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.
