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.

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

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? 

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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.)

In case you missed it: 

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.

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. 

The question and answer session is over. 

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.