Giuliani’s home searched, phone seized, as investigators finally get past roadblocks laid by Trump

Multiple sources are reporting that federal investigators executed a search warrant at a Manhattan apartment owned by former mayor, current Trump surrogate, and leader of the effort to overturn the 2020 election, Rudy Giuliani. According to The New York Times, that search is directly connected to an investigation of Giuliani’s actions in Ukraine.

For literally years, Giuliani has been pushing false stories about President Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and actions that were taken in Ukraine during the Obama administration. The stories that Giuliani brought back from Ukraine led directly to the dismissal of a talented ambassador, generated a whole series of congressional investigations, and encouraged Donald Trump to make a phone call to the Ukrainian president that led directly to Trump’s first impeachment

Wednesday, Apr 28, 2021 · 7:08:34 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

The New York Times is now reporting that investigators have extended their search to Giuliani’s office, and to the home of Guiliani associate Victoria Toensing, who also worked with Giuliani on several of his efforts to convince former Ukrainian officials to create false charges against Joe Biden or Huntet Biden. Toensing is closely associated with Russian organized crime figure Dmytro Firtash, who was also connected to Parnas and Fruman.

Wednesday, Apr 28, 2021 · 7:13:39 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Rudy Giuliani is not appearing on his 3 pm radio show on 77 WABC today.

— lvl 46 dog-faced pony potus (@thetomzone) April 28, 2021

Wednesday, Apr 28, 2021 · 7:19:42 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

I concur that Rudy Giuliani is in deep trouble

— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) April 28, 2021

Wednesday, Apr 28, 2021 · 8:10:56 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

A reminder of the legal standard: A federal magistrate judge concluded there was probable cause evidence of a crime or crimes would be present at the residence of Victoria Toensing. https://t.co/U0LJV9G8IX

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) April 28, 2021

Despite multiple denials, Trump eventually admitted that he sent Giuliani to Ukraine specifically for the purposes of finding—or creating—dirt Trump could use against Biden. In the process, Giuliani worked worked with a pair of scam artists who were arrested trying to leave the country and charged with bribery, conspiracy, and funneling foreign funds into U.S. elections. Considering all this, it’s not surprising that as far back as October of 2019, Giuliani was known to be the subject of a criminal investigation.

What’s amazing is that it’s taken this long for investigators to get around to searching Giuliani’s East Side apartment. But then, as people say, elections matter.

There’s an irony in The New York Times breaking the news that Giuliani is being investigated for his actions in connections with Ukraine, because it was the Times which provided Giuliani with breathless reporting in which they pasted pages of unverified charges made against the Biden family. Some actual investigation by Bloomberg in May of 2019 showed that there really was a scandal, but it didn’t involve Biden. It involved Giuliani and a cohort of pro-Russia Ukrainians working to create a deceptive image of what had happened that was exactly backward from actual events.

Somehow, despite what seemed to be heaps of evidence that ensnared Giuliani into the schemes for which his associates Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas were indicted, Giuliani was left free to wander about the country, spreading lies about the election and heading up the team that generated the second Trump impeachment.

For a guy who once said he was worried about becoming a “laughingstock,” it’s really hard to see how Giuliani could have done much better.

According to reporting both the Times and at CNBC, investigators have been trying to get a search warrant for Giuliani’s residence “for months.” However, those attempts were repeatedly blocked. Now that Trump and former Attorney General Bill Barr aren’t in place to keep the wheels of justice stuck in the mud, it seems that investigators have finally gotten around to not only searching Giuliani’s apartment, but seizing all his electronic devices.

The Wall Street Journal reports that investigators arrived at Giuliani’s place at 6 AM before beginning their search. So expect Fox News to be filled with the same umbrage that greeted a search of Roger Stone’s home before his arrest, and the offices of Michael Cohen, before his arrest. 

The investigation into Giuliani is, as might be expected, directly connected to the cases against Parnas and Fruman. Both of those indictments featured false names to cover what was clearly Giuliani’s involvement. The investigation is expected to extend from illegal lobbying for Ukrainian officials in the United States, to Giuliani’s business dealings in Ukraine, and his involvement in the removal of experienced ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

The story of Giuliani’s attempt to manufacture dirt on Biden, assist a collection of foreign criminals, and thwart the will of American voters isn’t over. But the lawyer who helped get Trump impeached—twice—may finally be getting his real day in court.

Still more details emerge showing that Matt Gaetz was using his pal Greenberg to pimp young women

The story of Rep. Matt Gaetz is like one of those horror films that generates an extra large jolt of fear by first tossing up something that causes laughter. It’s clear that what Gaetz has done is genuinely criminal, and that the way his crimes were systematically ignored by Republicans at every level in both Florida and Washington, D.C. speaks to an incredible level of hypocrisy and corruption. On the other hand, the details are … ridiculous.

For example, Gaetz has repeatedly put out statements saying that “Rep. Matt Gaetz has never paid for sex.” It turns out this may be true. Technically. Because as Daily Beast reports, records show that Gaetz only paid his friend Joel Greenberg. It was Greenberg who then actually paid for the sex. This is the kind of logic that’s certain to make heads nod on the couches of Fox & Friends. “See? Gaetz was telling the truth.”

But to take this claim and turn the facepalm level to 11, it turns out that Gaetz paid Greenberg $900 using the cash app Venmo. Greenberg then sent cash along to three women, also using Venmo, that totaled $900. And before anyone starts up the Fox-brand coincidence engine, Gaetz included a memo along with his payment saying “hit up ___” where “___” was the name of one of the women involved.

This comes on the same day that Gaetz’s office issued a statement saying the women on his staff thought of him as “a principled and morally grounded leader” and that none of them had witnessed anything other than “the utmost professionalism and respect.” There was no mention of whether Gaetz had provided these women with blindfolds or fireplace pokers on entry into his office.

In an over-the-top op-ed, Gaetz warned that there would be a “drip drip drip” of news coming out about his activities. Somehow, Gaetz seems to think that the more information appears, the more it shows that he is innocent. But at this point, the sheer amount of daily material appearing on Gaetz is more than a little daunting, and it’s not as if all of this is coming through leaks at the FBI or Department of Justice. Gaetz seems to have done almost nothing to hide his activities.

Gaetz defending Trump during Trump’s second impeachment.

And that’s perhaps the most disturbing part of this story. Not what Gaetz did, but that he did it so loudly.  From the sex games he played in the Florida House—where sleeping with interns was a goal and finding virgins scored extra “points”—to the nude videos he has circulated on the flood of the U.S. House, Gaetz was absolutely open with his fellow Republicans. Gaetz walked around preaching family values while apparently jetting off to visit sex workers in the Bahamas, or working with Greenberg to generate fake IDs for underage girls, or paying for those girls to fly to hotels where Gaetz could be “generous” to them with “gifts.” 

No Republican in either Washington or Florida can claim to be surprised about Matt Gaetz. The news that’s drip, drip, dripping out each day isn’t a revelation to them. Gaetz has bragged about these things for years. This is a guy who ran a concerted campaign in favor of revenge porn. And not once was any of it allowed to slow his rise through Republican ranks. Gaetz was passing around nude photos of his conquests on the House floor as other Republicans were lining up behind him as a “leader.”

Whether it was acting as one of Donald Trump’s biggest supporters, voting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, or storming a secure facility with phone cameras running, other Republicans have repeatedly stood behind Gaetz both figuratively and literally, and all the time they knew exactly who he was. There may be staffers now coming forward with horror stories, but it’s been only weeks since congressmen with decades of experience lined up to champion Gaetz.

Gaetz stands in front of two dozen House Republicans after leading them in an invasion of a secure facility in violation of House rules.

PizzaGaetz, FloodGaetz, GaetzGate ... whatever the name, it just keeps getting worse. And it’s not just about Matt Gaetz. It’s about the Republican Party and a culture that regularly ignores misogyny, sexual harassment, and genuine crimes. Because when it comes to abuse of women … that’s what being a Republican is all about.

It certainly explains the difficulty in passing a new version of the Violence Against Women Act. 

In any case, the specifics of this little bit of the story about teenage sex trafficking, buying sex for other Republican officials, and the international “ganjapreneur” story may be about to unwind in the public eye as Greenberg has apparently decided to take a deal in exchange for testimony. As The New York Times reports, Gaetz isn’t involved in all of Greenberg’s charges—such as stalking a political opponent or trying to bribe a federal official—but Gaetz was certainly there for many of the charges that are about to be laid out in great detail.

What’s a good sign that Greenberg’s testimony won’t be good for Gaetz? Maybe this statement from Greenberg’s attorney: “I’m sure Matt Gaetz is not feeling very comfortable today,” said attorney Fritz Scheller. 

Republicans in general shouldn’t be feeling too comfortable. Unfortunately, they are.

When it comes to Joel Greenberg and the trio of women to whom he distributed Gaetz’s funds, there is no direct mention of their age. However, the terms that Greenberg placed in the memos of their payments might give a clue: “Tuition,” “School,” and “School.”

Friday, Apr 9, 2021 · 2:19:44 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

New: @RepMattGaetz has hired white collar criminal defense lawyers Marc Mukasey & Isabelle Kirshner to lead his legal team. Mukasey has a long history in former President Trump’s orbit, and notably defended SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who was acquitted of murder in 2019.

— Garrett Haake (@GarrettHaake) April 9, 2021

John Durham resigning as US Attorney, but won’t let go of pointless ‘investigation’ of Russia probe

John “Bull” Durham announced on Friday afternoon that he is stepping down from his position in the Department of Justice. Presumably this also means an end to his role as special counsel investigating the origins of the Russia investigation. (Note: latest reporting indicates he’s not dropping the probe.)  In the announcement of Durham’s resignation, there is no mention of any further indictments or report upcoming from that investigation.

Durham was appointed by then-Attorney General William Barr in May 2019. The prosecutor had been involved in the investigation of torture and prisoner abuse during the Bush administration, and was directly involved in dismissing every one of the 101 charges on that front. That certainly made him seem an appropriately partisan choice for Barr when seeking someone who would fulfill Donald Trump’s dreams of turning the tables on the Mueller investigation.

But now, after an investigation that lasted months longer than Mueller’s, Durham is leaving with only a single minor indictment against a CIA official who signed off on a single document. Far from proving Trump’s conspiracy theories, Durham seems to have proved that they were conspiracy theories. And now he’s leaving.

Friday, Feb 26, 2021 · 10:38:21 PM +00:00 · Joan McCarter

A clarification in the latest reporting: Durham is not resigning as special counsel, just as the US Attorney in Connecticut. He apparently will still continue doing . . . whatever it is he is doing as special counsel.

Though the spring of 2019 marked the official start of Durham’s investigation, it was clear Barr tapped him for the role months sooner. But almost from the start, Durham’s investigation ran up on the shoals of hard truth. Despite Barr escorting him around the world in an effort to find something that could be turned into evidence behind Trump’s claims, it turned out that allied intelligence services refused to play along. It Italy, Australia, and the U.K., attempts to “prove” that Trump was somehow ensnared into making over 100 contacts with Russian agents were slapped away by officials unwilling to play along.

That was a setback. However, Durham only expanded his scope to look beyond current officials and those directly involved in decisions that led to Trump’s investigation. In fact, he appeared to be digging into unrelated events as an excuse to go after former officials under President Obama.

Still, despite unlimited assistance, Barr’s personal attention, and Trump cheering on the sidelines, Durham’s report never seemed to appear. At first, it seemed as if he intended to have something ready to blow up media attention on Trump’s first impeachment trial. That didn’t happen.

Then all through the summer, Barr hinted that the report was right around the corner. Except it wasn’t.

At the start of September, it seemed that Barr and Durham were still planning a genuine “October surprise.” But then Durham’s longtime assistant left the investigation in mid-September, with language that made it seem as if there was nothing there. Durham soon had his remaining staff looking at the Clinton Foundation for absolutely unspecified reasons because … why not?  However, as actual October arrived, it seemed the real surprise was going to be on Trump

Because there was no Durham report. The single charge levied back in August began to look like the only bullet in Durham’s pop gun. 

Unless there is still some serious information, and more charges, not only is Durham leaving after a fruitless quest into unwarranted claims, this will also mean that Barr repeatedly and seriously overstated the significance of what Durham had uncovered. This is an investigation that was repeatedly put forward as if it had unearthed significant evidence in support of the idea that Trump was unfairly targeted, or that the Mueller investigation took partisan actions. None of that evidence has appeared.

Durham may be resigning, but this might not be the last time he visits the Department of Justice.

Republicans aren’t turning away from Trump’s Big Lie, because confronting the truth is too painful

It’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) time, and Sen. Ted Cruz is knocking them dead—both metaphorically and literally—with jokes about how wearing a mask during a pandemic is “dumb.” But just because Cruz took time out to scoff at the pandemic, make fun of Bernie Sanders’ mittens, and throw in the requisite lies about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t mean anyone at the “conservative” conference has taken their eye off the Big Lie. That’s still going strong.

As the Associated Press reports, Republican officials across the nation continue to spread divisiveness and encourage violence by pushing disinformation and conspiracies that mimic, or exceed, the claims that drove the deadly Jan. 6 insurgency. Meanwhile, the vaunted algorithms behind social media are driving the evolution of these conspiracies by selectively elevating the most outrageous—and most threatening—lies. Not only are Republicans failing to condemn the assault on the Capitol; in increasing numbers, they’re supporting it.

Just as anyone could (and many did) predict, the failure to exact any consequence on Republican leaders for their part in the attempted overthrow of the government is turning what happened on Jan. 6 from a one-time tragedy into a practice run.

Not only are state and county Republican officials endorsing the Big Lie about election fraud, many of them are explicitly supporting the violent assault on Jan. 6. At the same time, Republicans in leadership positions who have repudiated either the violence on Jan. 6 or Donald Trump’s lies that made that day possible are finding themselves “sanctioned” by county and state parties, smothered in death threats, and “othered” by a party they help to lead.

Meanwhile, on the eve of CPAC, Donald Trump provided direction to the party he controls about where things are going next. As Politico reports, Trump is assembling much of the same team who saw him through the 2016 election, with Corey Lewandowski to be placed in change of a super PAC aimed at expanding Trump’s “post-presidential political apparatus.”

Notice that this doesn’t seem to be a PAC that’s directly dedicated to the election of any particular candidate. Neither it is a PAC aimed at supporting some particular set of policies. This is a pool of money that will be used to one end: expanding the power and influence of Donald Trump. 

For anyone believing that Trump would quietly sit in his cart for endless rounds of cheating at golf while Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz were pushed into obscurity by a party deeply embarrassed over the end result of Trumpism … that’s not how this is going. Instead, Cruz is front and center at CPAC, Hawley is considered a top contender for the Republican nomination, and rank-and-file Republicans are increasingly ready to treat Jan. 6 like their very own Beer Hall Putsch.

The day after Trump’s second impeachment trial, Sen. Mitch McConnell stood up in the Senate to say this:

“Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the vice president.

They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth – because he was angry he'd lost an election.

Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty.”

On Thursday, McConnell said this when asked by Fox News’ Bret Baier whether McConnell would back Trump if he got the nomination.

“The nominee of the party? Absolutely.”

All of this may make it seem as if the question of where the Republican Party goes next has already been decided. Trump has won, McConnell has folded, and every opponent is on the run. However, that’s not quite the case.

Despite bringing out record numbers of Republican voters, Trump’s tactics of racism, misogyny, and plain old fascism also generated an even larger pushback. After his surprise win in 2016, the Republican Party under Trump failed to hold onto the House, failed to hold onto the White House, and failed to hold onto the Senate. His reprehensible statements and divisive actions have done what many thought impossible: getting young Americans to vote in great numbers. They’ve also taken what was one of the biggest Republican strongholds—the suburbs—and turned it into a new source of Democratic Party power.

As columnist Nancy LeTourneau points out, there’s a good reason that Republicans have been unable to capitalize on even record amounts of support: They simply ran out of ideas a long, long time ago. 

For decades now, the central disagreement between Democrats and Republicans has been about the size and role of the federal government. When it comes to domestic politics, the GOP has promoted tax cuts in order to "starve the beast" and deregulation. In that way, Donald Trump fit right in with the classic Republican agenda. 

It could be argued that this was the one achievement of Trump’s whole term in the sense of being conservative in the classical sense. Trump’s tax cut for billionaires was exactly in the wheelhouse of the battle Republicans have been stoking against the programs of FDR’s New Deal for almost a century. Only Trump forgot the bathtub. As in, he gave the billionaires their billions, and went right on expanding the government—particularly in ways that he could use as a club to support his xenophobic agenda, such as granting ever more expansive reach to ICE, or that ultimate example of a modern folly, Trump’s wall along the southern border.

In fact, there’s a good argument to be made that Trump didn’t take over the Republican Party and empty out their last stock of “things to do,” because that store was already empty before he came in. Republicans were already running on the fumes of the things they were against—women, Blacks, gays, and immigrants. Their positive ideas were down to … down to … Surely there was one. Wasn’t there?

It was exactly this factor that allowed Trump to sail in. His willingness to set aside the reedy dog whistles and blow Trump-et blasts of hate really did seem like “speaking the truth” in a Republican Party that had been saying the same things. Only quietly.

So, when CNN reports that more than two dozen members of the House and Senate are unwilling to even admit that the election results were real, and that Joe Biden is the legitimate president of the United States, it should be shocking. But not surprising.

It’s not so much that Trump’s lies reveal him as the emperor who was duped into strutting around naked. It’s that the Republican Party has been without any real “new clothes” for so long, they’re willing to settle for Trump. He is, in their mind, better than fading away into the history book of parties that lost their reason for being. His lies, no matter how vile, energize a base of people, while the drivel coming out of the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Hoover Institution simply don’t.

As LeTourneau says plainly, “Republicans are rejecting democracy because they lost the battle of ideas.” They’ve lost that battle because they’re basically unarmed. Unarmed, that is, except for spreading hate and screaming “freedom” when what they mean is killing people for profit. However, despite appearances and the literal golden ass on worshipful display at CPAC, this doesn’t mean that the fight is over and that all Republicans will not file into line neatly behind Trump.

The number of Republicans who have been openly willing to defy Trump may seem small, and proposals like Mitt Romney’s child payments may seem like outliers, but these small numbers have outsized power. After all, how many times have Democrats mumbled the name “Joe Manchin” in the last month? Republicans already have that problem. Times five. 

Right now, Republicans seem willing to buy into the Big Lie about the election, even at the cost of potentially destroying the nation, because they have nothing else. They’re willing to burn it all down because they realize they’re out of alternatives.

But that willingness to follow Trump is far from a guarantee that their next election, or their next putsch, will be any more successful than the last.

Opening hearing into Jan. 6 by joint Senate committee highlights confusion over intelligence

On Tuesday, a joint oversight hearing in the Senate began investigations into the events of Jan. 6. Testifying were a number of officers and leaders in law enforcement including: former House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, former Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, and acting Chief of the Metropolitan Washington D.C. Police Robert Contee. 

The hearing actually opened with moving and disturbing testimony from Police Captain Carneysha Mendoza, who recounted her experiences during the Jan. 6 insurgency. She rushed to the Capitol in response to first signals of the emergency by dealing with a pipe bomb and charging into the fray at the Capitol. She suffered a punishing physical attack that included sustaining lingering chemical burns from armed insurgents.

The opening statements from police leadership showed some significant differences between how these officials viewed their roles on Jan. 6 and the limits of their positions and forces. They were united around the idea that this was “a failure of intelligence,” but not always in the sense that information wasn’t properly relayed. Despite Republican efforts, the outcome of these discussions seems to be focused in a way that can’t be making Republicans happy.

One issue came up as a possible solution to dealing with these events: Washington, D.C. statehood.

Just the opening agreements showed how clumsy the existing structure is when it comes to dealing with … anything, really. Sund indicated that he had to go through the Capitol Police Board—which included Stenger and Irving—to get so much as “a glass of water for his officers on a hot day.” In later testimony, Contee made it clear that Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser lacks the authority of a state governor when it comes to calling in the National Guard. 

Under questioning, a picture built of a lack of intelligence—not always in the lack of communication but in the lack of basic information. Specifically, Sund repeatedly pointed out that the FBI and other agencies did not seem to be taking domestic terrorists seriously.

The two biggest issues that came up were intelligence—especially with Sund repeatedly saying that intelligence agencies failed to cast “a wide enough net” when it came to considering the plans of white supremacist domestic terrorist groups—and the clumsiness of getting more forces assigned to the Capitol because of the divided, multilevel control of forces in and around Washington.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar

Klobuchar opened by asking all to agree that this was a planned and coordinated attack involving white supremacists and extremist groups that represented a real threat to the Capitol. All the former and current police leadership agreed.  

Klobuchar then questioned Sund about the reaction of the Capitol Police to an intelligence report received from the FBI on Jan. 5 warning of potential violence, and that Trump supporters were coming “prepared for war.” Sund variously claimed that it wasn’t reviewed until the evening of Jan. 5, that he never saw the report, and that it was never sent to either the Metro D.C. Police or the sergeants at arms. This report, and the lack of response to the extremely violent language it showcased, came up in much subsequent questioning.

Sund repeatedly defended the idea that he had conducted an “all hands on deck” approach that was “appropriate” based on all past events. However, he also pointed out that he had to run everything past the Capitol Police board (specifically in this case just Stenger and Irving). Sund claimed that he could not request the National Guard without a declaration of emergency from the Capitol Police board.

Questioned about the delay in National Guard response, Sund admitted to frustration. “I don’t know what issues there were at the Pentagon, but I was certainly surprised at the delay.”

Sund finished by saying: “Jan. 6 was a change in the threat we face.” While Stenger noted that while the United States has  greatly expanded intelligence since 9/11, it doesn’t seem efficient at gathering information on internal threats.

Sen. Gary Peters

Peters noted an FBI report carrying a number of expressly violent threats from the Proud Boys and other groups did reach the Capitol Police on Jan. 5, but it didn’t get to operational command. Sund pushed the report off as “raw data” based on “social media posts” that needed to be investigated, something that could not happen given the few hours between the report and events on Jan. 6. 

Sund insisted that the CP “expanded our perimeter” and “coordinated”  based on a Jan. 3 report. Peters went back to Sund’s claims about “military style coordination” and asked what the leaders saw. Sund noted that insurgents “brought climbing gear, they brought explosives, they brought chemical agents.” Sund also indicated that marching toward the Capitol 20 minutes before Trump’s speech ended appeared to be a coordinated movement.

Contee noted that insurgents used hand signals, radios, coordinated use of chemical munitions, and placement of pipe bombs. Both Irving and Stenger agreed it was a coordinated attack.

Contee also noted he was “stunned” by the “tepid response” from the National Guard when the coordinated nature of the attack was clear. He said that Sund was “begging” for the National Guard on a call to the Pentagon, but there was not an immediate “yes.” Instead there was a concern about “optics” and an “exercise to check the boxes.” 

In closing remarks, Peters noted that intelligence agencies are eight months late on a requested report on the threat from domestic terrorism.

Sen. Roy Blunt:

Blunt asked Sund about attempts to secure the National Guard on Jan. 6. Sund said he made a call asking for this assistance at 1:09 PM, but Irving and Stenger didn’t approve it until 2:10 PM. This timing became the focus of much later questioning. 

Irving said first: “I did not take call from Sund as a request.” Then he clarified that he meant the earlier call on Jan. 4. According to Irving, Sund said he had received an “offer” for National Guard forces and that Irving “talked it through” with Sund and Stenger, who “agreed” the “intelligence did not support” using National Guard. Irving says they all decided to “let it go.”

Stenger was asked about what was meant by the National Guard being “on stand by.” It appears neither he nor Sund did anything to keep the Guard in the loop. 

Sund claimed that he asked Irving for Guard assistance at 1:09 PM. Irving said he was on the floor at the time (which appears to be the case) and didn’t recall getting request until 2:10 PM. “I have no phone record of a call from Chief Sund.” He then says he talked to Sund at 1:28 PM, but Sund did not make a request at that time. 

Sen. Rob Portman

Portman requested that they get Sund and Irving’s phone records to deal with the issue. 

Sund admits that Capitol Police were not prepared for a large insurrection or “infiltration” of the Capitol. Portman got both Stenger and Irving to admit that Secret Service has a plan for a similar attacks on the White House, and he wondered why the Capitol Police did not.

Under questioning, Sund admits that all Capitol Police are not outfitted with “hard gear” (helmet, shields, etc.). “Up until Jan. 6, the [seven platoons of “civil disturbance” officers] had been enough” for every previous event. Only four of those platoons had hard gear. Sund said he had ordered riot gear, but it was delayed “because of COVID.”

Contee indicated that in addition to seven platoons with full riot gear, all Metro D.C. police have helmets, protective gloves, gas masks, batons, etc. and all officers have basic civil disturbance training and almost all get additional training. Sund said that such training was “a process being implemented” by Capitol Police.

Portman underlined that officers had not given proper training and didn’t have the necessary equipment. “I appreciate the sacrifice and the bravery of that day, but we owe it to the officers” to fill those needs.

Sen. Patrick Leahy

Leahy acted to cut off claims that the House or Senate were a bottleneck. He asked all of the law enforcement leaders if “the appropriations committee has met your request for salaries and operating expenses in every fiscal year.” Irving: “Yes.” Stenger: “Yes.”

“I happen to think that we have not a failure of inadequate resources,” said Leahy, “but a failure to deploy the resources that we have.”

Leahy points out that when the police were given a warning of armed extremists, they can't then claim that there was no warning of violence. The repeated claims that things were going to be no worse than previous events were not backed up by the intelligence that was received.

Sen. Ron Johnson

Johnson skipped out on asking any questions to instead read a lengthy statement from an anti-Muslim hate group blaming “fake Trump protesters” and “agent provocateurs” for Jan. 6. According to Johnson, all the “real” Trump supporters were “happy” and “in high spirits.” Johnson’s account ended with claims that Capitol Police incited the crowd by firing tear gas after police overreacted to “a tussle.”

So it was all the fault of antifa and the police. Everyone but the Trump supporters, who were all “cheerful” in marching on the Capitol.

Johnson then spent the rest of his time complaining about not getting answers on his conspiracy theories. He made one feint at the end to get Sund to agree that Trump protesters were “pro police,” but Sund noted there were Trump people claiming to be police even as they were pushing through police lines. In terms of wacky highlights, this was it.

Sen. Jacky Rosen

Rosen asked Contee about the report from the FBI on Jan. 5, which also reached the Metro D.C. police late at night by email. Contee’s initial response was much the same as Sund’s: that this was raw data without a suggested response. However, he noted that the Metro police were already prepared for widespread violence in association with Jan. 6. They just weren’t responsible for the Capitol.

Contee also noted that the previous two MAGA rallies in November and December included weapons recovered from several people. “Those were the only rallies were we’ve seen people coming armed,” said Contee. 

Rosen noted that there seemed to be “a breakdown” between the FBI and Capitol Police. But Sund insisted that it wasn’t just the FBI, and it was more than just how the message was delivered. “We need to look at the whole intelligence community and the view that they have on domestic extremists,” said Sund.

Sen. Mark Warner

Warner expressed concern that the “hurdles from the previous administration” slowed and limited to support for Washington and limited its ability to prepare. He brought up Washington, D.C. statehood as a solution for streamlining some of those difficulties.

Warner noted that he talked directly with FBI leadership on Jan. 4 and Jan. 5. “I felt like the FBI felt like they were in better shape in terms of intel,” said Warner. 

Sund said the relationship between Capitol Police and the FBI is “outstanding.” He noted that the FBI was very effective in the aftermath of the events in helping investigate those who invaded the Capitol. And Sund again indicated that the failure was more about the intelligence being gathered rather than what was passed on.

Contee said he wanted more a “whole intelligence approach,” noted that the FBI was a “great partner” for the Metro police.

Warner agreed, noting that Jan. 6 drew the same kind of antigovernment extremists who were on the streets of Charlottesville, but that these groups aren’t “getting the level of serious review” that other threats were. He also noted that these groups have ties to extremist groups overseas, specifically in Europe.

Sen. James Lankford

Lankford was the first to seem more interested in how to twist the information to support some Fox News-worthy narrative. He started by asking Sund to talk at length about a letter from Sund to Nancy Pelosi. Sund said that Pelosi called for his resignation “without a full understanding of what we had gone through and prepared for.”

Lankford then asked about how the pipe bomb was found at the Republican National Committee (RNC). When he was told that an employee at the RNC located the pipe bomb and called it in, Lankford then seemed to take this as proof that the pipe bombs weren’t really “coordinated” with the rest of the attack because the discovery of those bombs at that time was coincidental. (But was it? This certainly seems like a good thing to investigate.)

Lankford also spent some time trying to dismiss the idea that the National Guard was slow to respond. He insisted that it usually takes “multiple days” to approve the National Guard, and insisted that the delays in their approval on Jan. 6 were “typical,” saying that the National Guard was not “the riot police” or “a SWAT team.” Lankford attempted to get Sund to agree that he knew the National Guard was forced to be unarmed, with no drones and no helicopter. Sund denied knowing these restrictions had been put on. Lankford then claimed these “restrictions were put on them by the city of Washington D.C.” without evidence and without asking Contee about this point.

Finally, Lankford spent some time comparing the attack on the Capitol to the “attack on a federal courthouse in Portland” and insinuating that the same forces were involved in both.

Sen. Tom Carper

Carper started off by pointing out that the National Guard is frequently called in to respond quickly to emergencies, and does so. But “the D.C. National Guard operates differently.” Carper also noted that this is one of the reasons he’s worked for years in favor of Washington, D.C. statehood.

Carper gave Contee another opportunity to make it clear that Bowser has no authority to authorize National Guard deployment—that she has to go through an entire chain of requests and approvals. This includes both the Capitol Police board and Pentagon officials.

Carper then asked Contee if having an easier means of calling the National Guard—similar to that given every state—would help to protect the city and federal installations. Contee’s response was an enthusiastic “yes,” and an agreement that this needs to be investigated as part of the response to Jan. 6.

Carper asked Sund why the threat of a “truly devastating attack” was so badly underestimated. Sund pointed back at the FBI and other intelligence agencies for not warning that a coordinated attack across many states was being prepared. Sund indicated that it was not so much “a failure to communicate” but a failure to investigate and focus on domestic extremists.

Sen. Jeff Merkley

Merkley pointed out the level of violence called for in the statement from the FBI, which included white supremacists calling directly to disrupt the certification of the electoral vote “or die.” That report is the same one that was emailed to both Capitol Police and Metro D.C. Police, but not until late in the evening on Jan. 5 and without any warning or flag that would have made its importance obvious.

Merkley spent a good deal of time dealing with specific incidents of Capitol security. That included how the police dealt with what Sund kept describing as “an expanded perimeter” without additional forces to secure that perimeter.  

Stenger noted that there is a drill “once a year” in which there is a test of locking and protecting Congressional chambers, which is something that failed on Jan. 6. He could not say when the last such drill took place.

Sen. Rick Scott

Scott focused on an extremely odd point for his entire time at bat: Why was the National Guard still in Washington? No matter what he was told, or how futile his questions became, Scott wouldn’t move from this issue.

"No one has any reason why we have the National Guard here," said Scott. (Ignoring that little insurgency thing.) Scott kept hammering this point, even when each of those testifying made it clear they had no involvement in maintaining the Guard or information on why they were there.

When told that he should ask the current Capitol Police and sergeant at arms, he seemed genuinely confused. However, he still could not leave this pointless question alone. "I'm flabbergasted that there's no public information why we have all this National Guard here," said Scott. Sund and others tried to point out there had been an insurrection. Scott never seemed to get it. 

Sen. Maggie Hassen

Hassen asked Contee to describe the coordination between Metro police and the National Park Service when it comes to approving permits. Contee agreed that this system needed to be reviewed, especially when it comes to evaluating risks. While the Parks department was still giving out permits, even with the evidence of violence by the same groups in previous appearances, the Washington government had actually suspended mass gathering since March to respect the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hassen expanded the discussion of intelligence beyond the FBI and asked about any communication from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Sund and Contee agreed that no one from DHS attempted to issue a national security event or reach out to Capitol Police with any concerns around Jan. 6.

Sen. Josh Hawley

The idea that Hawley would be questioning law enforcement officials is itself an indictment of the government. However, Hawley made an elaborate point of thanking Capt. Mendoza and other police for their work in "repelling these violent criminal rioters."

For most of his questioning, Hawley remained reasonable. He asked Sund about National Guard activation. Back on the 1:09 PM phone call question, Sund said Irving told him he needed to run a Guard request "up the chain of command." Hawley pondered who this "chain of command" might be. 

Irving again said he didn't recall the phone call, and his phone records do not show a call at that time. Irving claimed that had he gotten such a request, he "would have approved it immediately." Instead, Irving says Sund called him a half hour later and didn't actually make a request until 2:10 PM.

Sund insisted he made request at 1:09 PM. And that his call at 1:22 PM was to "follow up on the status of that request."

Irving said he never consulted "congressional leadership" or waited for their approval. Irving denies seeking approval from Pelosi or McConnell, which likely deflates some theory by Hawley that Pelosi nixed Guard approval.

Sund repeated that Irving was concerned about the "optics" of bringing in National Guard on Jan. 4.  Irving denied this, saying his "issue was with whether the intelligence warranted" calling in Guard. He said again that his understanding was that Sund had "an offer" of troops, but that he, Stenger, and Sund talked about it and agreed to turn it down. Hawley asked what the concern over deploying guard was. Irving says he wasn't concerned about anything but intelligence.

Finally, Hawley asked Klobuchar for an extra minute. When this was granted, Hawley used the time to attack Pelosi for appointing retired Gen. Russel Honoré to conduct an investigation into events on Jan. 6.

Sen. Alex Padilla

Padilla began by asking all the witnesses if the video of events shown during Trump's impeachment was accurate. All agreed that it was.

Sund again said they had no information on the scope of what was coming. No idea that "we would be facing an armed insurrection involving thousands of people."

Padilla asked if the previous MAGA incidents in November and December might have been "trial runs" during which the same groups involved on Jan. 6 could gather intelligence on the limits of police response. Sund agreed this was possible. Padilla made it clear that Donald Trump had had control of those intelligence agencies that were failing to focus on domestic terrorism by white supremacist extremist groups.

Padilla asked about the difference in preparations on Jan. 6 versus protests over the summer, noting hundreds of arrests. However, Sund claimed there were just six arrests during the BLM protests and said preparation on Jan. 6 was far greater. Of course, Sund is limited to the Capitol, not other sites around the city. But clearly preparations on Jan. 6 were nothing like the masses of troops that met some peaceful protests.

Sen. Bill Hagerty

Hagerty wasn’t much interested in anything the witnesses had to say, but, like Johnson, had plenty to say on his own. He started by claiming the Guard presence in summer of 2020 was "necessary following some of the worst rioting in decades."

Hagerty then tried blaming the failure of Guard to appear on Jan. 6 on "backlash" against the use of the Guard to "restore order" in the summer. So … the insurgency was BLM’s fault.

Sund refused to agree, insisting again that he was surprised by how reluctant the Pentagon was to cooperate. Thwarted, Hagerty then went straight to attacking Pelosi and Honoré. And ... that was it. Hagerty couldn't even think of how to fill his time because he had no actual questions.

Sen. Angus King

King refocused on the intelligence failure, but—in contradiction to Sund's statements—kept returning to "a failure of communication." King then turned to asking Sund about how to secure Capitol without "turning it into a fortress."

Sund insisted there was a process to get credible intelligence where it needs to be and again said the failure was in intelligence gathering. He said the Capitol Police well prepared for issues like lone gunmen, etc., but insisted that much of this should be discussed in a closed, classified session.

King asked Sund to expand on the intelligence shortfalls. Sund said even the director of the field office for the FBI gave no hint that there was a coordinated attack planned despite a direct call on Jan 5. The email late on Jan. 5 might have had some alarming language, but there was no hint it was part of a large, multistate plan.

King asked about the process for making assistance requests, calling in the Guard, etc. Sund agreed that the process needs to be streamlined.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema

Sinema asked about the meetings leading up to Jan. 6 and which agencies were involved. Contee detailed a number of meetings that included both Metro D.C. police and Capitol Police.

Contee discussed what he saw as the major mistakes. He said the issue on sharing information, and how it was shared, is a concern. The FBI sent the most frightening information to email boxes at 7 PM on the night before the event. It didn’t raise concerns in earlier calls and did not contact Contee or Sund to bring any concerns to their attention.

Sund emphasized again that the report—which he didn’t even learn about until after he had resigned—was seen as raw data that wasn’t moved forward. He recounted the process for moving information from the FBI, but again emphasized that the letter was sent as raw data without analysis or recommendations on the evening of Jan 5. There wasn’t a high level of attention assigned to it.

Contee confirms that the Metro D.C. Police were aware of the significance of Jan. 6 and that Bowser called up additional units, pulled in forces from the outlying districts, and requested Guard officers to free up additional police forces.

Sen. Ted Cruz

Irony, part two.

Cruz described Jan. 6. as "a terrorist attack" on the Capitol. He then went back to requests from Sund, and Sund's statement that Irving was "concerned about the optics." Sund was asked to describe the conversations at length. Sund said he met with Irving in his office and again said that Irving told him "I didn't like the optics" and told Sund to talk to Stenger. Stenger asked Sund to call National Guard Commander Gen. William J. Walker to prepare. Walker told Sund that the 125 troops being deployed to Washington could be armed and sent to the Capitol quickly. That response seemed to satisfy Irving and Stenger.

Irving said the meeting on Jan. 4 was a phone call. (Sund said it was an in-person meeting.) Irving said it was an "offer" to send in Guard. (Sund said it was a request.) Irving said he can't recall using term "optics." Irving and Stenger said they did contact Pelosi and McConnell on Jan. 6, but only to inform them that there "might" be a request for National Guard assistance.

Cruz joined others in asking for phone records. Cruz was surprisingly subdued and didn't ask any “gotchas.”

Sen. Jon Ossoff

Again, Ossoff and Sund discussed the training and preparation of the Capitol Police. Sund returned to saying that there was no training on how to deal with a mass insurrection. Sund did say that Capitol Police called out “tabletop exercises” in advance of national security events such as the inauguration, but this was not done on Jan. 6.

Sund also said that communication and chain of command “broke down” during Jan. 6 as communications with those on the scene at the Capitol became difficult.

Ossoff asked if procedures exist for dealing with an emergency like an attack on the Capitol without the approval of the Capitol Police board. Short answer: No.

Sund emphasized that Capitol Police are a “consumer” of intelligence and the organization is not configured to collect or analyze intelligence.

Ted Cruz is the poster boy for disaster capitalism, but then, he always has been

All it took for Ted Cruz to displace Bernie Sanders’ mittens at the top of the national meme board was a display of callous indifference so grand that the writers of the new Cruella de Vil movie are wondering if they can incorporate Ted’s move without it seeming too cartoonish. With the Republican-designed disaster capitalism power system leaving millions of Texans in the cold and dark, Ted decided to just skip the whole scene and take in the sun in Cancun. Because somehow, Cruz, with the most identifiable mini-mullet on the planet, thought he’d just slip through a Texas airport and collect a few beach days and no one would notice.

Cruz then hastily booked an abrupt return flight just seventeen hours later, then proceeded to lie about it, claiming this had always been the plan. Then he fell back on blaming his 10- and 12-year-old daughters, and admitted that he had intended to stay through the weekend to help them relax after a “tough week.” It was all such a display of over the top sneering at the people he is supposed to be serving, smeared with a frosting of rich-person privilege, that even Ted Cruz realizes it was a mistake. And that’s saying something.

Meanwhile, Beto O’Rourke made over 150,000 wellness checks on seniors left in the cold during the blackout, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez helped raise over $1 million in relief funds through ActBlue. Do you get it yet, Texas?

Ted Cruz is not actually the Texas mayor who told his constituents to stop calling him for help because, “No one owes you or your family anything; nor is it the local government’s responsibility to support you during trying times like this! Sink or swim, it’s your choice! … Only the strong will survive and the week will perish.” That mayor was forced to resign for his words. All Ted Cruz did was demonstrate those statements through his actions.

Rather than stay to help the people who elected him, Cruz left that to O’Rourke and AOC. Instead he decided a little beachside massage and umbrella drinks was the appropriate response to a crisis. Which means that Cruz’s reception on his return to his home state has been about as warm as the average Texas water pipe at this point. 

People at Ted Cruz’s house, waiting for him to get home. pic.twitter.com/3juZZ7nIa5

— Joshua Potash (@JoshuaPotash) February 19, 2021

Even Cruz’s “I had intended to stay over the weekend” is underselling his action considerably. His family absconded to Mexico on Wednesday. What he meant was he was actually taking a whole week off in the middle of a crisis that has turned deadly for his state. And his only real excuse seems to be that he’s worthless anyway, so why bother to stay? In fact, Cruz’s intrinsic lack of any purpose was the main defense provided to him by his pals at Fox News, who indignantly huffed on Thursday about how, if Cruz stuck around, it wasn’t like he was going to do anything.

As The Washington Post eloquently puts it:

“Nobody likes Ted Cruz. This was the place that Ted Cruz was starting from earlier this week. Then he went to Cancun. He went to Cancun, where it is mostly sunny and in the low 80s, while many of his ice-blasted constituents were without heating and plumbing, watching their ceilings collapse, huddling in warming centers, defecating in buckets, and generally not packing for a few days on the Yucatán Peninsula.”

To make it even more damning. This is also the Ted Cruz who voted against relief for Hurricane Sandy. The Ted Cruz who mocked California for much less severe rolling blackouts by saying the state “is now unable to perform even basic functions of civilization.” And the Ted Cruz who not only has announced his opposition to President Biden’s COVID-19 relief bill, he voted against the last COVID-19 relief bill. This is the Ted Cruz who thinks nothing of paying for a week at the Ritz Carlton in Cancun and airline tickets bought on a whim with no advance discount, but believes that Americans don’t deserve a $2,000 relief check. That’s a lot of baggage, even for a spiffy bit of brand-new rolling luggage. 

And, oh yeah, this would also be the same Ted Cruz who helped to incite, support, and defend a deadly insurgency that smashed into the halls of the Capitol on January 6 and sought to murder members of Congress. It’s also the same Ted Cruz who openly and smugly conferenced with Donald Trump’s legal team to give them advice on the best way to escape justice in the Senate. 

On Friday, temperatures in Texas are up, and while hundreds of thousands are still purposely without power as the overstressed electrical grid puts itself back in order. All over the state, Texans are discovering that their homeowner’s insurance will not cover the damage caused by bursting pipes, even when that led to collapsing floors and ceilings.  

And now Ted Cruz is back to his real job, which is appearing on Fox News to join in the endless lies about how the problems in Texas are actually all Democrats’ fault, even though Republicans have been running the system for decades. That’s because, as MSNBC host Chris Hayes has noted, Cruz sees himself as “Rush Limbaugh with a Senate office.” He’s not there to do anything. He’s not there to do anything for the people of his state. He only exists to make snide remarks and attack democracy.

On Friday, the Houston Chronicle summed Cruz up in an editorial as hot as the state’s been cold.

Take our advice, senator, and resign. Seems like you could use a break and we could, too, from an ineffective politician who, even in crisis, puts his personal itinerary before the needs of Texans.

Ted Cruz's vacation and the Mars rover landing coincide in a meme https://t.co/at3uefsdAl pic.twitter.com/dE8HO0w9KP

— Mashable (@mashable) February 19, 2021

Despite a bipartisan vote to convict, Trump is acquitted after Senate fails to reach 2/3 margin

After a confusing day, the United States Senate voted on Saturday afternoon 57 to 43 in favor of convicting Donald J. Trump in his second impeachment trial. Though this was, by far, the greatest bipartisan vote in favor of impeachment in the nation’s history, it still was not sufficient to reach the necessary two-thirds of the Senate necessary for conviction.

Among those Republicans voting with Democrats were Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, and Pat Toomey. 

With that vote, the court of impeachment is adjourned and Republicans have shrugged off their last flirtation with the idea of democracy. 

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 8:59:25 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Burr on his decision to convict Trump pic.twitter.com/KuwPvyuVLJ

— Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) February 13, 2021

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 9:02:52 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Sen. Chuck Schumer: "This trial wasn't about choosing country over party, not even that. This trial was about choosing country over Donald Trump, and 43 Republican members chose Trump."

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 9:05:41 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

CASSIDY on Guilty vote: “Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person. I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty”

— Scott Wong (@scottwongDC) February 13, 2021

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 9:13:06 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

Trump has released a gloating statement. I’m not going to quote any of it. Just know that he doesn’t take a moment to condemn the violence on Jan. 6.

Trump trial (briefly) thrown for loop after GOP actions force House managers to request a witness

On Saturday morning, lead House impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin stepped forward to surprise the Senate with a request for a deposition. The possibility of calling witnesses was always theoretically part of the process, and this was always the point where it was supposed to happen. But until this morning, there had been an assumption that witnesses would be skipped in favor of a “get past this” strategy that would see closing arguments this morning, and a final vote on Donald Trump’s conviction by this afternoon.

However, at least three things happened in the last 24 hours to change those assumptions. First, Trump’s legal team put on a show that was loaded with lies, aspersions, and irrelevant statements that had nothing to do with the case. Second, late Friday, even more information appeared on a phone call between Trump and Rep. Kevin McCarthy, which underscored Trump’s depraved indifference to the events in the Capitol. Finally, a letter from Mitch McConnell was leaked, showing that he was still determined to hide behind the faux constitutionality defense, and would not be voting for Trump’s conviction or encouraging others to do so.

All of that made it almost inevitable that the House managers would ask for at least one witness on Saturday morning. But it still seems to have caught everyone off guard.

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 5:14:19 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

McCaskill seems to indicate there may be a deal to not call witnesses which sounds like a big win for gop.

— Jed (@TheJedReport) February 13, 2021

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 5:30:11 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

One and done may actually be none and done.

BRAUN says Rs are prepared to allow a news article about the McCarthy/Trump call based on JHB account, into the record in exchange for Dems dropping request to depose JHB. Trial would proceed to closing arguments and final vote today. Per pool

— Scott Wong (@scottwongDC) February 13, 2021

As soon as Rep. Raskin asked to be allowed to depose a witness, Trump’s legal team went ballistic in shock. Attorney Michael van der Veen stepped up and spiraled into a rant so ridiculous that it ended with senators laughing at him and Sen. Pat Leahy having to call for order—and tweak van der Veen for his uncivil language.

Once the realization set in that the House managers were doing the unexpected, a vote was held on whether to debate calling witnesses. That vote passed 55-45 with Republican Sens. Collins, Murkowski, Romney, and Sasse joining all Democrats. At the last minute, Sen. Lindsey Graham changed his vote to “aye,” but this was clearly done as a rat-f***ing move, so that the defense can call nonsense witnesses and Graham can claim to have been in favor of witnesses all along.

It’s clear that the House managers want to hear from Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, who recounted McCarthy’s statements about his phone call with Trump, and Friday night confirmed those statements. Trump’s legal team has countered with a threat to call hundreds of witnesses, including Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris. Van der Veen went on to insist that they would all have to show up for in-person depositions in his office in “Phillydelphia” … which led to much of the chamber chuckles.

Following the vote, the chamber broke down into a series of small groups as senators tried to work out rules for what comes next. The Senate could move forward, voting on each witness in turn. It could agree to give each side a fixed number of witnesses. It might even set up a committee to collect depositions, while the rest of the Senate returns to normal business—though that last option is unlikely because it would not allow Republicans to claim that the impeachment trial was slowing the regular work of the Senate. Republicans seem suddenly anxious to pass COVID-19 relief.

After a series of time-killing maneuvers, the Senate finally took an official break. Action will resume at 12:30 ET, though there is not guarantee that anything will have been worked out by that point.

This could be the last day of Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial … but it doesn’t have to be

You know what the Senate is doing next week? Nothing. They’re not in session next week. You know what they could be doing? Listening to witnesses. House impeachment managers could call witnesses in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, and it wouldn’t take away one minute of productive time. They could call former chief of staff Mark Meadows and ask him to detail Trump’s actions on the afternoon of Jan. 6. They could call Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and have him discuss calls from both Trump and Lindsey Graham. There’s absolutely no reason they could not call Mike Pence and have him confirm that he, not Trump, finally authorized the use of the National Guard. They could call every member of the Trump White House who resigned following Jan. 6 and ask them a simple question: “Why?”

And, based on a story repeated by CNN last night, they should call House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler. They could then recount the call, in which McCarthy reportedly tried to get Trump to send help to the besieged Capitol, only to be told that the rampaging mob of insurrectionists were “more upset about the election” that the Republican members of Congress hiding in their offices.

The House managers could call for those witnesses. But as of Friday evening, all indications were that they will not. Which means that Saturday could mark the end of Donald Trump’s second impeachment, and of the Republican Party’s experiment with democracy.

Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 2:49:20 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner

This only increases the reasons that there should be witnesses. If McConnell isn’t going to whip for votes, or even provide cover for those who do vote to convict, there’s no reason to rush to conclusion.

NEW ... McConnell will vote to acquit, he says in an email to his colleagues.

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) February 13, 2021

Friday consisted primarily of a three-hour “defense” of Trump by his legal team. However, that three-hour period only seemed to contain about five minutes of information, as Trump’s team repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly replayed the same utterly expected clips—an 11-minute montage of Democratic politicians using the word “fight” in various contexts, and another series of clips showing violence from … honestly who knows? All of it simply leaned into the prime Fox News fantasy that last summer’s Black Lives Matter protests were incredibly violent, that Democratic officials were fine with that, and that what Trump did leading up to Jan. 6 was just “ordinary political rhetoric.”

For the Ted Cruz caucus, all this was great. And they should have been happy, since Cruz was just one of several Republican senators who actually camped out in the conference room with the Trump legal team and helped them plan their “strategy.” Apparently, having a team of puppets ready to repeat what you tell them is something many Republicans find satisfying.

The Washington Post kept a running list of the lies being told by Trump’s legal team. That list didn’t quite get to the 30,000+ claims of their boss, but then, they only had three hours. And they certainly gave it a try.

The list of statements taken out of context was legion. The effort to claim that Trump never championed violence was ludicrous. And the claim that, when Trump mistyped “calvary” rather than “cavalry,” it meant that he was talking about giving D.C. in injection of Jesus rather than a flood of militia, was just eye rolling.

But the strangest statement might have been when attorney Michael van der Veen claimed that “One of the first people to be arrested was the leader of antifa.” But apparently antifa is composed of leprechauns, because van der Even added that “sadly, he was also among the first to be released”; apparently he just pulled a Keyser Söze. It’s not actually possible to attach a fact to this statement, since van der Veen was simply, what’s that word? Lying. But so far as anyone has been able to tell, van der Veen may be making this claim about … the only Black guy arrested for going into the Capitol. As LA Magazine reports, the guy was an “apolitical” rabble-rouser who “thrives on chaos.” His biggest role in the insurrection seems to be that he’s the guy who filmed the shooting of Ashli Babbitt. His connection to antifa appears to be … completely nonexistent. 

In any case … if things go according to schedule today, there will first be closing arguments from each side. Then the Senate will proceed immediately to a vote on whether to convict Trump on the single article of impeachment. Should enough votes be collected for conviction, there would then be a second vote on disqualifying Trump from holding public office in the future. That second vote would require only a simple majority.

However, this whole schedule would be upset should the House managers request witnesses. If that happens, it will be up first, with a vote on calling witnesses. That vote would also require only a simple majority. In Trump’s last impeachment proceeding, the vote to hear witnesses lost 51 to 49.

Should there be a vote to hear witnesses, the Senate will likely be done for the day, while the House managers round up whoever they want to speak. Just remember—every claim that hearing witnesses is somehow keeping the nation from dealing with the Trump pandemic, the Trump recession, or the various other Trump disasters, is simply a lie. Next week, the senators weren’t going to be doing any of that. There is time to do this thing right.

The critical moment in the Q&A session was the question Trump’s lawyers kept refusing to answer

For as much time as was spent with Donald Trump’s legal team trying to erect miles and miles of beautiful wall using nonsense arguments about the First Amendment, or by digging through legalist definitions of incitement, it was all pretty pointless. Sure, Fox News will keep up the pretense that some of that mattered. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz—who consulted with Trump’s attorneys multiple times in the case—will claim that the answers that they wrote, to the questions that they posed, made a difference in their decision. But again and again, Senators in the chamber stepped right up to the biggest gaping wound in everything Trump’s team had to say.

Senators, on both sides of the aisle, quite understandably, wanted to know why when a howling mob of murderous f#ckwads descended on the Capitol, Trump did not do a damn thing to defend them. Trump may have welcomed the “calvary” to Washington D.C., but he certainly did not send it to the Senate chamber even though he knew the building was under assault from his supporters.

And nowhere was that more clear, than how Trump’s legal team responded to questions concerning Trump’s actions regarding Mike Pence.

The sequence of events that happened after Trump’s insurrectionist mob smashed their way into the Capitol was of deep concern to the people on the pointy end of the spears and flagpoles. The sequence of events surrounding Trump’s actions after his speech and before the National Guard finally arrived at the Capitol that evening was the subject of the most serious, and important, questions of the day.

During Friday’s session, Trump’s attorneys tried to build on the objection made by Sen. Mike Lee, to claim that the call between Trump, Lee, and Sen. Tommy Tuberville was “heresay.”That sequence became the direct subject of questioning on Friday evening during Trump’s impeachment trial, when Sen. Mitt Romney and Sen. Susan Collins sent this question to both Trump’s legal team and the House impeachment managers.

Romney and Collins: “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.”

While Rep. Joaquin Castro made it clear Trump had to have known that the Capitol had been breached, and that the call to Sen. Tuberville made it clear Pence had been removed from the chamber, the answer from Trump’s legal team was even more telling … they didn’t have one.

Instead, Trump’s lawyers fell back on something they would repeat every time someone asked about Trump’s action or Trump’s knowledge: They blamed the House for “not doing a full investigation.” Which is an astounding claim, because the only one who had the knowledge that could answer the question is their client, Donald J. Trump.

The refusal to answer this question was the loudest silence of the whole impeachment trial. And it wasn’t the only time this happened. Here’s another question, this time from Sen. Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Donald Trump’s legal team just told senators that they have no idea when their client learned of the attack on the Capitol. They blamed their ignorance on the House managers, saying they should have uncovered what Trump knew, what he did, and when in their investigation. Wow. pic.twitter.com/KsZnG55slK

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) February 12, 2021

Note that Trump’s attorneys also continually acted as if the House managers had access to video or other information that was not provided to them. This is not true. Trump’s legal team had access to the same materials as the House team. Again, the only missing information here is that which could only be found in the skull of their client — a client who was invited to testify, and who refused.

Senators weren’t done poking at this obvious weak point. Sen. Bill Cassidy sent a question to both sides saying “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?”

Trump attorney van der Veen answered, “Directly no, but I dispute the premise of your facts.” He then returned to attacking the House managers for not having information exclusive to their client.

Trump attorney dismisses Tuberville's account as "hearsay" that he spoke with Trump about 10 minutes before Trump attacked Pence on Twitter on Jan. 6. This is what Tuberville said this week: "I said, “Mr. President, they just took the vice president out, I’ve got to go.'” pic.twitter.com/yhnVUZNceq

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 12, 2021

As the Senators were leaving the chamber on Friday, Sen. Tuberville underlined the weakness of this point by sticking a fork in the “heresay” argument.

NEWS: Tuberville speaks to reporters just now and stands by account he gave to @burgessev on Wednesday "I said Mr President, they've taken the vice president out. They want me to get off the phone, I gotta go ... probably the only guy in the world hung up on pres United States"

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 12, 2021

The removal of Pence happened at 2:15. It’s recorded on the cameras of the Senate chamber.

Mike Pence taken from Senate chamber at 2:15 PM

Then, just after Trump hung up from his conversation with Tuberville, with full knowledge that his mob was in the Capitol building and that Pence was in danger, Trump tweeted again.

This is just one sequence out of hours in which Trump displayed total disregard for either the security of the nation or the lives of those in Congress. But no other moment may so completely describe his malice and criminal indifference.

Finally, just as the session was ending on Friday, CNN reported on another aspect of Trump’s refusal to act on Jan.6 — his confrontation with House minority leader Kevin McCarthy. That conversation had already been the subject of a report used by the House managers; a report which Trump’s legal team also dismissed as “third hand.”

Now CNN has more details of the phone call between Trump and McCarthy. In that call, Trump told McCarthy that the insurrectionists “cared” more about the election than McCarthy.

"Well, Kevin,” said Trump, “I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”

McCarthy was still begging Trump to do something to call off his supporters when rioters were breaking smashing the windows of his office. Finally, frustrated that Trump was doing nothing to help, leading McCarthy to shout. “Who the f--k do you think you are talking to?" 

Apparently Trump knew exactly who he was talking to … someone who would vote against Trump’s impeachment and come right down to Mar-a-Lago to beg forgiveness for ever raising his voice to his king.

Witnesses. The House managers should demand witnesses. And McCarthy should be at the top of the list.