Donald Trump’s impeachment defense began and ended Friday, filled with repetitive, amateurish, dishonest videos and arguments. His lawyers failed to refute the rock-solid case of the House impeachment managers, but they’re not worried, because, thanks to Republican partisanship, they never thought they had to do so.
The impeachment trial now moves on to the question-and-answer period.
It will be aired on major television news networks and streamed on their websites. Daily Kos will have continuing coverage.
Live coverage continues here.
We’re moving straight into the question and answer session, with questions addressed to each legal team.
The Washington Post has a tally of the lies told by Trump’s legal team.
After Rep. Castro provides a thorough answer on Trump’s involvement, Cruz and Graham provide a set up in which they ask “does a politician raising bail for rioters encourage more rioting.” This is slander aimed at Vice President Kamala Harris, who requested people contributed to a bail fund for peaceful protesters, none of whom had been accused of violence crimes.
Rep. Raskin gets a question on Trump’s challenging the election and differentiates between Trump’s attempts to make a legal challenge, to attempting to bully officials, to inciting a mob.
Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski send a question to Trump’s team: “Exactly when did Pres. Trump learn of the breach of the Capitol, and what specific actions did he take to bring the rioting to an end.”
Trump’s team is very, very much not answering this question. They’re also lying about access to the security videos, because they also have access to this.
This is a key question, and they’re providing no answer. Because there is no good answer.
That answer was so bad, it may have lost them another vote. Really.
Question concerning the Proud Boys group, “Is there evidence that Trump knew, or should have known, that his tolerance of anti-Semitic speech could incite the kind of violence we saw on Jan. 6?”
Rep. Plaskett does a good job of answering the question, giving instances of Trump’s previous support of violence.
Hagerty and Scott ask a nonsense question “isn’t this just a political show trial” as a set up for Trump’s legal team. Pointless.
Markey and Duckworth send a question to the House managers asking the same thing that Collins and Murkowski asked. Good on them.
Rep. Plaskett points out how ridiculous it is to think that Trump wasn’t aware of everything that was going on the moment it happened. However, I sincerely wish she had pointed out the timeline of the breach, then the call to Tuberville, then the tweet concerning Pence. That’s a critical moment.
Romney and Collins send a question to both sides: “When Pres. Trump send disparaging tweets at 2:24 PM was he aware that Pence had been removed from the Senate by Secret Service for his safety.”
Note: I like it when people ask the questions I want asked.
Rep. Castro handles the response from the House side, but fails to connect it to the phone call from Tuberville. Dammit. The phone call was RIGHT BEFORE the tweet. Tie the two together, man.
Okay, there you go! The call to Tuberville! Perfect. That’s what we needed. Thank you. Nail. Coffin.
Trump’s team claim that Trump never knew that Pence was in danger, again hides behind the idea that “the House didn’t investigate.”
Oh boy, they KNOW they’ve lost on this one, because they’re falling back on the “that’s not the charge.”
Klobachar, Casey, and Brown to House managers: “In presenting your case, you relied on past precedent on impeachment trials, such as Wm. Belknap impeachment. If we do not impeach Pres. Trump, what message will we be sending to future presidents and congresses?”
And okay, this one is definitely a softball. But Trump’s team already got two.
Rep. Plaskett gives a good short speech in response. “And the world watched us, and the world is still watching … extremists who attacked the Capitol … will be emboldened ... Donald Trump told them this was only the beginning.”
Plaskett also points out the frequency of women of color being used in the videos from the defense team. “I thought we were past that. Maybe we’re not.”
Nicely done.
Mike Lee and Josh Hawley and the rest of the insurgency caucus tees one up for Trump’s attorneys: “Multiple state constitutions enacted prior to 1787 … specifically provided for the impeachment of a former officer.” Does leaving that out of the Constitution mean framers didn’t want former officials impeached.
Trump’s team, unaspiringly, says sure. And this has been another episode of Conservative Republicans pretend to get into the heads of people in the 18th century.
Alex Padilla gets to House managers about the “big lie” and the results in encouraging Trump supporters.
Rep. Castro takes the “74 million” that Trump’s team keeps using and flips it around — that’s how many people Trump kept telling they were getting their votes stolen. Trump didn’t need to get more than a small fraction of his supporters to believe to make up the mob that attacked the Capitol.
Hawley pops right back up again to ask both sides: “If the Senate’s power to disqualify is not derivative of the power to remove, could the Senate disqualify a sitting president, but not remove him or her.” Which may sound like an interesting thought experiment, but is, of course, just a set up for Trump’s team to say “No.”
Van der Veen being extraordinarily snide and dishonest in his reply.
Rep. Raskin gives a clear answer to the actual question. Showing that of the eight people convicted, only three were disqualified. Showing that disqualification is a separate act.
Warren asks the House managers if Democrats in the past asked members of Congress to object to votes after an insurrection. Which … I kind of which she hadn’t asked, because there’s an opportunity here to pound the sorest points on the Trump case. But Rep. Raskin does a good job of clearing up at least one of the items that appeared in the Trump team’s videos.
Question from Sen. Kevin Cramer: Has there been a more pro-Israel president than Donald Trump?
Angry Trump lawyer says no, then starts yelling about Democrats supposedly having gotten “caught doctoring the evidence.”
Bernie Sanders asks both sides if the election was stolen from Donald Trump. House Manager Plaskett says “he lost the election, he lost the court cases” and throws in a quote from Mitch McConnell noting Trump lost. Trump’s lawyer responds—after having the question read twice—by saying “My judgement is irrelevant here.” Refuses to answer the question. And finishes by attacking the House Managers.
Sen. Ron Johnson wants both teams to answer why, if the attack was predictable and foreseeable, law enforcement were caught off guard and the House sergeant at arms reportedly turned down a request to activate the National Guard.
Team Trump up first. Once again Van der Veen asks for the question to be repeated. Delaying much, here? His answer: “Holy cow, that is a really good question.” What a vehicle for attacking the House managers for not investigating enough!
Hmm … Maybe this is because the head of the Capitol Police and the House sergeant at arms were already forced out?
Van der Veen even gets a “jiminy crickets” in there to show just how flabbergasted he is by this issue. “Who ignored it, and why?” he asks.
Plaskett: “First, if defense council has exculpatory evidence, you’re welcome to give it to us. We would love to see it.” She notes that Trump’s lawyers are eager to blame everyone but Trump, the one who had access to the most information about what would happen. And the National Guard was not deployed for two hours after it was requested—that’s not on Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser or anyone but the federal government. “The president of the United States did not defend the Capitol of this country.”
The question to the House Managers is—paraphrasing here—if Trump’s Big Lie caused the violence and death on January 6, does him saying “be peaceful” excuse the incitement. House Manager Castro says, much more eloquently, no.
In an interview on Friday, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley came out of the box criticizing former President Donald Trump.
Her forceful comments, come in the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riot, and also as Trump’s defense attorneys prepare to present their case in Trump’s second impeachment trial.
“We need to acknowledge he let us down,” she told Politico. “He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t ever let that happen again.”
She was literally saying the opposite a couple of weeks ago on the Laura Ingraham’s show.
Nikki Haley will literally say or do anything to amass power. Incredibly dangerous woman.
— Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) February 12, 2021
Haley, who is also the former governor of South Carolina, expressed anger over the harsh treatment she felt that former Vice President Mike Pence received at the hands of Trump.
“When I tell you I’m angry about it that’s an understatement,” she said. “I’m so disappointed in the fact that [despite] the loyalty and friendship he had with Mike Pence, that he would do that to him. Like, I’m disgusted by it.”
RELATED: Twitter Puts A Permanent Ban On James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas
There are many who speculate that Nikki Haley is a strong contender for the GOP presidential nomination in 2024. However, she is also one of many so-called “establishment” Republicans who once backed Donald Trump, but are now are turning against him.
There have been many other high-profile Republicans who have come out and harshly criticized Trump for Capitol riot and have gone on to distance themselves from him.
But in doing that, are they distancing themselves from 75 million people who cast their vote for Trump just a few short months ago by essentially telling those people they were wrong to support him?
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) cozied up to Trump when he was talked about as a possible Secretary of State. Then Trump chose someone else, and Romney has criticized him at every turn since.
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), on a recent appearance on Fox News Sunday, when speaking of Trump stated that, “that is a person who does not have a role as the leader of our party going forward.”
RELATED: Andrew Cuomo Aide: To Avoid Federal Investigation, New York Hid COVID-19 Nursing Home Deaths
Nikki Haley may have presidential aspirations, but will the GOP be a different party in four years?
In her Politico interview, she said, “I know how much people love Donald Trump. I know. I feel it. Whether it’s an RNC room, or social media or talking to donors, I can tell you that the love they have for him is still very strong. That’s not just going to fall by the wayside.”
However, she also said, “Nor do I think the Republican Party is going to go back to the way it was before Donald Trump. I don’t think it should.”
But does she really think that? Does the establishment think they can override the will of 75 million Trump supporters and take the party back to the way it was pre-Trump? Many would argue that those 75 million people really want to do is purge the Republican party of squishy RINO’s and swamp creatures.
Haley states that, “what we need to do is take the good that he built, leave the bad that he did, and get back to a place where we can be a good, valuable, effective party. But at the same time, it’s bigger than the party.”
I keep telling you that @NikkiHaley! is Jeb! 2:The Failinging https://t.co/XhjSuYlwpc
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) February 12, 2021
RELATED: MSNBC’s Joy Reid Says Cruz And Hawley’s Families Should Be ‘Ashamed’ Of Them
Nikki Haley’s establishment status as a squishy Republican who sides one way then another is not something she will be able to hide from American voters. In a report from Axios, prior to January 6, Haley stated that she genuinely believed that Trump believed he was wronged.
She defended his refusal not to concede to Joe Biden, but said that she felt that his lawyers did him a “disservice by not telling him the truth of his loss.”
She equated Trump’s feeling of false election claims to being colorblind.
“That would be like you saying that the grass is blue and you genuinely believing it,” she explained. “Is it irresponsible that you’re colorblind and you truly believe that?”
Haley added that there was nothing anyone could do to make Trump believe that he legitimately lost the election.
After January 6, her positions seem to have changed. She says that we should have not followed him down the path we did, and she spoke of Trump’s treatment of Mike Pence, saying that the former president has lost “any political viability he was going to have.”
Haley also said she did not think Trump will run again. “I don’t think he can. He’s fallen so far.” This might be news to Haley and other RINO’s, but that is not certain.
Politico reporter Tim Alberta stated, “I’ve also spoken with nearly 70 people who know her: friends, associates, donors, staffers, former colleagues. From those conversations, two things are clear. First, Nikki Haley is going to run for president in 2024. Second, she doesn’t know which Nikki Haley will be on the ballot.”
If Nikki Haley doesn’t know who is on the ballot, then voters don’t know who is on the ballot.
Never trusted Nikki Haley. She’s a sneaky b**ch.
— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) February 12, 2021
Nikki Haley is the Meghan McCain of Liz Cheneys.
— Catturd
(@catturd2) February 12, 2021
In the end, it’s clear that Haley is just the latest in a line of RINOS that think they have a chance of running for anything if they now distance themselves from Trump. She may soon find out how wrong she is about this.
Tucker Carlson:
"Vultures wait just off-stage to swoop in & claim the GOP for themselves once Donald Trump is gone. Former Governor Nikki Haley tops that list, but there are many others on it. The moment Trump leaves they will attack him." pic.twitter.com/rFUpYgAH6E
— The Columbia Bugle
(@ColumbiaBugle) July 1, 2020
The post Nikki Haley Turns On Trump – ‘We Need To Acknowledge He Let Us Down’ appeared first on The Political Insider.
White House deputy press secretary T.J. Ducklo was given a one week suspension for allegedly threatening and demeaning a female reporter. This has led to accusations that Joe Biden lied weeks ago when he promised to fire people in his administration on the spot for offenses like this.
Ducklo reportedly went off on Politico reporter Tara Palmeri, making “derogatory and misogynistic” comments towards her after she asked about his romantic relationship with Axios reporter Alexi McCammond.
Sources told Vanity Fair that in an off-the-record call on January 20, Ducklo threatened to “destroy” Palmeri and claimed that she only asked him about McCammond because she was jealous that an unidentified man in the past had wanted to “f—” McCammond and not Palmeri.
Though White House officials suspended Ducklo, they also criticized Palmeri for breaking an off-the-record agreement with him.
“TJ Ducklo has apologized to the reporter, with whom he had a heated conversation about his personal life. He is the first to acknowledge this is not the standard of behavior set out by the President,” tweeted White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki.
“In addition to his initial apology, he has sent the reporter a personal note expressing his profound regret,” she said.
“With the approval of the White House Chief of Staff, he has been placed on a one-week suspension without pay,” she added. “In addition, when he returns, he will no longer be assigned to work with any reporters at Politico.”
TJ Ducklo has apologized to the reporter, with whom he had a heated conversation about his personal life. He is the first to acknowledge this is not the standard of behavior set out by the President.
— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) February 12, 2021
With the approval of the White House Chief of Staff, he has been placed on a one-week suspension without pay. In addition, when he returns, he will no longer be assigned to work with any reporters at Politico.
— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) February 12, 2021
This comes a month after Biden said that he would fire any of his appointees, “no ifs, ands,” or buts,” if he learned that they had disrespected their colleagues in any way.
The fact that Ducklo has not been fired has led many to say that Biden broke his pledge.
And we have a new definition of slap on the wrist,” Nevada-based journalist Jon Ralston tweeted.
“If what he said was reported accurately — and it is a secondary but interesting question about how an OTR convo got reported and when OTR can be breached — Ducklo should have been fired. What he said was repellent and sexist,” he continued.
Related: Biden Press Secretary Says He’s Got ‘Bigger Issues’ After Being Caught Maskless On Federal Property
This is, of course, not what Biden promised just three weeks ago.
He said specifically at that time he would fire "on the spot" anyone who treats "another colleague with disrespect" or talks "down to someone — no ifs, and or buts." https://t.co/GBSoeMg9Io
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) February 12, 2021
Others feel the same way:
This is, of course, not what Biden promised just three weeks ago.
He said specifically at that time he would fire "on the spot" anyone who treats "another colleague with disrespect" or talks "down to someone — no ifs, and or buts." https://t.co/GBSoeMg9Io
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) February 12, 2021
Did the White House know what was said when he penned the apology? If so, why are we getting the suspension only after the facts became public? https://t.co/gwUNDBU4yP
— Eliana Johnson (@elianayjohnson) February 12, 2021
So Ducklo is banned from working with any reporters at Politico, because of his misogynistic insults aimed at a Politico reporter, but he can still work with reporters at Axios, where his girlfriend is employed as a reporter covering the VP. https://t.co/2rFf9j5Tbk
— Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) February 12, 2021
#BREAKING: The White House press shop says not only is T.J. Ducklo not going to lose his job, but he's only being suspended for a week without pay.
And he wrote a note to Tara Palmeri saying he's sorry, so it's all good. pic.twitter.com/0cyGGvRZ7A
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 12, 2021
Well it's a good thing his boss did not boldly declare three weeks ago that anyone in the administration who disrespects or talks down to others would be fired on the spot https://t.co/TdDuCD7Yik
— Josh Billinson (@jbillinson) February 12, 2021
Despite her relationship with Ducklo, McCammond was reassigned to cover Vice President Kamala Harris. Biden himself has yet to comment on the situation.
This piece was written by James Samson on February 12, 2021. It originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.
Read more at LifeZette:
Jim Jordan Claims Democrats Are ‘Scared’ Of Trump
Lindsey Graham Predicts ‘Not Guilty’ Impeachment Votes Are Growing After ‘Absurd’ Arguments From Democrats
Gowdy Takes On House Impeachment Managers, Trump Livid
The post WH Deputy Press Secretary TJ Ducklo Suspended For Reportedly Threatening, Demeaning Female Reporter appeared first on The Political Insider.
Bruce Castor, former President Donald Trump's lawyer, wrapped up the defense's arguments at the impeachment trial Friday by telling senators to protect free speech and not bow to "cancel culture."
"This trial is about far more than President Trump. It is about silencing and banning the speech the majority does ...
Six GOP senators voted this week to move forward with President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. But Republicans believe several more of them may be considering conviction.
As the Trump defense made its argument on Friday, Republicans privately estimated between 5 and 10 of their senators are seriously weighing conviction. There’s no official whip count, and the matter is not being discussed at party meetings, leaving many in the 50-member conference to only guess at their colleague’s inclinations.
In the past, many Republicans have backed down when flirting to break with Trump, and the safe bet for most in the party is still on acquittal. But at the moment there’s an outside chance that one or more GOP senators could deliver Washington a dramatic last-act twist as the Senate prepares to vote as early as Saturday.
“I could see it as possible. I certainly don’t know how many there could be. Certainly not enough for conviction,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D).
Granted anonymity to discuss internal politics, a GOP senator said it would be surprising to see more than six Republicans vote to convict but conceded everyone was blindly guessing at the vote count: "That's the nature of surprises."
Any Republican voting to convict the president would make huge waves, even if the tally falls far short of 17 GOP senators needed to secure a conviction, as is nearly assured. The 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach the president last month are all facing various degrees of blowback, from censure to early primary challenges.
The Trump legal team began shoring things up on Friday after a disastrous start earlier this week. Even Republicans plainly at odds with Trump said the defense had stepped up its game.
But the question and answer portion did not enthuse the GOP's swing votes. After praising a "stronger presentation" from the defense, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) conceded she did not get an answer to her question about when Trump learned of the Capitol breach, which Democrats also subsequently asked after the defense's non-answer.
"There was a better attempt at the second time. But yeah, I didn't really feel it was responsive to our question," Murkowski said.
And a photograph of Sen. Bill Cassidy's notes Friday afternoon suggested that despite his criticism earlier this week of Trump's lawyers, he is leaning towards acquittal. A spokesperson for the Louisiana Republican tweeted that he has not yet made up his mind.
Cassidy also asked a pointed question about whether Trump was concerned for former Vice President Mike Pence's well-being when Trump tweeted an attack on Pence. Trump's lawyer Michael van der Veen called the questioned based in "hearsay" despite an account from Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) about the timing of Trump's tweet. Cassidy said on Friday night that did not really answer his question.
"I didn't think it was a very good answer," he said.
In his closing argument, Trump attorney Bruce Castor defended Trump's rhetoric by pointing out he had been threatening senators with primary threats during his speech on Jan. 6. It was a reminder of how a vote for conviction will play in the GOP.
"Nobody in this chamber is anxious to have a primary challenge. That is one truism I think I can say with some certainty. But that's the way we operate in this country," Castor said. Murkowski is up for reelection next year.
GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Cassidy and Murkowski are all on record deeming the trial constitutional, making them the base of Republicans considering conviction. Cassidy changed his opinion on constitutionality since last month, saying the House Democrats made an effective presentation.
In addition, Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Richard Burr of North Carolina are being watched closely by their colleagues. Both are retiring next year, along with Toomey — in theory relieving them of political considerations.
“I’m not going to even talk about it until it’s done,” Burr said Friday. Asked if it was fair to say he was genuinely undecided, he responded: “It’s fair to say I’m not going to talk to you about it at all.”
Portman said Friday evening that he is "still listening" but has "the same concerns about the wisdom of us taking up a impeachment conviction for a former official, particularly a former president."
"I've had that issue all along and I haven't been convinced otherwise yet," the Ohio Republican said. "I thought the due process concerns today were also concerning. On the other hand I think what the president did that day was wrong."
Republicans still see no path for Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell to vote to convict, but he has not told colleagues that he is surely an acquittal. He’s repeatedly told Republicans that the final vote, likely Saturday, is one of “conscience.” And since criticizing Trump in January, he’s said little about the matter at all.
A vote to convict Trump would seriously complicate McConnell’s ability to lead the party heading into the midterm elections.
McConnell, Portman and Burr all voted twice in recent weeks that the trial should not go forward.
Although Republicans meet every day in-person, it’s not to mull over conviction votes. In fact, there’s been no coordination among the senators who have voted to find the trial constitutional, Murkowski said.
“I know that there’s a lot of speculation that there’s kind of a shared discussion about ‘What are you going to do?’ That’s just not the case,” she said.
During last year’s impeachment trial, all eyes were on whether moderate Democrats might acquit Trump. But the real surprise was Romney, who revealed his decision to convict Trump in an emotional speech just hours before his final vote. He’s declined to reveal where he will end up this time, too, saying he will weigh the defense’s arguments.