Trump's Second Impeachment Trial (Day 2)

[ Posted Wednesday, February 10th, 2021 – 19:23 UTC ]

The second day of Donald Trump's second impeachment trial was dedicated to the opening of the prosecution's case against him. The House managers have a full 16 hours to present their case, but it remains to be seen how much of that they'll actually use. When I began writing this (during their dinner break), they had already been at it for five and a half hours, and they didn't adjourn for the day -- but then later they only used a limited amount of time afterwards (the total came in under the full eight hours allotted for the day, in other words).

By my count, eight House managers made presentations today: Representatives Jamie Raskin, Joe Neguse, and David Cicilline from yesterday, in addition to Representatives Joaquin Castro, Eric Swalwell, Madeleine Dean, and Ted Lieu, as well as Delegate Stacey Plaskett, who represents the territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands. It was obvious why Raskin chose her to be a manager, since she not only was his student at one point, but so far she has been the most effective speaker of the day.


The prosecution opens

Representative Raskin opened the day, as he did yesterday, with a very effective overall argument. He began by pointing out to the defense that since the Senate had voted down the idea that the trial was unconstitutional and -- by a bipartisan vote of 56-44 -- affirmed the constitutionality of the proceeding, this was no longer an open question any more. This was a direct attempt to undermine the lion's share of the case the defense is preparing to make. I seriously doubt Trump's lawyers are going to agree and just jettison such a major part of their defense, but it was a nice try by Raskin, and his argument has the benefit of being completely correct. The defense will be relying on two arguments, the constitutionality and the First Amendment, as we've already seen, since defending Trump's actual words and actions is simply not possible in any sort of legal sense.

As for the First Amendment, Raskin again tried to completely undermine Trump's defense by pointing out the reality that speech is not totally free even in America, and that this has been a longstanding legal concept reaching back at least 100 years. He misquoted the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, but then so does everyone else, so it's really not that big a deal (the actual quote is not so crowded: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic"):

This case is much worse than someone who falsely shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It's more like a case where the town fire chief who's paid to put out fires sends a mob not to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater but to actually set the theater on fire; and who then when the fire alarms go off and the calls start flooding into the fire department asking for help, does nothing but sit back, encourage the mob to continue its rampage and watch the fire spread on TV with glee and delight. So then we say this fire chief should never be allowed to hold this public job again, and you're fired and you're permanently disqualified.

Raskin pre-empted the defense's two legal arguments, and then turned things over to Joe Neguse, who gave a brief overview of the main points in the Democratic case as a sort of outline of what to expect the rest of the House managers will say.

Joaquin Castro was next, followed by Eric Swalwell. Castro concentrated on the period before the election, while Swalwell's focus was on the period from the election to the day before the Stop The Steal rally and the insurrection attempt. They both laid out in a clear and concise way how Donald Trump's rally speech didn't happen in some sort of context-free vacuum, in fact Trump had been priming his followers to accept a conspiracy theory (just in case Trump lost) for months prior to the election. After the election happened, from the very first night Trump rolled out the Big Lie that "the election was stolen" from him, and in some vague (but never detailed) way, fraudulent.

Both made their case step by step, showing how Trump prepared his Big Lie just in case he might need it, warned his followers it could happen, threw as much doubt on election procedures as possible, and then deployed the Big Lie when it did turn out to be needed.

Most of this story was familiar to me, even if I had forgotten certain details. Some of it was new, including the fact that, after the election was long over, Trump spent a whopping $50 million on ads claiming that the election was stolen from him and completely fraudulent. The most damning part of this bit of evidence was that the ad buy ran right through the fifth of January -- the day right before Congress was scheduled to finalize the Electoral College results and officially crown Joe Biden the victor.

In other words, this isn't just a case about one speech at one rally. It is about a premeditated crime that was not only planned long in advance, but meticulously deployed by Trump every step of the way. This was all very clearly presented, and covered Trump's anticipatory words and actions before the day of the attempted insurrection.

The most damning thing (and most ironic thing, really) throughout all of this is that Trump's own tweets were used so effectively to make the case against him. We've all kind of forgotten, after a Trump-free month on Twitter, but he used to routinely get away with saying the most outrageous things imaginable on Twitter -- because everyone had gotten so numb to them over the past four years.

Slowly and methodically, the Democrats built their case. The next to present were Representatives Madeleine Dean and Ted Lieu, who both addressed Trump's post-election (but pre-rally) actions and behavior from a different perspective. Dean's focus was on the legal tactics Trump used, both licit and illicit. He filed over 60 federal lawsuits in multiple states, all of which except one were laughed out of court. The only case Trump got any sort of win at all dealt with so few votes it was impossible for it to have shifted the election results in any way whatsoever. All the other cases were summarily dismissed and all these dismissals stood up on appeal -- even all the way to the Supreme Court.

The illicit ways Trump tried to manipulate the system were outlined as well -- pressure directly from Trump towards canvassing boards in Michigan, pressure on state legislative leaders in both Michigan and Pennsylvania (both of which resulted in invitations to the White House for the Republican state legislative leaders). Both these efforts failed, of course, just like all but one of Trump's lawsuits. Then there was Trump's increasing pressure on various Georgia officials, which resulted in death threats to even low-level elections employees -- which prompted a heartfelt plea from the head of elections in the state directly to President Trump: "Stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence. Someone's going to get hurt. Someone's going to get shot. Someone's going to get killed." This segment also included parts of the infamous Trump phone call to the Georgia secretary of state, where Trump threatens and pleads that they just "find 11,780 votes" somewhere and flip the state to him.

Next, Lieu began with a rundown of how Trump personally castigated senators and members of Congress -- as well as his own administration's Justice Department and F.B.I. -- for not finding the non-existent voter fraud that somehow swung seven million votes to Joe Biden. Trump's attorney general eventually quit because he refused to go along with Trump's conspiracy theory -- which William Barr had already investigated and found to be utterly false. And finally, Trump's antagonism against his own vice president, Mike Pence, who bore the brunt of the mob's rage on the day of the attempted insurrection.

The next House manager to speak was one of the standout stars of the day. Stacey Plaskett, a non-voting delegate from the Virgin Islands, proved to have an excellent prosecutorial manner, as she mercilessly outlined how Donald Trump had been encouraging and cheering on his supporters' violence for months prior to the actual riot. This will also help counter the expected defense that "one speech on one day isn't incitement." Democrats made a much broader case -- one that stretched back into the summer of 2020, and showed how Trump had been celebrating his own supporters' dangerous violence all the way along. Not once did Trump ever denounce such violence, instead he approved of it and celebrated all of it, in a very public way.

With many (or perhaps all, I'd have to double-check) of these instances, Plaskett tied those responsible for each previous act of violence -- such as, notably, the time when a Biden bus was almost run off the road by a convoy of Trump supporters in pickup trucks -- in a direct way to the rally in January, showing how the instigators showed up in D.C. to commit even more violence in the name of Donald Trump. When it was announced that the F.B.I. was investigating the bus incident, Trump responded by denouncing the F.B.I. and not the instigators, instead absolving them by claiming "they did nothing wrong." This was even before Trump told the Proud Boys, in a nationally-televised presidential debate -- to "stand back, and stand by" -- a line they quickly adopted as their motto.

Plaskett's delivery was logical and riveting. She essentially proved exactly how much of a thug the former president truly is. And this is a big part of the case against him -- that far from denouncing political violence like any sane person, he instead celebrates it and cheers it on when it is waged in his name.

Representative Dean pickup up the ball from here, and outlined how the crowd moved directly from the Stop The Steal rally -- after hearing Trump's call to arms -- to the Capitol. She had an emotional finish:

So they came, draped in Trump's flag, and used our flag, the American flag, to batter and to bludgeon. And at 2:30, I heard that terrifying banging on House chamber doors. For the first time in more than 200 years, the seat of our government was ransacked on our watch.

After a break, Stacey Plaskett and then Eric Swalwell gave the most visceral presentation of the whole day, as they broke down all the violence that happened at the Capitol, sometimes in minute-by-minute fashion. The House managers had access to a trove of video that has never been publicly seen before now -- the internal security camera videos from within the Capitol building. By using these as well as the videos mostly shot by the protesters themselves as they breached and then ransacked the building, the Democrats traced the movement of the mob in relation to where all the senators, congressmen, and Vice President Pence (and his family) were at the same time.

These videos were brutal, each and every one of them. They showed the raw extent of the violence unleashed on the federal officers trying to protect both the Capitol and the officeholders trapped inside the building. They showed just how close the mob came to actually confronting the politicians they had come for. The presentation also showed how many in the mob were fully ready to murder any perceived foes they might have found (Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence in particular), which they almost certainly would have done if they had forced entry just a few moments earlier than they did.

We saw how the murderous mob brutalized the police officers fighting to protect the building, the government, and our democracy. We saw such officers being attacked with anything that could be swung as a weapon. We saw just how narrow an escape was made from both the House and the Senate chambers.

After this emotionally-draining presentation, a dinner break was called for an hour.

When they returned, Representatives David Cicilline and Joaquin Castro wrapped the day up, by presenting a parallel timeline of the actions over the entire day of Donald Trump himself.

This was an interesting portion of the prosecution, because it could easily be argued that even if the rest of it had never happened -- even if Trump hadn't been feeding his most rabid supporters a Big Lie about a stolen election for months on end, even if Trump hadn't been promoting violence against his political opponents, even if Trump hadn't been involved in the planning of the rally, and indeed even if Trump had never shown up to it and given a speech... even if all of that had never happened -- Trump still should be impeached on the sole grounds of violating his oath of office once the mob's mayhem started.

Donald Trump, it was pointed out, swore to "uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and yet when the Capitol and a joint session of Congress were under direct attack by a mob, Trump did virtually nothing -- for hours on end.

He did nothing for a very good reason -- because he was enjoying the spectacle so much. He was elated to watch the whole thing progress on television, because it had produced the exact result Trump wanted -- Congress had to flee, and therefore the counting of the Electoral College votes got halted.

Republican after Republican tried to call Trump -- most of them cowering in fear inside the Capitol complex. Trump didn't take their calls. Trump pointedly did not even bother to attempt to contact Mike Pence, who was also in fear of his life with his whole family. The only senator Trump contacted at all was so Trump could try to cajole him into contesting even more states, to slow the process down even further. That's all he cared about while the rest of America watched in horror what was going on at the Capitol that day.

It was pointed out to Trump -- in desperation, by many people -- that he was the only one with the power to call the mob off. This is obvious, since the mob clearly thought they were acting on Trump's orders in the first place. Chris Christie's plea on ABC News was perhaps the most poignant of these pleas, or at least the most public. But he certainly wasn't the only Republican begging Trump to call his wolfpack off.

Trump refused do so. He sent out only five tweets during the entire time after the rally until when he went to bed -- far below his usual daily output. One of these was the one he sent whipping his mob into even more of a frenzy against Mike Pence. Trump was eventually forced by his aides -- hours after the attack started -- into recording a lukewarm video message, but instead of keeping to the script, Trump went ahead and ad libbed his Big Lie one more time (which was what whipped the mob up in the first place), and then approvingly told them: "We love you -- you're very special."

This was obviously, as Castro finished on, a clear dereliction of duty and a clear violation of the oath of office Trump had sworn. He was sympathizing with the insurrectionist mob, while not saying a word about all the members of Congress the mob was actively hunting at the time. Castro finished with: "Who among us will let his dereliction of duty stand?" and then the prosecution rested for the day.

Senator Mike Pence then briefly threw a parliamentary hissy fit, which (after Chuck Schumer took control for a moment) led to the House managers withdrawing the one minor news report which had mentioned Lee. Then (finally!) the day was over.



The case the Democrats made today was a strong one -- much stronger and much more easy to follow -- than the case made in the first impeachment of Donald Trump. After all, we all largely know what happened, so all that was really required was to line up all the ducks in a row and then tie them together logically (if that isn't too twisted a metaphor... hey, it's been a long day...). They did so admirably. Each manager had one area to focus on, each presented their evidence without getting too lost in the weeds of needless detail, each had ample amounts of both video evidence and Trump tweets to more than make their case, and the entire day hung together as an overall presentation of what happened, why it happened, and why Trump was solely responsible for what happened. None of it was from dry details from some footnote of some lengthy document -- it was all painfully obvious, just from watching video clips and tweets.

Everything flowed well, to put it another way. As one said at the very start, this is a prosecutorial dream case because it is so easy to prove, there is so much video evidence, and because it is all so patently undeniable.

One footnote to close on is that times and mores have changed both in Congress and in America as a whole. When Watergate was being investigated and transcripts of Richard Nixon's taped conversations were released, they were chock full of the euphemistic substitution: "[expletive deleted]". This was not so today, as from the Senate floor we got the following (all as direct quotes; these weren't used in the manager's own arguments, to be clear): "bullshit," "pussy," and "fat asses." The only bowdlerized term I heard uttered today was "F" (or "eff," if you prefer), when the written exhibit clearly displayed the word "fuck" instead.

That was just from the managers' own mouths, mind you -- the audio on the videos from the riot were one heck of a lot more unrestrained than even that. We got exactly what the mob was screaming, everything they were calling the cops they were fighting, and everything they called all of Trump's perceived enemies (to say nothing of some casual vulgar gerund usage sprinkled throughout, for flavor).

I don't really have any larger comment about all of that, I just found it rather astonishing coming out of an impeachment trial in "the world's most deliberative body," that was being simultaneously broadcast on television in the middle of the day, that's all. As I said, it was a long way from "[expletive deleted]," that's for sure.

Tomorrow, starting at noon Eastern Time, the House managers will begin to wrap up their case, but at this point I don't really see much more for them to do than maybe tie up a loose end or two and then move right to a closing argument. Today's presentation was that comprehensive, and seemed to touch all the major bases.

-- Chris Weigant


Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant


37 Comments on “Trump's Second Impeachment Trial (Day 2)”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    My continuing motto:

    "I watch this stuff so you don't have to!"


    We aim to please...


  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I watched most of it today. But, Chris, you cover some difficult and horrible things sometimes so thanks so much for doing it so consistently well!

    I had no idea just how bad it really was. I hope all of those people in the Capitol and the Capitol police get the help they need to deal with the aftermath so that there are no more suicides stemming from this horror.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Apparently, Senator Mike Lee cares more about being misquoted on an immaterial issue than he does about all that former president Trump did over the course of months to thwart a democratic election.


  4. [4] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    Thanks again for the report. I turned on the radio at midday, but every time one of the Representatives decided to run the video tape to make a point, I realized I was about to hear Trump's voice, which is a no-no for me (blood pressure, head explodes, etc.) so I changed the channel to mediocre rock.

    Did you mean to say Senator Mike Pence in the last paragraph before 'Conclusions'?

    If this security camera footage was the 'secret new footage' that we've been hearing about, did you think it had the impact that was promised? Were minds changed? Oh, sorry, silly question. It's as hard as ever to imagine minds actually changing during an impeachment trial.

    I was hoping the secret new footage was of Trump at the White House on the day, chortling and laughing at the violence on screen. Though I admit, even that would not have been able to bring anyone around who wasn't already appalled and horrified by this entire episode of constitutional wreckage.

    Please continue.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Trump's entire raison d'etre is white grievance, it seems.

    And, his plan to have the 2020 presidential election deligitmized as being rigged and stolen has quite a lot to do with the attempt to nullify the votes of Black Americans.

    Did this come up at the presentation by the prosecutors on this second day of the impeachment trial?

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Did you mean to say Senator Mike Pence in the last paragraph before 'Conclusions'?

    Of course, he did. A simple mistake we have all made. :)

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There is a painting, to go along with the photo, to be painted about January 6th, destined to hang in a musuem ... a painting that will depict the gallows, the noose, with the US Capitol in the background. So very sad.

  8. [8] 
    andygaus wrote:

    Is there a Senator Mike Pence, or is that a typo for Mike Lee?

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:


    Wow. Stellar writeup.

    My continuing motto:

    "I watch this stuff so you don't have to!"

    When they took a dinner break, apparently I zoned out and woke up when it was over having missed what I believe is the most important evidence. Thank you so much for covering this, Chris.

    While there is a plethora of damning video evidence against Trump spanning several months (and years) and hundreds of tweets, these GOP Senators who aren't likely to convict Dear Leader are just as much on trial for what they did/did not do and for what they know and will be choosing to ignore if (when) they ultimately choose to acquit: Those GOP Senators know exactly who controlled that mob because they begged him to make them stop.

    I take no pleasure in agreeing with Liz Cheney, but she has come close to nailing the description:

    On January 6, 2021 a violent mob attacked the United States Capitol to obstruct the process of our democracy and stop the counting of presidential electoral votes. This insurrection caused injury, death and destruction in the most sacred space in our Republic.

    Much more will become clear in coming days and weeks, but what we know now is enough. The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

    I will vote to impeach the President.

    ~ Liz Cheney

    The only thing I would add to that:

    For hours we begged him to stop the mob. At the end of the day, he justified and glorified the mob.

    Trump's intent was made clear via tweet at the end of the day on January 6:

    Donald J. Trump

    These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!

    6:01 PM * 1/6/2021 * Twitter for iPhone

    Of course, Twitter added their disclaimer to the Trump lying tweet:

    ! This claim of election fraud is disputed, and this Tweet can't be replied to, Retweeted, or link due to a risk of violence

    Currently, the Department of Justice is busily working to bring these domestic terrorists to justice for all manner of various assorted crimes up to and including capital murder, and at the end of the day, I cannot fathom how Donald Trump and any other elected officials involved aren't criminally indicted right along with the members of the mob. There is no question whatsoever who orchestrated the premeditated mob hit and their intent in doing so. If the GOP Senators refuse to do their jobs and hold Trump accountable despite the mountain of evidence, the United States DOJ has an obligation to the People.

    Thanks again, Chris! :)

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Trump is acquitted, again - and that remains likely, it seems - and he comes out completely vindicated, again to say that the fight not only isn't over but it's just beginning then what message will that send to violent hate groups like the Proud Boys and how will it aid in these groups recruiting efforts?

    This is very scary stuff.

  11. [11] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I dunno. It's seems the GOP doth NOT protest too much, too much more than pro forma stuff. Plus, Mitch started things off by being publicly open to convicting Trump and telling fellow Repugs to "vote their conscience." So that's different from the first Impeachment. Five Repugs voted with the Dems the other day and now a sixth has defected. Just because Repugs are keeping their heads down doesn't guarantee acquittal. Who'd needlessly court death threats prior to sticking the knife in? This isn't over yet.

  12. [12] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Yeah, if Repugs vote to Convict or abstain en mass, us Americans could have our very own "Night of the Long Knives."

  13. [13] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Betcha nypoet22 knows what "Night of the Long Knives" I'm referring to.

  14. [14] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:
  15. [15] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    See, one can mix music and politics. And don't even get me going on Bob Marley.

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the nazis?

  17. [17] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If Trump is acquitted, the GOP should immediately be labeled a “domestic terrorist group” by our intelligence agencies and DOJ for their aiding of those seeking to overthrow our government.

    Listening to the Capitol Hill Police’s radio traffic was extremely upsetting, but nothing prepared me for the rage that I felt watching the POV angle that the officer’s body cams provided us. Seeing what the police faced — experiencing through the police’s eyes what it was like when you have a mob trying to kill you as you are thrown to the ground and beaten by a dozen or more rioters wielding metal rods, hockey sticks and baseball bats.

    Patriots?!?! Not unless PATRIOTS stands for Punk Assed Traitors Residing In Orange Trump Shat!

    I still think Republicans should do what I suggested they do during the first impeachment trial: Vote unanimously to convict. Donald is going down. If they act as one, it is less likely that Trump can really do anything to hurt them when he pitches a fit!

    I would also remind Republican Senators that even if they do vote to acquit Trump, nothing prevents Trump from turning on them the moment they do not give up their own free will and Trump thinks they have failed him. Look no further than to how Mike Pence was treated after 4 years of keeping his lips pressed against Trump’s big ass — he could not do what Trump demanded because he did not have the authority under the Constitution to do it!

    I also think Republicans need to know that they either stand by law enforcement, or they stand by Trump — they cannot do both! They should invite all 144 officers injured during the insurrection and the families of those killed to encircle the entire Senate when it comes time to vote! They are evidence in this trial. Let the Republicans make their choices when they have the victims eye’s on them!

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller

    If Trump is acquitted, again - and that remains likely, it seems - and he comes out completely vindicated, again to say that the fight not only isn't over but it's just beginning then what message will that send to violent hate groups like the Proud Boys and how will it aid in these groups recruiting efforts?

    Yes, ma'am, and as we "eternal optimists" are "programmed" to do, we must endeavor to find the "upside" in the gloomiest scenarios, and that is this:

    If the GOP is going to greenlight Trump's elevation of the ceremonial role of the Vice President's counting of the electors into that of a unilateral arbiter of which votes are to be counted, isn't it fortuitous that this role now belongs in the quite capable hands of a member of the Democratic Party!?

    Do I really believe that? Of course not. Okay, maybe not. Let's just settle on... probably and/or hopefully not.

    And she's a woman... a woman of color.

    For a Trumpian Party of guys who thrive on the seething white grievance of groups like the He-Man Woman-Haters Club (fictional), that'll surely be painful for all those Proud (little) Boys.

    This is very scary stuff.

    Yes, ma'am, and the Stupid Party best be careful what it will be de facto rubber stamping with the acquittal of Trump. Somebody has to save the "Grand Old Party" from their own shortsightedness, and it seems like Democrats are forever having to clean up their messes and take out their trash.

    Wouldn't it be a shame if President Biden and Vice President Harris were "forced" to have to duplicate that -- what'd they call it -- January Exception? President Biden doesn't give a "spit" about getting reelected; in fact, cancel the whole dang thing. Vice President Harris is only going to recognize the votes from her home State of California because none of those other voters really count anyway. ;) Heh.

    I'm just saying: If the GOP wants to greenlight a monarchy, Emperor Biden has a son. ;)

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:


    I dunno. It's seems the GOP doth NOT protest too much, too much more than pro forma stuff.

    They're liars of Trumpian proportion.

    Plus, Mitch started things off by being publicly open to convicting Trump and telling fellow Repugs to "vote their conscience."

    Mitch floated a trial balloon to see if it would set sail; it did not. Also, one has to have a conscience in order to "vote their conscience." Having a conscience requires having a brain that can connect dots without being too shortsighted... and so on.

    So that's different from the first Impeachment.

    I will give you that, but I will remind you it was also Mitch who refused to reconvene the Senate so that an impeachment trial could be held before Trump left office, and it was also Mitch who voted that it would be unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial since Trump was no longer in office... and thus it was Mitch who produced the very excuse they could use to refuse to convict him.

    Just because Repugs are keeping their heads down doesn't guarantee acquittal.

    I like your optimism, and I don't wish to play the role of the board meanie who informed the very nice lady from Australia that there was no way in Hell that the Democrats were going to win 60 seats in the Senate... but I implore you not to hold your breath on this because I like you too much and want to keep you alive and posting. :)

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:


    Yeah, if Repugs vote to Convict or abstain en mass, us Americans could have our very own "Night of the Long Knives."

    Nacht der langen messer. The Purge.

    "Destroy the GOP":

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:


    This! All this, Russ. It isn't just history who has its eyes on them... it's also their victims and law enforcement in this life.

    And while we're both busy helping the POS's -- Party of Stupids -- to "connect the dots" on this thing: What is all the repetitive bullshit I keep hearing coming from multiple media outlets of the right-wing echo propaganda chamber whining incessantly that this was "Antifa" and "Black Lives Matter"!?

    Hey MAGAts:

    * Are y'all so dang dumb that you think Donald Trump doesn't know exactly whom he repeatedly conned, lied to, and enlisted to perform his dirty work... but not before he issued all the pardons to his elitist friends and left you to rot in prison and fend for yourselves?

    * Do y'all really believe that Trump was sending all his love and hugs and kisses to the patriots of BLM and Antifa?

    * Are y'all seriously that gullible?

    Rhetorical questions.

  22. [22] 
    TheStig wrote:


    Outstanding summary!!! I have not read or seen or heard anything better.

  23. [23] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump is almost certain to avoid conviction by the Senate, but it’s going to be a Pyrrhic victory. He is going to be in litigation for the rest of his life. It will drain his finances. His lawyers will continue to decline in quality. Properties will be shed.. Maybe he can live his days out as an AM radio political blowhard - but there isn’t going to be any Trump Dynasty....just a sad old man and a bunch of untalented offspring.

  24. [24] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Bingo! Hitler feared the SA Sturmabteilung "Brownshirts" and in the spirit of the finest Stalinesque tradition of Purges, had Ernst Rohm.


    Patriots?!?! Not unless PATRIOTS stands for Punk Assed Traitors Residing In Orange Trump Shat!

    True, that!


    Ain't holding my breath. But Trump out of the way makes too much sense for the GOP to not do the deed. Pragmatism, not optimism.

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    See, one can mix music and politics. And don't even get me going on Bob Marley.


    And, I believe Bob Marley has made an appearance or two at the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party (which can be found at the latter part of the comments sections of the Friday FTP columns and which is why I was sad that there may not be one this week ...).

    While any commentary of a political nature is frowned upon at these shindigs (leaving politics aside for a few hours was the originial impetus behind them, after all), it should be understood that the tunes we enjoy here may be as political as we wish!

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller

    And, I believe Bob Marley has made an appearance or two at the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party...

    Yes, ma'am. :)

  27. [27] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [Livestreaming the you know what]

    Holy Moly! The Dems sure effing prepared for this edition of Impeachment 2.0. Skillfully weaving together words and audio-visual material, the Dems brought their A-game. Ballin! They really exceeded my expectations.

    At the least every House manager is increasing the pain for voting to acquit.

  28. [28] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:


    Copy that, Board Mother!

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Would you please stop calling me 'ma'am?

    It makes me feel old.

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:


    Yes, the House managers are doiong an exemplary job of presenting their case. I am duly impressed.

    I have heard one conservative jurist who agrees with the Dems that this second impeachment trial is entirely constitutional but say that he thinks they made a big mistake in charging the former president with incitement to insurrection because that is a criminal charge and, even in a criminal court, would be hard to prove. A better charge, he surmises, would have been violation of the his duties as president, his oath of office and the constitution.

    I say, maybe so but, I doubt that would have made any more senate Republicans vote for conviction, anyway.

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller

    Would you please stop calling me 'ma'am?

    Well, bless your heart. I never called you quote unquote 'ma'am... I called you ma'am. It is primarily used in the military and across the Southern United States... a version of the word madam... you know, like, for instance: Madam Vice President.

    It makes me feel old.


    'Tis nothing to do with age, but okay... skookum.

  32. [32] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Is that "Madam" as in chief of the whorehouse?

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I loved, loved, loved how lead manager Raskin ended the presentation of the case against the former president used all of those Tom Paine references!

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I also loved how Democratic Leader Schumer announced that Republican senator Portman would do the houners in the traditional reading of Washington's farewell address!

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki

    Is that "Madam" as in chief of the...

    Only if you believe the United States Senate is that term of yours. It is full of a bunch of servile Senators who are bought and paid for by Donald (the) John Trump.

  36. [36] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I don't think I heard a single House Manager use the term "Republican" amidst all their exhortations. Not putting them on the spot is hopefully to keep the heat, the enormous pressure from Trump's base, on Repugs to a minimum.

    Just in case enough of them decide to either vote to Convict or vote "Present," claiming that they were abstaining because they didn't think the trial was Constitutional in the first place.

    Some Trumpanzies will stop voting but most will stick to the GOP, so the political pain will be minimized. This releases Trump to the civil and criminal legal deathmarch that awaits him and lets Repugs focus on the Midterm Bounce.

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MtnCaddy [28],

    Whatever kind of column Chris writes on Friday, I'm gonna go ahead and consider it a Friday Talking Points column and start the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party, anyway.

    Because, I've got a tune by the Wailers I want to play!

Comments for this article are closed.