Trump impeachment lawyer gave the Pennsylvania Supreme Court its excuse to free Bill Cosby

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned Bill Cosby's sexual assault conviction on Wednesday and barred further prosecution in the matter, meaning Cosby is now being freed after serving just two years of a three- to 10-year sentence. The court based its decision on a supposed nonprosecution deal with former Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor, ruling that the incriminating evidence on which Cosby was convicted—a deposition in a civil suit by Andrea Constand, the woman Cosby raped in this particular case, though far from his only victim—would not have happened if Castor hadn’t promised Cosby he was free from the threat of prosecution and therefore could not invoke the Fifth Amendment.

If the name Bruce Castor sounds familiar, it’s because he was previously seen embarrassing himself on the national stage in 2021 as Donald Trump's least competent impeachment defense attorney.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to overturn this conviction based on Castor’s promise of nonprosecution drew the support of six out of seven justices, with one dissenting in full. Two of the justices, however, concurred with that decision while dissenting from the ruling that Cosby can never be prosecuted for this crime—something that could have been done while suppressing the evidence that emerged because of Cosby’s reliance on the nonprosecution pledge.

The concurring and dissenting opinion clearly lays out one of the key issues: “Significantly, none of this authority or our case law interpreting it remotely purports to grant to district attorneys the power to impose on their successors—in perpetuity, no less—the kind of general non-prosecution agreement that Castor sought to convey to Cosby. It’s not difficult to imagine why: If district attorneys had the power to dole out irrevocable get-out-of-jail-free cards at will and without any judicial oversight, it would invite a host of abuses. And it would ‘effectively assign pardon power to District Attorneys, something this Court has already rejected as unconstitutional.’”

Cosby’s argument that Castor had given him an eternal get-out-of-jail-free card was already brought up in Cosby's trial and rejected by the judge there, based in part on the fact that no such agreement existed in writing.

“There’s no other witness to the promise,” the judge in that case said to Castor’s effort to convince him that the agreement was a real thing. “The rabbit is in the hat and you want me at this point to assume: ‘Hey, the promise was made, judge. Accept that.’”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed, and disagreed to the extent that Cosby is now in no danger of facing justice beyond the time he has already served.

“I’m absolutely in shock…My stomach is lurching and I am deeply distressed about the injustice of the whole thing,” Bill Cosby accuser Victoria Valentino says of his release from prison. https://t.co/yuM413mOS1 pic.twitter.com/y4gmnY2pnd

— Good Morning America (@GMA) June 30, 2021

a lot of people are trying to understand why Bill Cosby is being released from prison. as an experienced attorney i can explain: he is extremely, extremely rich

— Law Boy, Esq. (@The_Law_Boy) June 30, 2021

Cheney: ‘History is watching.’ House Republicans: Screw that, Trump is watching

Rep. Liz Cheney, for now the third-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, has decided she cares more about principles and how history will judge her than she does about the Trumpist orthodoxy of today’s Republican Party. For that, she’s about to be ousted from House Republican leadership and replaced by someone more loyal to Trump but less conservative on the issues, with a simple majority vote of the House Republicans coming as soon as next week.

Cheney refuses to participate in the lie that the election was stolen from Trump—the lie that spurred the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol—so Republicans are swiftly moving to strip her of her leadership role and replace her with Rep. Elise Stefanik, who has been all in on the Big Lie. Rep. Steve Scalise, the second-ranking House Republican, has publicly backed Stefanik over Cheney, while House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is reportedly supporting Stefanik behind the scenes after becoming increasingly critical of Cheney in public. And, on Wednesday, Donald Trump himself loudly endorsed Stefanik.

Cheney is defiant, on Wednesday evening publishing a Washington Post op-ed defending her position and calling out McCarthy for having changed his. McCarthy, she accurately charged, has “changed his story” from his Jan. 13 statement that “The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.”

“The Republican Party is at a turning point, and Republicans must decide whether we are going to choose truth and fidelity to the Constitution,” she wrote, going on to call for Republicans to support criminal investigations of the Capitol insurrection, support a bipartisan January 6 commission with subpoena power, and “stand for genuinely conservative principles, and steer away from the dangerous and anti-democratic Trump cult of personality.”

Most Republican lawmakers, of course, will do nothing of the sort. Instead, Cheney’s House colleagues are set to vote her out next week, replacing her with Stefanik, who was elected as something of a moderate and has a much less conservative lifetime voting record than Cheney. The Club for Growth is not happy about that—though it also doesn’t seem to be defending Cheney—tweeting “Elise Stefanik is NOT a good spokesperson for the House Republican Conference. She is a liberal with a 35% CFGF lifetime rating, 4th worst in the House GOP. House Republicans should find a conservative to lead messaging and win back the House Majority.”

Back in 2017, Stefanik opposed Trump on key issues, like his withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, and voted against the tax law that was the major Republican legislative achievement of the Trump years. In late 2018, she took criticism from male Republicans for trying to help Republican women win primaries. But in 2019, she became one of Trump’s fiercest defenders during his first impeachment. It appears she had realized what would be her quickest path to leadership, and she has continued to remake herself in the Trumpy style, down to the LOTS OF CAPS in a Thursday morning tweet assailing Twitter, a private business, for “unconstitutional overreach” in having suspended her communications director.

To be clear, this is not a fight with a hero and a villain. It’s a fight between someone whose principles are largely punitive far-right ones that do include a basic respect for the democratic process and someone who apparently has no strong principles beyond her own advancement—if being a non-Trumpy Republican looks like the way to go, she’s that, and if Trump looks like the winning horse, she’s riding him. One of them is concerned that “History is watching. Our children are watching”—but is looking to create a Republican Party that is strong enough, in the long term, to hand over the maximum amount of power to the biggest corporations and promote endless war. The other is much less worried about history or policy than about getting the immediate promotion, thankyouverymuch. And today’s Republican Party is with the latter, less tied to any specific principle than to Trump—at least as long as he’s got the biggest megaphone and the most committed base—and definitely willing to jettison little things like election results or any pretense of non-racism to keep the Trump base motivated.

White House unveils details of $1.8 trillion American Families Plan

The White House has spent the final days before going public with President Joe Biden’s American Families Plan making final tweaks. But with Biden making an address to a joint session of Congress Wednesday night, it’s time. The plan, designed to complement Biden’s American Jobs Plan, includes funding for priorities like national child care, prekindergarten, paid family leave, and tuition-free community college. It extends the child tax credit in the American Rescue Plan, which is expected to slash child poverty nearly in half, along with the child and dependent care tax credit and the earned income tax credit for childless workers.

In all, the plan adds four years of free education for every student—preschool for three- and four-year-olds, and community college—as well as investing in historically Black colleges and universities, tribal colleges or universities, and minority-serving institutions; adding Pell Grants; and “evidence-based strategies to strengthen completion and retention rates at community colleges and institutions that serve students from our most disadvantaged communities.” In addition to the added years of universal prekindergarten, the American Families Plan has $225 billion for child care for younger children, ensuring that no family would pay more than 7% of its income for child care and a $15 minimum wage for the desperately underpaid childcare workforce.

Biden’s plan also invests in teachers, including helping teachers obtain in-demand certifications, increasing scholarships for future teachers, teacher retention programs, and recruitment and retention of teachers of color. 

A paid family and medical leave provision “will provide workers up to $4,000 a month, with a minimum of two-thirds of average weekly wages replaced, rising to 80 percent for the lowest wage workers. We estimate this program will cost $225 billion over a decade,” the White House said in a fact sheet, noting that “Over 30 million workers, including 67 percent of low-wage workers, do not have access to a single paid sick day,” and that women and people of color are particularly affected.

The American Families Plan also extends the summer child nutrition expansion being put in place this summer through the American Rescue Plan, and expands school meal programs.

But while it will includes $200 billion for Affordable Care Act subsidies, the Biden administration is  reportedly planning a separate bill for other healthcare priorities. Congressional Democrats have pushed back, urging the White House to include health care in this package.

When Republicans ask how Biden plans to pay for the proposal, one of the answers will be raising taxes on rich people, including an increase on the capital gains tax for people who earn more than $1 million. There’s another plan for paying for it, though: collecting the taxes that are already owed but go unpaid. As much as $1 trillion in taxes isn’t collected every year, the head of the Internal Revenue Service recently estimated, as enforcement has lagged and the number of auditors on staff has dropped down to 1950s levels. (The U.S. population has close to doubled since the 1950s.)

The Biden administration is looking to increase the IRS budget by $80 billion over 10 years—and collect as much as an additional $700 billion in taxes over the same time period as a result. That’s not a tax increase. It’s just enforcement of the existing laws, and it would target wealthy people who are currently getting away with significant tax evasion. A recent National Bureau of Economic Research paper estimated that the top 1% of earners are underreporting more than one-fifth of their income, while audit rates for the group dropped from 8% to 2.5% between 2011 and 2017, and down to 1.6% in 2019. Meanwhile, audits for people earning under $25,000 dropped much less, from 1.2% in 2011 to 0.7% in 2017. 

It goes without saying that even if we assume the rich and the poor underreport their income at the same rates, there’s a lot more revenue to be gained from auditing the rich, whose underreporting is also much more likely to be a product of intentional strategies and high-powered accounting than of simple mistakes. That, however, makes it more complicated to audit rich people, and requires investments in staff and auditing capacity.

Biden’s address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night will have limited attendance due to COVID-19 health guidelines. Additionally, the House is on recess and many Republicans are expected not to bother making the trip to Washington, D.C., for the event.

Rep. Alcee Hastings dies at 84

Rep. Alcee Hastings died Tuesday morning, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports. Hastings, 84, had reportedly been in hospice recently after a 2019 diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. First elected to the House in 1992—one of three Black House members elected that year, a first since the end of Reconstruction—Hastings was at the time of his death the longest-serving member of the Florida congressional delegation. 

Just three years and two weeks before he was elected to Congress, Hastings—then a federal judge—was impeached, convicted, and removed from office relating to criminal charges of which he had been found not guilty by a jury in 1983. He was just the sixth federal judge ever removed from office by the Senate, a decade after having become Florida’s first Black federal judge. Being elected to Congress, then, was a significant form of redemption, even if his impeachment continued to shape his career, leading him to be passed over for chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections.

Retired public defender Howard Finkelstein saw those criminal charges as retaliation for Hastings’ outspokenness. “In the ’60s, the ’70s, the ’80s, the government only—only—only went after Black men that ascended to power,” Finkelstein told the Sun-Sentinel. “That is what they did, and they came after Alcee—all the king’s horses and all the king’s men—with everything they had to destroy this man.”

Before he was a federal judge, Alcee Hastings was a civil rights lawyer, one who moved to Broward County, Florida, in the early 1960s, when motels refused to rent him a room and the lawsuits he filed included one against a restaurant that was popular with judges and lawyers even as it would not serve Black customers. He was then appointed a Broward Circuit Court judge in 1977.

In Congress, the Sun-Sentinel recounts, Hastings “didn’t have a long list of marquee legislative achievements. He exercised influence internally, serving on the Rules Committee, a critical panel through which the majority party controls the flow of business on the House floor.” He chaired the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, known as the Helsinki Commission.

The child of domestic workers, Hastings attended a segregated high school, then received his B.A. at Fisk University and his J.D. at Florida A&M. He is survived by his wife, Patricia Williams, three adult children from previous marriages, and a stepdaughter.

Hastings’ successor will be chosen in a special election, the timing of which will be decided by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

“He feared no man. He feared no institution. He was not shy about voicing his dissent about any issue,” Rep. Frederica Wilson told The Hill of Hastings. 

The floodgates open on New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and calls to resign pour out

At the beginning of the day Friday, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, now the subject of sexual harassment allegations from six women, faced an impeachment investigation and calls to resign from more than half of the state legislature. Things got worse for him from there.

Within the space of minutes, 11 members of New York's congressional delegation called for Cuomo to resign. Rep. Kathleen Rice had already done so. She’s now joined by Reps. Jerry Nadler, Jamaal Bowman, Mondaire Jones, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Carolyn Maloney, Yvette Clarke, Nydia Velazquez, Grace Meng, Antonio Delgado, and Adriano Espaillat.

Cuomo had long been known to be a bully, but he was successful in his bullying—it was something discussed privately, or alluded to only very carefully in public. Then Lindsey Boylan, a former aide, came forward with detailed allegations that he, among other things, “would go out of his way to touch me on my lower back, arms and legs,” for a long period, eventually kissing her against her will. Boylan’s account was followed by that of another former aide, Charlotte Bennett, who said that, after Cuomo asked her detailed personal questions including whether she had ever had sex with an older man (she had played middle school sports against Cuomo’s daughter), “I understood that the governor wanted to sleep with me, and felt horribly uncomfortable and scared. And was wondering how I was going to get out of it and assumed it was the end of my job.” Next came Anna Ruch, who said that within minutes of meeting Cuomo at a wedding, she had to remove his hand from her lower back and was then stunned as he put his hands on her face and asked if he could kiss her.

Cuomo’s fourth accuser, Ana Liss, is another former staffer, who offered a similar account to Boylan and Bennett, including inappropriate questions and inappropriate touching, though not to the extent Boylan described. “I’m not claiming sexual harassment per se. I’m just saying that it wasn’t a safe space for young women to work or for women in general,” Liss said. A fifth accuser described an “inappropriate” and “unethical” hug 21 years ago. And the sixth accuser remains unidentified, but apparently still works in Cuomo’s administration and says that he groped her last year.

Nadler kept his statement purely to the sexual harassment allegations against Cuomo, saying “The repeated accusations against the Governor, and the manner in which he has responded to them, have made it impossible for him to continue to govern at this point.” Nadler called for due process in investigations that could lead to criminal charges, but concluded “Governor Cuomo has lost the confidence of the people of New York. Governor Cuomo must resign.”

In a joint statement, Ocasio-Cortez and Bowman focused on the sexual harassment allegations—which, they noted, include two sexual assault allegations—saying “The fact that this latest report was so recent is alarming, and it raises concerns about the present safety and well-being of the administration’s staff.” Ocasio-Cortez and Bowman also cited “the extensive report from the Attorney General that found the Cuomo Administration hid data on COVID-19 nursing home deaths from both the public and the state legislature” in joining—as they emphasized—55 members of the state legislature in calling for his resignation.

Jones' call for Cuomo’s resignation was more wide-ranging, touching on not only sexual harassment and the nursing home deaths, but his handling of vaccination site locations and “an alleged cover-up of potential structural defects in the Mario M. Cuomo Bridge.” By contrast, Delgado's statement was terse, describing “a culture of aggression that is unfit to lead.” Not as terse as Espaillat, though, who simply tweeted “It is time for Governor Cuomo to resign.”

Meng: “The mounting sexual harassment allegations against Governor Cuomo are alarming. The challenges facing our state and New Yorkers are unprecedented, and I believe he is unable to govern effectively. The Governor should resign for the good of our state.”

Velazquez: “As one brave victim after another has come forward, it has become undeniable that Governor Cuomo has sexually mistreated women, abused his office, and lost the trust of the public to lead.”

Maloney: “We have come a long way, but now is the time to finally ensure that this generation’s courage stops harassment once and for all.”

Clarke: “These troubling allegations have reached a level that I believe impedes Governor Cuomo’s ability to serve the people of New York State to the best of his abilities.”

At this point, a majority of the House Democrats from New York have called on Cuomo to resign. Additionally, the Long Island Democrats in the state Senate have jointly called on Cuomo to “step aside” for the duration of the state attorney general’s investigation into the sexual harassment allegations, allowing Lieutenant Gov. Kathy Hochul to take over during that time, while one state senator said the entire state Senate Democratic delegation wanted him to resign.

Cuomo has thus far responded belligerently to calls for him to resign. Will this tip him over? It’s hard to see what he thinks he can accomplish under these circumstances.

With one word, Mitch McConnell again shows his allegiance to party before country

Party before country, always. That’s how Mitch McConnell operates, and a little thing like an attack on the U.S Capitol is not going to change it. McConnell has said that “Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of” Jan. 6, but when asked if he’d support Trump for president in 2024 if Trump were the Republican nominee, the Senate minority leader said he “absolutely” would.

McConnell was answering a question from Bret Baier, having gone on Fox News for an exclusive interview probably intended to rehabilitate his standing with the Republican base a little bit after daring to criticize Trump. Never mind that McConnell’s criticism of Trump was clearly intended for media consumption and came after he first refused to hold an impeachment trial while Trump was still in office, then voted against even holding an impeachment trial because Trump was no longer in office, then voted to acquit Trump in the trial that happened over his objections. He criticized the golden idol of the Republican base, which meant he needed to do some sucking up to reconsolidate his power.

So when Baier first asked McConnell about 2024, he said “I’ve got at least four members that I think are planning on running for president, plus some governors and others. There’s no incumbent. It should be a wide-open race and fun for you all to cover.” But pressed directly on his position if Trump became the nominee, McConnell was crystal clear: “The nominee of the party? Absolutely.”

And that’s not just sucking up for McConnell. The Republican Party and its power is his first and foremost concern, always.

“Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty,” McConnell said after voting to acquit him.

If Trump is nominated in 2024, “absolutely” McConnell will support getting him into a position where he’ll again have a duty to derelict.

“The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things,” McConnell said.

But the Republican leader in the Senate can and will back a nominee who he knows for a fact will do exactly that, apparently. McConnell has told us that Trump incited an insurrection, but he is willing to subject the nation to that again out of loyalty to his party. McConnell may think he’s swearing loyalty now because he has a handle on things and won’t ever have to follow through on supporting Trump. He may not. But he’s also showing that, as Kerry Eleveld recently wrote, he doesn't realize the Republican Party as he knew it is dead. McConnell thinks he can reconsolidate his leadership, but all he’s done recently is follow the extremists of his party.

Republicans say they want an investigation into Capitol attack. How deep will they let it dig?

Forty-three Republican senators protected Donald Trump from accountability for inciting the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol when they voted to acquit in his second impeachment trial. They’re going to have a challenge protecting him—and maybe themselves—through the likely next phase of the response to the Jan. 6 attack: an investigation by a bipartisan commission similar to the 9/11 commission. The question is how serious and how empowered such an investigation will be, and Democrats need to ensure that the answer is “very.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for such an investigation in early February, writing to House Democrats, “It is also clear that we will need to establish a 9/11-type Commission to examine and report upon the facts, causes and security relating to the terrorist mob attack on January 6.” Retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré is already leading a security review, but the question of protecting the U.S. Capitol as a physical building is different from understanding how Jan. 6 happened—from incitement to active planning to responses while it was underway—and not just Congress but the whole nation needs to understand that.

We need to know more about Trump’s actions. The House impeachment managers laid out his public-facing statements showing that he absolutely called his supporters to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying President Biden’s election win, and that he continued to encourage them even as they were breaching the Capitol. But we know there’s more. Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler has described a phone call between House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Trump in the midst of the attack in which McCarthy asked Trump “to publicly and forcefully call off the riot,” only to have Trump tell him, “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.” McCarthy told Herrera Beutler about the call. He needs to tell investigators about it, too. 

And Herrera Beutler’s Friday statement on that call pointed out that McCarthy isn’t the only likely witness: “To the patriots who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening, or even to the former vice president: if you have something to add here, now would be the time,” she said. That didn’t happen in time for the impeachment trial, but those people are still out there, and a bipartisan commission with subpoena power could potentially uncover some of them, along with many other facts that are necessary for ensuring this never happens again … but potentially very inconvenient for Trump and some other Republicans.

We also need to know more about failures by the Capitol Police and others tasked with protecting the Capitol. How did they miss the signs that this wasn’t going to be a peaceful free speech rally? We need to know who at the Pentagon did what with regard to National Guard deployments ahead of Jan. 6 and as the Capitol was under attack.

Lawmakers from both parties have called for a 9/11-type investigatory panel, but some of the Republicans are likely to either push for tight limits on what can be investigated or entirely back off those calls as impeachment—and the need to distract from it by acting very serious about some form of response to the attack—recedes into the past. 

“We need a 9/11 Commission to find out what happened and make sure it never happens again, and I want to make sure that the Capitol footprint can be better defended next time,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday, but let’s wait to hear the series of things he doesn’t want included and witnesses he doesn’t want called in the investigation. The second item on Graham’s list is likely to become a big Republican talking point—refocusing the response from “what happened and how can we understand it” to “what physical fortifications do we need.” It’s the Republican way: guns, not accountability.

Republicans will also start screaming if, for instance, some of their own start getting called as witnesses. It would be very interesting to hear from Sens. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, for instance, or Reps. Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

But a 9/11-type commission isn’t the only investigation in the works. Graham himself could be drawn into an investigation into efforts to overturn the Georgia election. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recorded the phone call in which Trump pressured him to “find 11,780 votes” because of an earlier phone call in which Graham asked him to illegally reject large numbers of ballots. That Georgia investigation obviously will focus on Trump. Trump also faces the possibility of a criminal investigation into Jan. 6. That’s a very remote possibility now, but given an empowered, detailed (the 9/11 commission investigated for 20 months) look into what happened … well, we can dream.

It’s unlikely that too many people will come out fully against an investigation into the attack on the Capitol. The thing to watch is what limits Republicans want to place on it. What questions do they think should be off limits? What witnesses do they not want called? Especially from people like Graham and Cruz and Hawley, that’s going to be a signal of where the really important information is—and both Democrats and good-faith Republicans need to be willing to pursue it.

Republicans say they want an investigation into Capitol attack. How deep will they let it dig?

Forty-three Republican senators protected Donald Trump from accountability for inciting the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol when they voted to acquit in his second impeachment trial. They’re going to have a challenge protecting him—and maybe themselves—through the likely next phase of the response to the Jan. 6 attack: an investigation by a bipartisan commission similar to the 9/11 commission. The question is how serious and how empowered such an investigation will be, and Democrats need to ensure that the answer is “very.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for such an investigation in early February, writing to House Democrats, “It is also clear that we will need to establish a 9/11-type Commission to examine and report upon the facts, causes and security relating to the terrorist mob attack on January 6.” Retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré is already leading a security review, but the question of protecting the U.S. Capitol as a physical building is different from understanding how Jan. 6 happened—from incitement to active planning to responses while it was underway—and not just Congress but the whole nation needs to understand that.

We need to know more about Trump’s actions. The House impeachment managers laid out his public-facing statements showing that he absolutely called his supporters to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying President Biden’s election win, and that he continued to encourage them even as they were breaching the Capitol. But we know there’s more. Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler has described a phone call between House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Trump in the midst of the attack in which McCarthy asked Trump “to publicly and forcefully call off the riot,” only to have Trump tell him, “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.” McCarthy told Herrera Beutler about the call. He needs to tell investigators about it, too. 

And Herrera Beutler’s Friday statement on that call pointed out that McCarthy isn’t the only likely witness: “To the patriots who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening, or even to the former vice president: if you have something to add here, now would be the time,” she said. That didn’t happen in time for the impeachment trial, but those people are still out there, and a bipartisan commission with subpoena power could potentially uncover some of them, along with many other facts that are necessary for ensuring this never happens again … but potentially very inconvenient for Trump and some other Republicans.

We also need to know more about failures by the Capitol Police and others tasked with protecting the Capitol. How did they miss the signs that this wasn’t going to be a peaceful free speech rally? We need to know who at the Pentagon did what with regard to National Guard deployments ahead of Jan. 6 and as the Capitol was under attack.

Lawmakers from both parties have called for a 9/11-type investigatory panel, but some of the Republicans are likely to either push for tight limits on what can be investigated or entirely back off those calls as impeachment—and the need to distract from it by acting very serious about some form of response to the attack—recedes into the past. 

“We need a 9/11 Commission to find out what happened and make sure it never happens again, and I want to make sure that the Capitol footprint can be better defended next time,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday, but let’s wait to hear the series of things he doesn’t want included and witnesses he doesn’t want called in the investigation. The second item on Graham’s list is likely to become a big Republican talking point—refocusing the response from “what happened and how can we understand it” to “what physical fortifications do we need.” It’s the Republican way: guns, not accountability.

Republicans will also start screaming if, for instance, some of their own start getting called as witnesses. It would be very interesting to hear from Sens. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz, for instance, or Reps. Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

But a 9/11-type commission isn’t the only investigation in the works. Graham himself could be drawn into an investigation into efforts to overturn the Georgia election. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recorded the phone call in which Trump pressured him to “find 11,780 votes” because of an earlier phone call in which Graham asked him to illegally reject large numbers of ballots. That Georgia investigation obviously will focus on Trump. Trump also faces the possibility of a criminal investigation into Jan. 6. That’s a very remote possibility now, but given an empowered, detailed (the 9/11 commission investigated for 20 months) look into what happened … well, we can dream.

It’s unlikely that too many people will come out fully against an investigation into the attack on the Capitol. The thing to watch is what limits Republicans want to place on it. What questions do they think should be off limits? What witnesses do they not want called? Especially from people like Graham and Cruz and Hawley, that’s going to be a signal of where the really important information is—and both Democrats and good-faith Republicans need to be willing to pursue it.

This shouldn’t be the last day of the impeachment trial. Live coverage #1

Following the latest bombshell news about Kevin McCarthy’s screaming match with Donald Trump on January 6, will House Managers request witnesses, or will today be the final day of the second impeachment trial for Trump? We’ll find out soon. 

The impeachment trial is being aired on major television news networks and streamed on their websites. Daily Kos will have continuing coverage.

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:05:10 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

I can’t wait to find out which Republican Senators care more about being primaried than their country, democracy, their children, their grandchildren, the truth, decency or their own name in history.

— Jim Gaffigan (@JimGaffigan) February 13, 2021

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:06:59 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

How much of this conversation was “Would you just shut the #$%@ up, Tommy?”

Senators Mike Lee and Tommy Tuberville were huddled together on the Senate floor before the trial kicked off Saturday. Trump attorneys Bruce Castor and Michael Van der veen came in and talked with them. Lindsey Graham came over to talk for a moment.

— Daniel Flatley (@DanielPFlatley) February 13, 2021

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:09:17 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

House mangers are going to ask for at least one witness! Now van der Veen claiming “there was a stipulation going around that there weren’t going to be any witnesses.” Van der Veen now says he wants “over 100 depositions.”

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:11:54 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

They will need 51 votes to get witnesses.

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:12:08 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Van der Veen is pissed. Really wants to deliver that closing argument and go home. But sure, let’s have all the witnesses. Let’s get every damn person who ever attended a Trump rally in there. Not much I can think of that would be better than a string of Trumpies stepping up to say how “the president told us to be there.”

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:14:40 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Rep. Raskin challenges Trump’s team to simply bring forward their client.

Van der Veen says McCarthy disclaims “the rumor” saying it didn’t happen. Now they’re saying that the conversation with Tuberville and Lee didn’t happen. Which is a lie.

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:15:24 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

“When Raskin said he wanted to call Herrera Beutler, Graham shook his head no, and put hand on forehand,” per pooler @jason_donner

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 13, 2021

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:15:38 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

I’m kind of liking just how snarly van der Veen is this morning. They really don’t want anyone to hear this evidence.

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:16:41 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Van der Veen: “It doesn’t matter what happened after the insurgents attacked this building.” That’s not a great sale to the people who were at the pointy end of the spears.

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:18:46 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Van der Veen now declaring that he wants Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris to come to his office in Philadelphia. And people are laughing at him. 

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:21:12 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Rep. Raskin says there was never any “stipulation” about having no witnesses. Doesn’t get into the histrionics that van der Veen engaged in.

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:23:04 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Now a roll call vote on whether to hold debate on calling witnesses or subpoenaing documents. 

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:28:18 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

A source familiar with the work of the House Managers says former Vice President Mike Pence’s Chief of Staff Marc Short has been contacted about providing information about threat to Pence. Short has not responded, the source said.

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) February 13, 2021

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:32:58 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

The vote passes, with Collins, Murkowski, Romney, and Sasse voting with Democrats. After the vote, Lindsey Graham changed his vote to an “aye.” Why isn’t clear, but you can be sure that the reason will turn out to be jackassery.

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:41:11 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

So, by 55 — 45, the vote passes to open debate on calling witnesses. 

Witnesses themselves will also be subject to votes, and no matter what van der Veen shouts, they can do it over Zoom, or any other way, that the Senate approves. Suck it, Michael.

But the biggest point of the day may be van der Veen shouting how nothing that happened after the insurgents attacked the Capitol matters. If that wasn’t a tacit admission that the facts of how Trump handled the assault are damning, it was very near it.

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 3:43:36 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

The reason they're all laughing at you, Van Der Veen, is that in the Clinton impeachment trial, the testimony of witnesses was taken remotely on videotape and then played in the Senate. No one had to go down to your office in Phillyaheedelphia. https://t.co/H8SDLQWKTa

— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) February 13, 2021

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 4:07:09 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

What’s happening right now, with all the little clusters around the room, is that they’re trying to work out some sort of deal. It may be that each side gets one witness, or they may allow each side to call three witnesses, or the whole thing could fall apart and Republicans could demand a thousand witnesses.

If McConnell still has any control over his caucus, there will be some kind of deal, but that’s definitely not a sure thing.

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 4:39:11 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Then Senatorial version of Where’s Waldo. Find the one jackass who isn’t wearing a mask. 

Senators continue asking questions in Trump impeachment trial: Live coverage #4

The question and answer period continues true to form: lies and evasions from Team Trump and a solid performance from the House impeachment managers but for the lingering question of why they aren’t calling witnesses—something the questions have repeatedly if inadvertently highlighted the need for.

The impeachment trial is being aired on major television news networks and streamed on their websites. Daily Kos will have continuing coverage.

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 10:28:13 PM +00:00 · Laura Clawson

Cruz has a question for both sides.

The House managers spent 15 minutes to articulate a new standard for incitement. Is this new standard derived from the criminal code or any Supreme Court case? Also, allow me to recycle the defense lies about Vice President Harris.

Raskin says he’s not familiar with the statement from Harris, which is in any case irrelevant to the proceedings at hand. In this case, we have nothing to compare Trump’s actions to because it’s unprecedented, so the standard is being set. Trump and his lawyers are arguing that what he did was just fine. The House impeachment managers are trying to prevent this from being repeated. That’s the point here.

Van der Veen telegraphs exactly how coordinated with Cruz this question was, during one of Cruz’ visits to the defense lawyers, and offers the exact legal citations Cruz wanted. But of course this is not a criminal proceeding, and this whole answer is outrageously dishonest.

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 10:28:38 PM +00:00 · Laura Clawson

Did Cruz write out a word-for-word script for this?

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 10:33:46 PM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

A question for the House Managers: What is the relevance of Trump’s tweet on the evening of Jan. 6, telling the insurrectionists to “remember this day forever.” House Manager Castro recaps the violence of the day, notes that Trump didn’t call the National Guard, and that saying “remember this day forever,” shows that what had happened was at his behest and what he wanted. Why would you praise and commemorate something you opposed? 

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 10:37:55 PM +00:00 · Laura Clawson

Sen. Cassidy with a question for both: Sen. Tuberville reports he spoke to Trump at 2:15 and told Trump that Pence had just evacuated. Presumably Trump understood that rioters were in the building. Trump then tweeted that Pence lacked courage. Does this show that Trump was tolerant of the intimidation of Pence?

Van der Veen: “Directly no, but I dispute the premise of your facts.”

Then pivots to attacking the House managers for not having … what, gotten Trump to tell them the truth on this?

“I have a problem with the facts … in the question, because I have no idea.” (Guy, just take out the “in the question” part.) But he says sure, Trump must have been concerned for everyone’s safety.

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 10:40:26 PM +00:00 · Laura Clawson

Raskin notes that Trump’s lawyers keep blaming the House managers for not having information that is “in the sole possession of their client,” who declined to come testify.

That’s about it, really. That’s the answer. But Raskin also points out that not showing up in a civil proceeding—according to the late Justice Scalia—can speak against you. 

“Rather than yelling at us and screaming at us that we didn’t have all the facts about what your client did,” the defense could have brought their client to defend himself.

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 10:42:21 PM +00:00 · Laura Clawson

Trump’s lawyer claims the reports about Mike Lee were from someone’s friend overhearing something in a bar. In fact, Lee himself confirmed the calls on the record to his hometown paper, the Deseret News. His office also confirmed them to CNN and the Washington Post.

— Josh Dorner (@JoshDorner) February 12, 2021

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 10:43:55 PM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

Plaskett continues to kill it, in talking about Trump’s dereliction of duty, wonders aloud if anyone there (Senate Republicans) had any experience of Trump turning on them. 

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 10:49:46 PM +00:00 · Laura Clawson

Aren’t the House managers being very unfair by not offering Trump more extensive due process?

Van der Veen once again wants a question reread. Is this a strategy or does he need this much time to get his thoughts together on softballs?

He thinks that Trump deserved more due process. Due process due process due process. This is all so unfair. Whine whine whine.

Refer here to Raskin’s last answer: Trump refused to come testify, and this is a civil trial. He is not going to be deprived of his liberty over this or even made to pay out money. This is about what’s acceptable in the U.S.—specifically, whether violent insurrection aimed at overturning an election is acceptable—not about Donald Trump’s personal rights or even about punishing him as an individual. 

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 10:51:26 PM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

Due process only exists in criminal law. This is not a criminal proceeding. Trump was offered opportunity to testify. He refused. What more due process do you want?

— Daniel Goldman (@danielsgoldman) February 12, 2021

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 10:56:16 PM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

Raskin says it would be a dereliction of congress’ duty to pretend, as the defense wants them to do, that Trump is just some guy in the mob instead of being (at that time) the Commander in Chief. Notes that Trump’s lawyers is a criminal defendant. (Which, in my opinion, he should be.)

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 10:57:20 PM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

In case you missed it: 

Michael Van Der Veen: "This is about the most miserable experience I've had down here in Washington, DC."@RepRaskin: "You should have been here on January 6th."#ImpeachmentTrial pic.twitter.com/zjS30I3wS9

— CSPAN (@cspan) February 12, 2021

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 10:59:22 PM +00:00 · Laura Clawson

Another Republican question. Roughly: How could Trump have incited something that was pre-planned? 

In other words, “allow me to ignore the meticulous case showing that Trump called this rally and spent months causing people to premeditate this.”

Trump’s lawyer agrees that Trump’s speech on January 6 could not have been the sole inciting factor, while ignoring everything else he said and did. Then he tries to return to the last question, so consider him pre-destroyed by Raskin.

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 11:01:04 PM +00:00 · Laura Clawson

I love that Republicans think constantly pointing out that a group of white nationalists known to work closely with Trump’s favorite felon went to Capitol early to breach the perimeter is somehow a defense of Trump.

— Gregg Levine (@GreggJLevine) February 12, 2021

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 11:09:44 PM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

Hillary question … basically, could the dream of locking her up come true if Trump is convicted. Team Trump says, “Yes!” And then rambles some more. 

Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 11:24:28 PM +00:00 · Barbara Morrill

The question and answer session is over.