unconstitutional, warned that they would block any efforts to approve nominations to the Biden administration or pandemic relief legislation should the trial continue.

    "If they want to drag this out, we'll drag it out," said Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa. "They won't get their noms, they won't get anything."

    They do not (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 06:30:20 PM EST
    have control of the situation as they are in the minority. So I am not sure what they are talking about here unless it is the filibuster.

    Republican Demand for Their Own Witnesses (none / 0) (#88)
    by RickyJim on Sun Feb 14, 2021 at 09:43:17 AM EST
    One of the defense lawyers said that he wanted at least 100 of the rioters deposed.  It is easy to see how they could get other Senate business to grind to a halt while arguing over witnesses.  The House could have had a couple of months of deposition taking before bringing their case over to the Senate.  I just don't understand their logic on the timing.

    Right (none / 0) (#80)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 03:09:33 PM EST
    now McConnell is doing a good house manager impersonation. tRump is guilty, guilty, guilty! I am waiting for the weaselly but I had to vote not guilty because...

    It almost sounds like (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 03:16:15 PM EST
    he thinks it's a job for the DOJ

    I (none / 0) (#82)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 03:22:37 PM EST
    think he said it didn't meet the technical requirements for being criminal incite

    Yeah, but "incitement" is not (none / 0) (#83)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 05:50:30 PM EST
    the name of any federal crime I am aware of. The federal criminal terms are (a) knowingly "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" and/or (b) "willfully causes."  "Incitement" is the concept in constitutional law that puts a narrow limitation around those concepts when the charged conduct of the defendant is their speech directed at the principal perpetrator(s). Contrary to Mitch's little constitutional lecture, the Supreme Court-defined concept of "incite" is not limited to criminal law but rather is a doctrine of modern First Amendment jurisprudence that limits any and all governmental action directed at "abridging" (including but not limited to penalizing) private speech.

    From a Link I Gave Above (none / 0) (#86)
    by RickyJim on Sat Feb 13, 2021 at 08:46:52 PM EST
    Imagine if Trump were charged with the criminal equivalent of the impeachment charge of "incitement of insurrection." He could be tried for "rebellion or insurrection" (18 U.S. Code § 2383), for example, formulated as a conspiracy crime (18 U.S.C. § 371), or "conspiracy to engage in rebellion or insurrection." Alternatively, he could be charged with "seditious conspiracy" (18 U.S.C. § 2384), a similar charge based on the concept of "sedition" rather than "rebellion."

    How would the causal question be analyzed? Two avenues exist. First, the federal complicity statute (18 U.S.C. § 2) provides that if one person "solicits" another person to commit a crime, the first person will be treated as though he had committed the crime himself. If Trump solicited the crowd to engage in criminal behavior, federal law would treat him as though he himself had stormed the Capitol.

    Long Trump rant (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 05:10:22 PM EST

    about Mitch.

    Pass the popcorn

    Michael Cohen (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 05:51:09 PM EST
    warned every one of them. They all think they are special and Trump won't do it to them especially if they are majority/minority leader.

    I love how he NEVER mentions Biden got 81 million votes, more than anyone ever and sticks to his 74 million votes as they were the most anyone ever got.


    More (none / 0) (#100)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 06:04:41 PM EST
    evidence that the impeachment trial was a major victory. Republicans have been forced into open, bloody warfare. tRump is going nowhere and McConnell has nowhere to hide. It is a thing of beauty.

    Who Actually Wrote It? (none / 0) (#101)
    by RickyJim on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 06:54:01 PM EST
    Stephen Miller? Jason Miller? Ivanka?  

    Whoever it was toned it down (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 16, 2021 at 07:30:29 PM EST
    Sam Stein
    A personal familiar with the crafting of the statement confirmed that it could have been far worse. An earlier draft mocked McConnell for having multiple chins, the person said.