Trump's Second Impeachment Trial (Day 4)
On this date in history, ten-score-and-twelve years ago, Abraham Lincoln was born. Also on this date, 22 years ago, the Senate voted to acquit Bill Clinton of the charges made against him in only the second impeachment trial in American history. Today, this year, saw the fourth day of Donald Trump's second impeachment trial in the Senate. Today was the day the legal team for Donald Trump got to present their defense.
They were allotted 16 hours to do so. The prosecution took more than nine hours to make their case, but the defense took less than three to make theirs. Most of their case was clearly presented for an audience of one -- former president Donald Trump (or, as they insisted on calling him, "the 45th president") -- since they aren't going to have to work too hard to get the votes they need (which is what everyone, including them, is assuming). So they were free to structure much of their defense to keep Trump happy -- including even, at the end, a blatant attempt to defend Trump's Big Lie (which nobody really expected them to touch on).
After the defense rested, the Senate (much to my dismay... I thought I was done for the day very early on...) opened the question period, where all the senators are able to ask questions of both legal teams and get five-minute answers in response.
Oh, a standard disclaimer applies today, as much of this article was written while listening/viewing the trial in the background. Thus quotes are "as transcribed sloppily by me," and may not be verbatim. I just didn't have time to track them all down and find the exact wording (if I hadn't simultaneously written while it was still going on, this article wouldn't have been posted before midnight).
Also, a pledge -- there will indeed be a ChrisWeigant.com column tomorrow. I hate to give up a weekend day, but this is important enough to do so, since the entire trial including the final vote may be over within 24 hours. So whatever happens tomorrow (and Sunday, if absolutely necessary) will be reviewed here, a few hours after it ends (as I've been doing, all week).
The defense
Donald Trump's defense was odd, to put it mildly. It is (obviously) what you get when you cross a few lawyers interested in making constitutional arguments with Donald Trump's demands for showmanship. What emerged was a strange mashup of rather dry (and legally shaky) arguments, interspersed with video montages to make Donald Trump feel happy about what he was seeing on television. There's no real other way to put it. Half the presentation was to the Republican senators in the room, and the other half was designed with an audience of one in mind -- Trump himself.
Nowhere was this more evident than in what will surely become the most-spoofed video in the whole defense, which ran for an astounding nine and a half minutes and consisted solely of an endless succession of Democrats uttering the word "fight." According to one automated transcript of the first two hours of the defense's case, the word "fight" was used a jaw-dropping 377 times.
One can easily guess what the late-night hosts are going to say about this, later tonight. "It was like Fight Club because the word 'fight' was used as a club." Or perhaps a bit of the montage video with the Itchy And Scratchy Show theme song inserted ("fight fight fight..."). Really, all the video needed was a good rap-style rhythm track in the background (which, again, should already be on the internet by now, since it's such an obvious move).
I took notes during the trial today, and here is what I wrote for this video, in full:
Fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight fight!
If you think this is overstating the case, you obviously did not have to sit through this video -- because, if anything, this actually understates the case. It was that numbing. All nine and a half minutes of it.
And then, hilariously, Trump's lawyers tried to make the case that the prosecution was somehow at fault for showing "edited and manipulated videos." The chutzpah levels spiked off the chart, at that point -- and it certainly wasn't the only time that happened today.
Trump's essential defense rested on the bedrock of "whataboutism." One of his attorneys flat-out denied this ("this is not whataboutism"), which again caused the chutzpah meter to spike into the red.
Since defending Trump's words and actions was impossible to do, Team Trump fell back on the old "Democrats do it too! So there!" defense. Except, you know, in all those myriad times Democrats used the word "fight," armed mobs did not attack a branch of the United States government in order to stage an insurrection. That fact was conveniently omitted from their presentation, but it doesn't make it any less true.
There were plenty of other whoppers told by Trump's attorneys (which kept the fact-checkers on overdrive, all day). Perhaps the most amusing was when a Trump lawyer actually tried to make the case that a Trump follower's misspelled tweet was profoundly significant, since what was written was actually: "the calvary is coming" instead of "cavalry." The lawyer laughably posited that the author was talking about Calvary (also known as Golgotha), the hill where Jesus Christ was crucified -- and it therefore had some sort of holy meaning rather than the obvious (misspelled) one. This was so breathtakingly bold that audible gasps could be heard in the chamber when he tried to make this ridiculous argument.
There seemed to be an odd focus on the phone call Trump made to the Georgia secretary of state, where Trump insisted that they "find 11,870 votes" for him (the exact number he would need to win). This wasn't even a big part of the prosecution's case, but the defense lawyers spent a lot of time on it. Perhaps this was because the news broke during the trial that there is an active and open investigation in Georgia as to whether state election-tampering laws were broken by Trump. So perhaps these lawyers are auditioning to defend Trump in that case, as well? That's really the only good explanation that I could see.
The part where the chutzpah meter exploded into a smoking ruin was when one of Trump's lawyers tried -- with a straight face, no less -- to argue that "hate has no place in our political institutions." No, really! They tried to argue that Democrats have so much hatred for Trump that it has poisoned the well of politics in America.
It's like they've never even met their own client, or something.
There were some actual legal arguments made -- Trump's First Amendment rights protect him from any consequences from his speech (not true, that's not the way impeachment or the First Amendment works), the whole trial is unconstitutional (because of the non-existent "January exception"), and a few other minor points that could actually be described as a real, live legal argument -- but most of the time was taken up with just keeping Trump happy and not yelling at his television screen down in Florida.
Earlier, Republicans had complained that the prosecution's case was repetitive. This is now yet another laughable claim by them, since the defense's case was so repetitious as to be a joke. There wasn't just one video montage of "fight fight fight," there were three or four (in all honesty, I lost count). One video which dealt with the preplanning of the assault on the Capitol had an ominous (and loud) soundtrack, for some unfathomable reason (maybe Trump insisted?).
But the most pathetic part of the day came at the end, when they finally gave Bruce Castor a chance to redeem himself. He was the Trump lawyer who first spoke in the opening statements, beclowning himself with an hour-long ramble through the byways of his own mind. Trump obviously told him in no uncertain terms how unhappy he was, so he was given the unenviable task of defending Trump's Big Lie. Most people didn't expect the Trump lawyers to even go there, but we got an early indication when one of them tried to falsely shift the blame for the insurrection onto (you guessed it!) "Antifa."
You could tell Castor's heart wasn't really in it, but that he also knew that this was the only way he was ever going to get paid for his work. He launched into a halfhearted delusional rant on Georgia's signature matching, ballots that had been "dumped," and a few other tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. He tried to dress this up as a legal point -- that this is what Trump believed, therefore Trump repeating this stuff somehow wasn't an actual lie. But he had to step carefully, because if he had made this case too overtly, Trump would have figured out that he was in essence claiming: "Trump's not a liar, he's just monumentally stupid!" -- but the whole thing was just embarrassing all around.
After this foray into the lands of swamp fever, thankfully, the defense rested. True to the entire time Trump was in office, the whole defense presentation clocked in at under three hours, but it felt like a lot longer than that (or at least it did, to me).
I was overjoyed that the case had wrapped up so early, because it meant a nice leisurely amount of time to write up my notes and write an article... but, alas, this was not to be. Instead of breaking for the day, the Senate decided that they had enough time left in the day to move directly forward to the question-and-answer segment of the program (much to my dismay, I might add).
The Q-and-A period
I begin with a personal note: after falling into the rhythm of both the prosecution and the defense for more than three days, it was indeed jarring to move to a period in which each question only got five minutes' time. This is a lightning-quick pace, compared to everything that has taken place so far.
Unfortunately, much like the same period of Trump's first impeachment trial, most of the senators decided to toss softball questions at their own team. I would have much preferred some seriously confrontational questions asked of the other side's lawyers, personally, because I think that would have been far more revealing, and that doing so could have wound up scoring more political points. Instead, both sides seemed like they were more concerned with shoring up the weaker points of their side's legal case.
The defense was apparently not prepared for the Kabuki nature of the questions, as when asked their first softball question ("Does a politician raising bail for rioting encourage more rioting?"), merely answered "Yes," and then sat down. By the second question, though, they had figured out how the game was played.
It was interesting to see all the lawyers try to think on their feet, though. A few had some verbal stumbles (such as a House manager mistakenly bolstering the defense's case by misspeaking "cavalry" as "Calvary" -- which she immediately realize and forcefully corrected), but more interesting was to see Trump's lawyer Bruce Castor, who for some reason got to answer a number of these, and flailed around during many of his attempts. The worst of these was when he said: "Well, I'm not from around here," deploying what is technically known as the "I'm just a simple country lawyer" legal tactic. It was met with no noticeable success, but it was rather farcical. Later, he used folksy terms such as "Jiminy Crickets," also not to much notable effect.
In response, during this "country lawyer" answer, Castor says it was the "worst experience I have ever had in Washington." House impeachment lead Jamie Raskin shot back: "Man, you should have been here on January sixth." Online, the derision was even worse ("He must never have been here in July!").
There a few very interesting moments, however, when Democratic senators asked pointed questions to the defense. The first was to the point: when did Trump know the insurrection was happening and the Capitol had been breached? Trump's lawyer turned it around into scolding the House for not launching an extensive investigation to answer questions of fact like this. Later, the defense was asked if Trump knew Mike Pence was in danger. Trump's lawyer blithely spouted a bald-faced lie in response: Trump never found out about it, and (of course) "had the best interests of Mike Pence's safety and everyone here's safety that day" -- despite absolutely zero evidence for either of these outlandishly unbelievable statements.
The best moment, however, came when Bernie Sanders tried to actually confront Trump's lawyers, by asking pointedly (note: the text of all of today's questions was recorded by the Senate press group on Twitter, if anyone's interested in reading any of them in full):
The House prosecutors have stated over and over again that President Trump was perpetrating a Big Lie when he repeatedly claimed that the election was stolen from him and that he actually won the election by a landslide. Are the prosecutors right when they claim that Trump was telling a Big Lie, or in your judgment did Trump actually win the election?
Team Trump's answer was, to put it politely, not very satisfying. "My judgment on this question is irrelevant to the matter before us." This brought loud shouts and groans from the Democratic side of the aisle (led by Sanders responding: "You represent the president of the United States!"), which grew so intense Patrick Leahy had to gavel for order. Leahy then reminded everyone that by the rules, answers to the questions cannot be challenged. This left Trump's lawyer free to fully dodge the question.
There were some other interesting moments as well. I thought the snappiest one from the House managers came in response to a question about Trump saying "peaceful" once (in an 11,000-word speech) -- "If you rob a bank, and as you're going out the door, yell: 'Respect private property!', that's not a defense against robbing the bank."
One other notable moment happened when a House manager pointed out that since Trump was invited to testify and didn't, they were free to infer anything they wanted from questions of fact. This ended with throwing down a direct challenge to Trump's legal team: "Have your client come in and testify!"
In general, though, the question-and-answer period was largely a display of Kabuki theater. Softballs were lobbed at each legal team by their own supporters in the jury, giving them a chance to make a tiny little speech bolstering one aspect of their case or another.
The session ended on a poignant moment, when Chuck Schumer moved that the Senate briefly return to legislative business, so he could nominate Officer Eugene Goodman -- the Capitol Police officer who led the mob away from the Senate chamber, and may have saved Mike Pence from being attacked by doing so -- for a Congressional Gold Medal. After an extended standing ovation to Goodman (who was present), Mitch McConnell also heaped praise on Goodman. The Senate then moved unanimously to award the honor to Goodman. This was a very brief "see, we all can agree on something" moment, which ended the day on a high note.
Conclusions
Trump's defense team may have scored a point or two here and there, but their entire argument ignored at least 80 or 90 percent of the prosecution's case against Trump. Nothing was said about any of the time leading up to January sixth -- the entire defense was about that day and that day alone, really. In fact, the defense was really just a defense of Trump's speech that day, exclusive of everything else. Nothing was said about the fact that Trump did absolutely nothing (unless you want to count "pouring more gasoline on the fire with that tweet attacking Mike Pence") after the rioting and the insurrectionist attack had begun. For hours on end, the Capitol was ransacked, while Trump did nothing, in the most stunning abrogation of duty ever witnessed from a United States president. Since this entire period is patently indefensible, Trump's lawyers didn't even try, they just flat-out ignored it. All the violence Trump had cheered on and actively encouraged before January was also completely ignored.
It was almost as if Trump's lawyers were so confident that they had the votes necessary to spare Trump from conviction that they knew they only had to do the bare minimum today (a big part of which was "keep Trump happy and not yelling at his television"), and they felt they had easily cleared this low bar.
Sadly, they're probably right about that. We'll see, perhaps by the end of the day tomorrow. Tomorrow, the prosecution will announce whether they intend to call any witnesses, and if they do a vote will be held on the matter. Nobody's really expecting them to ask this, though, which means we could move swiftly to the actual closing arguments from both sides, followed by the vote on whether to convict Trump or not. If they do manage to convict, then a separate vote will be held on whether to permanently bar Trump from ever holding any federal public office again.
So I'll see you all back here tomorrow, a few hours after the dust settles.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
Also, a pledge -- there will indeed be a ChrisWeigant.com column tomorrow.
Excellent!
I think it'll still be okay then to have our regular CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party on that piece instead of on the usual FTP column , after we get everything off our chest about the impeachment vote, I mean.
Oh, wait ... you won't be doing a Sunday column, too ... will you? :)
By the way, how did you like my special dedication last Sunday night?
Fight, fight and more fight.
Didn't the president lawyers lament the lack of context every five minutes?
I have to say, though, that the question posed by Bernie Sanders was, in a word, ridiculous.
Washington (CNN)In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.
"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump's supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
Trump's comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the then-President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, "Who the f--k do you think you are talking to?" according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.
The newly revealed details of the call, described to CNN by multiple Republicans briefed on it, provide critical insight into the President's state of mind as rioters were overrunning the Capitol. The existence of the call and some of its details were first reported by Punchbowl News and discussed publicly by McCarthy.
The Republican members of Congress said the exchange showed Trump had no intention of calling off the rioters even as lawmakers were pleading with him to intervene. Several said it amounted to a dereliction of his presidential duty.
"He is not a blameless observer, he was rooting for them," a Republican member of Congress said. "On January 13, Kevin McCarthy said on the floor of the House that the President bears responsibility and he does."
Speaking to the President from inside the besieged Capitol, McCarthy pressed Trump to call off his supporters and engaged in a heated disagreement about who comprised the crowd. Trump's comment about the would-be insurrectionists caring more about the election results than McCarthy did was first mentioned by Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Republican from Washington state, in a town hall earlier this week, and was confirmed to CNN by Herrera Beutler and other Republicans briefed on the conversation.
"You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at," Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. "That line right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it, which makes me so angry."
"We should never stand for that, for any reason, under any party flag," she added, voicing her extreme frustration: "I'm trying really hard not to say the F-word."
"I think it speaks to the former President's mindset," said Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, an Ohio Republican who also voted to impeach Trump last month. "He was not sorry to see his unyieldingly loyal vice president or the Congress under attack by the mob he inspired. In fact, it seems he was happy about it or at the least enjoyed the scenes that were horrifying to most Americans across the country."
As senators prepare to determine Trump's fate, multiple Republicans thought the details of the call were important to the proceedings because they believe it paints a damning portrait of Trump's lack of action during the attack. At least one of the sources who spoke to CNN took detailed notes of McCarthy's recounting of the call.
Trump and McCarthy did not respond to requests for comment.
It took Trump several hours after the attack began to eventually encourage his supporters to "go home in peace" -- a tweet that came at the urging of his top aides.
At Trump's impeachment trial Friday, his lawyers argued that Trump did in fact try to calm the rioters with a series of tweets while the attack unfolded. But his lawyers cherry-picked his tweets, focusing on his request for supporters to "remain peaceful" without mentioning that he also attacked then-Vice President Mike Pence and waited hours to explicitly urge rioters to leave the Capitol.
A source close to Pence said Trump's legal team was not telling the truth when attorney Michael van der Veen said at the trial that "at no point" did the then-President know his vice president was in danger.
Asked whether van der Veen was lying, the source said, "Yes." Former Pence aides are still fuming over Trump's actions on January 6, insisting he never checked on the vice president as Pence was being rushed from danger by his US Secret Service detail.
It's unclear to what extent these new details were known by the House Democratic impeachment managers or whether the team considered calling McCarthy as a witness. The managers have preserved the option to call witnesses in the ongoing impeachment trial, although that option remains unlikely as the trial winds down.
The House Republican leader had been forthcoming with his conference about details of his conversations with Trump on and after January 6.
Trump himself has not taken any responsibility in public.
This story has been updated with additional reporting.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/politics/trump-mccarthy-shouting-match-details/index.html
Whoops..meant to put “This just in” at the top of the above post
Chris,
Trump's defense team may have scored a point or two here and there, but their entire argument ignored at least 80 or 90 percent of the prosecution's case against Trump. Nothing was said about any of the time leading up to January sixth -- the entire defense was about that day and that day alone, really. In fact, the defense was really just a defense of Trump's speech that day, exclusive of everything else.
Do you think that the Dems may have left themselves open to this narrow, criminal-based argument by naming the one and only article of impeachment, 'Incitement to resurrection'?
I mean, I think any one of us here could have come up with a better title.
How about an article with this title,
'Gross Violation of the Presidential Oath of Office Through a Months-Long, Multi-faceted Incitement to Ultimately Disrupt or Derail the Official Peaceful Transfer of Power at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.'
Not that the senate wouldn't vote to acquit, anyway ...
Russ,
It sounds like Republicans are trying hard to get rid of Trump without actually, you know, getting rid of Trump. :)
Good luck to them!
The gist of the entire day, and the comments here and elsewhere, is that the defense was not a real defense, but more like play-acting, because it assumes the fix is in. The Senate Republicans just will not vote to convict the president, regardless of the prosecution or the defense's presentations this week.
This kind of makes impeachment useless, doesn't it? No matter what the constitution's framers might have thought the Congress was going to be, in relation to the chief executive, in fact we have a strong two party system, and an impeachment of a president who has a sizable senatorial minority of his own party is simply unable to be convicted.
Any suggestions as to options for reform, or abolition, of the impeachment clause of the constitution?
The worst of these was when he said: "Well, I'm not from around here," deploying what is technically known as the "I'm just a simple country lawyer" legal tactic. It was met with no noticeable success, but it was rather farcical.
i think i've seen that one before. would this be an example?
https://youtu.be/2AzAFqrxfeY?t=65
You didn't mention it, but the short fragment that I listened to on my drive home featured one of the lawyers trying to rebut the letter from hundreds of law school deans that said any so-called 'First Amendment' defense of the president's actions was a crock of, well, stuff.
I could hardly believe my ears when the guy actually whined that this was a totally unfair and hostile allegation of his own malpractice and incompetence as a lawyer! He went on and on about how the impeachment forces were trying to get him disbarred, lose his license, no money coming in, his wife and children starving and begging on the streets... No, really, I mean it. Talk about projection.
Then something followed about how James Wilson, one of the constitution's leading contributors, had appeared to this lawyer in a dream telling him the First Amendment was specifically designed by him and Little Jemmy Madison to allow presidents like George Washington to overthrow the republic ... no, well, maybe not the dream part. But none of it was making any sense. It was weird -- I got sick of it and changed the channel.
Thank God you're doing it all, Chris. Thanks again.
Witnesses. :)
Thank God you're doing it all, Chris. Thanks again.
Indeed. Heh.
Watching the senate makes it obvious why they desperately hang on to the filibuster. Voting on anything is mind-numbingly bizarre and tedious. There's no excuse in 2021. It's a bad look.
Florida Man's lawyers are just doing a stand-up version of his tweet storms. It does seem like legal malpractice, but is that OK if that's what your mentally-ill client wants?
Question: If Republicans wish to turn this impeachment trial into an all day and night venture and stall the COVID-19 relief bill, how many votes would they need to do that?
JFC,
What do think of this moniker for Trump: the "terminated tyrant of the twitstorm". And, do you know who I'm quoting?
Last time around, the Dems insisted that it wasn't a trial w/o witnesses. I was wondering when we'd get around to this. I think we need to hear from Florida Man.
It does seem like legal malpractice, but is that OK ...
Sadly, it doesn't seem to matter much when you need 67 Republican votes, at least, to convict.
Well, we won't hear from the former president. But, maybe we could hear from anyone who was with him in the WH as the rioters breached the Capitol ...
[15] According to what I heard Claire McCaskill say on TV, McConnell can prevent work on anything else while they adjourn to depose witnesses.
[19] I don't think so. That would spark an executive privilege battle.
[16] I don't know. I think that one's a little long. He's the ultimate Florida Man. I'm sticking with that.
So you don't know who said that? He used to have a column in the Huffington Post at the same time as Chris.
Yeah, executive privilege. Right. Well, I think the juror witnesses may be enough to get the point across.
I don't.
So, McConnell has decided to acquit. Nobody should be shocked by that. He's a treacherous traitor and a lying liar. It looks like he's just been trolling Florida Man.
Uncharacteristically, the orange one one has listened to his mob lawyers and kept his mouth shut. On the other hand, they were expecting this to be over today. Caution. Contents under pressure.
So, if there is a wide net cast to find witnesses with relevant information, then it may be time for Biden to consider making a national address Re. COVID-19 relief bill and the need for the senate to act quickly (heh) on passing this bill, one way or the other, during the impeachment trial.
In an impeachment trial, can the vice president break a tie?
... I mean on a vote to call a certain witness?
[27] McCaskill just said that this will not delay the COVID relief bill because the house is not finished yet anyway.
[28] According to McCaskill, no.
Once the House finishes with the bill, then what? This impeachment trial could go on for a long time.
They're not going to agree to very many witnesses. the Republicans are bluffing about wanting witnesses.
Elizabeth Miller
15
If Republicans wish to turn this impeachment trial into an all day and night venture and stall the COVID-19 relief bill, how many votes would they need to do that?
More votes than they have.
Trump's shitty lawyers are bluffing. They are terrified of witnesses. They can threaten all they want; they can only call witnesses agreed on by the Senate.
It won't stall the COVID-19 relief. :)
schumer can walk and chew gum. they'll do covid legislation in the morning and impeachment in the afternoon.
You are sure about that?
Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) maybe has a death wish.
It won't stall the COVID-19 relief. :)
Well, it's already stalled enough. If you are one of those Americans who are in desperate need.
Trump's shitty lawyers are bluffing. They are terrified of witnesses. They can threaten all they want; they can only call witnesses agreed on by the Senate.
Yeah, be careful what you wish for. Heh.
But, what if the vote on witnesses is 50-50? Apparently, the vp can't break a tie in this scenario ...
John From Censornati
17
I was wondering when we'd get around to this. I think we need to hear from Florida Man.
I think we'll be hearing from him later... not likely in this impeachment trial. Florida Man is going to spend the rest of his life running from the criminal courts.
Who will indict Florida Man first? Like I've been saying since 2017, just when it looks like it's almost over, it'll just be getting started:
These little town blues are melting away
I'm gonna make a brand new start of it in old New York
A-a-a-nd if I can make it there, I'm gonna make it anywhere
It's up to you, New York, New York. :)
New York will likely indict Trump first... and his spawn too. :)
I guess we'll have to wait to see what kind of deal the senate can reach.
McCaskill thinks that McConnell is not on Team Orange and is probably lobbying to limit this to just the congresswoman despite his announced vote for acquittal.
50-50 is no go.
New York will likely indict Trump first... and his spawn too. :)
Maybe the FBI will beat them. But, that'll probably be a losing case, too. :(
No witness if 50-50?
They have the votes to hear from the congresswoman.
I'm talking about other witnesses.
[44] Yes, that's how the cookie crumbles.
They will probably agree that each side gets to call one. That's what I'd bet on.
I see.
Qnut MTG is intimidating the witness.
Point of personal privilege, if I may, as the only Canadian here ...
In no other country in the world can we see democracy in action played out, in real time the way it does in the US of A. It really is a sight to behold, most of the time. Heh. I mean, it's not always pretty and often very messy but, seriously, America has so much to be proud of, despite everything.
Of course, I couldn't have said any of that if the 2020 presidential election hadn't turned out the way it did. But, it did, so ... there is always hope and the promise of America is real and alive!
John From Censornati
32
They're not going to agree to very many witnesses. the Republicans are bluffing about wanting witnesses.
Exactly. They don't want any witnesses. Call their bluff. Raskin is just going to make liars out of Trump's shitty lawyers and then they'll vote to acquit Trump -- like they were going to do anyway -- and they're tied to Trump and his lawlessness forever.
They're making them choose sides. Nikki Haley already chose. All the GOP idiots are doing now is jockeying for power and who will control the White Supremacist Party. They all still think Trump will falter, and they each think Trump will crown them as his replacement. You'd think they would learn, but they seem incapable. Trump would have let each of them die at the hands of his mob; he does not care. Sickening to watch that Party slowly killing itself.
Of course, y'all likely know all that. :)
Looks like the trial ends today.
Elizabeth Miller
37
Well, it's already stalled enough.
It hasn't been stalled at all... yet. It's being done under reconciliation and therefore is going to take some maneuvering and negotiating to get it done since the bulk of the GOP isn't all too interested in governing for the People.
Elizabeth Miller
51
In no other country in the world can we see democracy in action played out, in real time the way it does in the US of A.
What... are you kidding!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_Zh9KSVrFg
It really is a sight to behold, most of the time. Heh. I mean, it's not always pretty and often very messy but, seriously, America has so much to be proud of, despite everything.
Where do you think it comes from?
O R D E R!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You think the UK is more democratic than your country?
Elizabeth Miller
56
You think the UK is more democratic than your country?
Heh.
I'm not sure how my declaration that there are indeed other countries in the world where we can see "democracy in action played out, in real time, the way it does" in America was somehow mistaken for my endorsement as to which of the two countries is "the more democratic." I'm just saying that democracy is indeed playing out in other countries. Most of our system is a direct ripoff of the Motherland since it was created by a bunch of her former subjects, you know. :)
Obviously.
You don't have to be argumetative ALL the time, you know. Heh.
[59]
Some of us can't help ourselves.
Elizabeth Miller
58|59
Obviously.
Right!
Except, I said "most of our system is a direct ripoff" when I should have said "much of our system is a direct ripoff." My bad.
You don't have to be argumetative ALL the time, you know. Heh.
I wasn't being argumentative... just pointing out that democracy is (thankfully) being played out (not nowhere) but other places in the world. Amen.
Basically my point was: Canada, you're giving us too much credit. :)
Now, the senate will go on vacation for a week. Will that stall COVID-19 relief?
Did Mitch McConnell just disrespect his own beloved senate? Imagine that.
John From Censornati
62
Now, the senate will go on vacation for a week. Will that stall COVID-19 relief?
It was a pre-planned "home" week. It shouldn't affect COVID-19 relief at all.
It was Mitch who produced the very excuse they could use to refuse to convict him. McConnell had given them all the "technical out" from the jump when he chose to delay the trial.
I am genuinely surprised that 7 Senators voted to convict the pathological lying sociopathic murdering bastard. How many Americans has he killed with his lies? History will not be kind to Benedict Donald and his enablers. They obviously know he is guilty but chose their political fortunes and their dying Party over We the People and our democracy. This is far from over.