Lindsey Graham’s latest defense of Donald Trump is a racist attack on Kamala Harris

As Donald Trump’s second impeachment approaches, Lindsey Graham has made a series of extremely odd threats. On Tuesday, he suggested that should Democrats call a single witness, Republicans would call in the FBI to give a full accounting of how white supremacist groups had planned for weeks to carry out violent acts on Jan. 6. The reason that Graham thinks that this is a threat which should concern Democrats is because Fox News and other right-wing sources have been working hard to convince their viewers that the entire impeachment is just about things Trump said at the “Stop the Steal” rally just before the assault on the Capitol. So if anyone was doing pre-planning for the insurrection, that lets Trump off the hook. Except that’s not at all what the impeachment documents actually say. 

It’s not clear if someone actually made that point to Graham, but when he was questioned about the impeachment on Wednesday, Donald Trump’s most loyal senator was ready to voice an even more obscure response—one that involves a long-running, and racist, Republican lie. If Democrats call even a single witness to discuss events on Jan. 6, Graham promised that Republicans would turn the table and … use the impeachment trial to attack Vice President Kamala Harris.

How would anything happening on Jan. 6 relate badly on the vice president? It wouldn’t. But the statements, which Graham made—where else?—while speaking with Sean Hannity on Fox News don’t actually have anything to do with the assault on the Capitol or Trump’s impeachment. As Yahoo News makes clear, Graham is really speaking to an existing Republican theme claiming that Democrats have encouraged violence by Black Lives Matter protesters.

"If you're going to pursue this, and you wanna start calling witnesses, and you want to drag this thing out, it would be fair to have Kamala Harris' tape play where she bailed people out of jail,” said Graham. “What more could you do to incite future violence, than to pay the bail of the people who broke up the shops and beat up the cops. How's that not inciting future violence? Be careful what you wish for my Democratic colleagues, be careful what you wish for."

The thing about the “Kamala Harris’ tape” is that it would be very difficult to play. Because there is no tape. Instead, there appears to be nothing behind this by a single tweet from  Harris in which she encouraged contributions to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which helps to address inequities in America’s often crushing cash bail system. Harris’ tweet was made on June 1, placing it less than a week after Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis Police, and at a time when over a hundred nonviolent protesters had been arrested. 

The claim that Harris was encouraging violence became a recurring theme on the right. In August, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton tweeted that Harris “helped violent rioters in Minnesota get out of jail to do more damage.” Donald Trump recycled that information the next day, except that Trump—as he does so often—expanded on the lie to make it not just about Harris, but “thirteen members of Biden’s campaign staff” as well as “his running mate, Kamala” bailing “rioters” and “looters” out of jail.

Now, almost six months later, Graham is reviving this claim against Harris as if it represents some sort of defense of Trump. It’s a mirror of how Republicans have been reacting to criticism of QAnon Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene by waggling fingers at Rep. Ilhan Omar. In both cases, Republicans are trying to equate racism, anti-Semitism, and white supremacist violence with Black Americans asking for justice. 

As The Washington Post pointed out back in September, this whole line of attack isn’t just racist, it’s also simply wrong. Of the 170 arrested in connection with the protests between Floyd’s murder and the date of Harris’ tweet, 167 were released without bail or with only a small fee. About a third were arrested without charges. Minnesota Freedom Fund definitely benefited from the attention, and their contributions went way up. But it seems that none of the money actually went to bail out anyone charged with either rioting or looting. Some of the money collected did later go toward people charged with serious crimes, even murder. But that’s an indictment of the cash bail system, and the massive inequality it generates in the justice system. It’s not a mark against Kamala Harris.

In any case, what Graham is proposing is the kind of testimony that would not be allowed in any court. It’s pointing a false finger of blame at someone else in a completely different situation. It’s a third grade idea of justice where “she did it too” is supposed to be an excuse for doing something wrong.

On top of all that, Graham’s finger pointing at Harris is deeply racist. Not only is it built on false racist claims about protesters in Minnesota, it’s absolutely no coincidence that Graham was signaling toward Harris and not other people who have been vocal about the need to abolish the cash bail system—including President Biden.

Unable to defend Greene, Republicans have resorted to attacking Omar or Maxine Waters, as Republican leader Kevin McCarthy did in his statement on Tuesday evening. Unable to defend Trump, Graham instead lodged a completely false claim at Kamala Harris. 

Those targets are not a coincidence.

House Republicans Vote To Keep Liz Cheney In Leadership After Her Impeachment Vote

An effort to oust House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney from her leadership position failed Wednesday after a majority of Republicans voted to keep her as the third-ranking House Republican.

The vote to potentially remove Cheney was done by secret ballot.

In the end, 61 Republicans in the House voted to remove Cheney and 145 GOP members voted to keep her.

One Republican voted present.

RELATED: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasts ‘Hate America Democrats’ As Vote To Remove Her From Committees Is Confirmed

Backlash Against Liz Cheney Came After Impeaching Trump

The vote followed a defense of Cheney from House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy.

The vote was held over Cheney’s vote to join Democrats in impeaching President Donald Trump for a second time. Nine other Republicans also voted to impeach. 

Cheney told the House Republican Conference, “I won’t apologize for the vote.”

Republican Congressmen Matt Rosendale and Andy Biggs passed around a petition to remove Cheney from her post as House GOP chair.

After the vote, Rosendale said, “The Conference has spoken, and it’s time for Republicans to unify to take back the majority. I will do my part to achieve that goal.”

Cheney Endorsed Primary Opponent Of Staunch Conservative Rep. Thomas Massie

Pro-Trump Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, who went to Wyoming to rally against her, claimed Cheney had worked against former President Trump’s ‘America First’ because Cheney was part of the “forever war machine.”

Gaetz, along with Biggs and Congressman Thomas Massie, opposed Cheney’s efforts to shove into the National Defense Authorization Act an amendment that would precent Trump from bringing the troops home from Afghanistan.

Cheney had also supported Massie’s GOP primary opponent, which angered many House conservatives.

Since Cheney announced that she would vote to impeach Trump, a recent poll found that her political support has collapsed by more than double digits back home. 

RELATED: Former AOC Staffers Launch Plan To Take Down Moderate Dems – Make Room For Far-Left Agenda

Cheney In Trouble In Wyoming

73 percent of Wyoming Republicans viewed her unfavorably according to the poll, while 62 percent of all voters overall now view her negatively. 

In the same poll, only 10 percent of GOP voters and 13 percent of all voters said they would vote to reelect her.

Trump pollster John McLaughlin wrote, “Liz Cheney’s decision to vote to impeach President Trump makes her extremely vulnerable.”

“It is evident her ratings are in bad shape among general election voters and have collapsed among Republicans and Trump voters,” he added.

Since her vote to impeach, 10 County Republican Parties in Wyoming have voted to censure her.

The post House Republicans Vote To Keep Liz Cheney In Leadership After Her Impeachment Vote appeared first on The Political Insider.

Liz Cheney Censured By 10 Wyoming County Republican Parties Over Impeachment Vote

The Republican Parties of ten different Wyoming counties have voted to censure House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney. According to the Casper Star-Tribune, that number could still rise.

Since Cheney and nine other Republicans voted in favor of impeaching President Donald Trump, who they blame for inciting the Capitol Hill riots on January 6, Cheney has faced significant criticism in Wyoming and Washington, D.C.

RELATED: Mitch McConnell Voices Support For Liz Cheney As Calls Grow For Her To Be Expelled From GOP Leadership

County GOP: Cheney ‘Betrayed The Trust’ Of Her Voters

Wyoming Republicans haven’t minced words in their descriptions of Cheney’s behavior.

The Sweetwater County Republican Party censure states that Cheney had “betrayed the trust and failed to honor the will of the very large majority of motivated Wyoming voters who elected her.”

Part of their statement read:

“Because she voted in an anarchic proceeding against President Donald J. Trump which was conducted in contravention of established principles of due process — a proceeding that provided no probative evidence for consideration, called no witnesses to testify under oath, permitted no questioning of the accusers by the accused — Representative Liz Cheney stood in defiance of the quantifiable will of the substantial majority of Wyoming citizens and devalued the political influence of the State of Wyoming.”

Cheney On Impeachment Vote: ‘This Is A Vote Of Conscience’

Over half of the House Republican Conference has said they plan to vote to remove Cheney from her leadership role.

Still, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has implied that he will not support ousting Cheney from her post, and Cheney herself declared last month, “I’m not going anywhere.”

“This is a vote of conscience,” Cheney added. “It’s one where there are different views in our conference.”

She did not explain how President Trump was responsible for some people breaking in to the Capitol building.

RELATED: Pelosi, Schumer Begin Process Of Potentially Bypassing GOP To Push COVID Relief Through Congress

McConnell Supports Cheney

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gave his support to Cheney on Monday, describing her as an “important leader.”

“Liz Cheney is a leader with deep convictions and the courage to act on them,” McConnell told CNN.

“She is an important leader in our party and in our nation,” McConnell added. “I am grateful for her service and look forward to continuing to work with her on the crucial issues facing our nation.”

Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, a regular Cheney foe, traveled to Wyoming last week to denounce her to the cheers of many Trump supporters.

Donald Trump To Focus On Defeating ‘Never Trump’ Republicans

Gaetz isn’t the only Republican taking steps to defeat Cheney in her 2022 re-election bid. 

Former President Trump, considering his political future, had reportedly talked of creating a third party. 

However, he is apparently changing that focus in favor of primarying ‘Never Trump’ Republicans – like Liz Cheney. 

The post Liz Cheney Censured By 10 Wyoming County Republican Parties Over Impeachment Vote appeared first on The Political Insider.

Trump’s impeachment response includes Trump making outrageous claim of victory

On Tuesday, Donald Trump’s legal team made their official response to the article of impeachment delivered by House impeachment managers. Though it might easily have been misdirected since that response is actually written to the “Unites States Senate.” This follows earlier filings by Trump’s legal team to the “United States Districct Court,” the “Northern Distrcoit of Georgia,” and the “Eastern Distrct of Michigan.”

But while the opening words of Trump’s reply may generate a chuckle or an eye roll, it’s really the last section of that response that’s the most laughable. And the most infuriating. Because after providing three replies in which the argument focuses on the question of whether it is considered constitutional to impeach an executive once they’re out of office, the last answer that Trump provides goes directly back to square one by claiming that he never did anything wrong in the first place and that: “Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th president’s statements were accurate or not, and he therefore denies that they were false.”

That’s right. A month after he drove a mob into a murderous rage, Trump isn’t just denying he incited their assault on the Capitol. He’s denying he lied.

In the early hours of Nov. 4, as it was becoming clear to everyone that Joe Biden was going to collect far more than the 270 electoral votes necessary to secure victory, Trump stepped in front of the cameras to complain.  In that appearance, Trump said: “We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election.”

That’s a lie. Had Trump constrained himself to no more than such generalized statements, he might still have generated a sense of righteous anger and disappointment among his supporters, but it’s unlikely that would have created the kind rage that led to Jan. 6. However, Trump didn’t hold himself to the just a generic claim of victory.

By Nov. 7, shortly after the Associated Press called the election for Biden, Trump was back on the air to make a statement that leveled the first of many specific charges. “The Biden campaign ... wants ballots counted even if they are fraudulent, manufactured, or cast by ineligible or deceased voters.” All of those charges would persist right up until Jan. 6, with Trump’s team eventually assigning numbers to each category—8,000 dead voters, 14,000 out-of-state voters, 10,000 late ballots—without ever explaining where they obtained these values.

Over the course of the following months, Trump added more specific charges. He claimed that there were fraudulent drop boxes in Wisconsin. That votes of Arizona Republicans had been thrown out. That boxes full of votes had been smuggled into Philadelphia. 

Trump was still making both his general claims and these very specific charges right up to the final “Stop the Steal” speech on the morning of Jan. 6. “... this year they rigged an election, they rigged it like they have never rigged an election before, and by the way, last night, they didn't do a bad job either, if you notice ... We will stop the steal! ... We won it by a landslide. This was no close election. ... There were over 205,000 more ballots counted in Pennsylvania. Now think of this, you had 205,000 more ballots than you had voters ... So in Pennsylvania, you had 205,000 more votes than you had voters, and it’s — the number is actually much greater than that now ... In Wisconsin, corrupt Democrat-run cities deployed more than 500 illegal unmanned, unsecured drop boxes, which collected a minimum of 91,000 unlawful votes. ... They have these lockboxes. And you know, they pick them up and they disappear for two days. People would say where’s that box? They’d disappeared. Nobody even knew where the hell it was. In addition, more than 170,000 absentee votes were counted in Wisconsin without a valid absentee ballot application. So they had a vote, but they had no application and that’s illegal in Wisconsin. Meaning, those votes were blatantly done in opposition to state law and they came 100 percent from Democrat areas such as Milwaukee and Madison. 100 percent.”

Would a “reasonable jurist” know these statements were lies? Of course they would. That’s easy to see since every single time these arguments went before a judge they were uniformly rejected. Not all of the Trump team’s 62 lawsuits came down to statements of fact. Some were tossed with statements that explicitly called out the lack of any real evidence behind Trump’s claims.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption. That has not happened.” — U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann

There were months in which Trump’s team might have fleshed out their claims. Months in which they might have explained the source of all those numbers. They didn’t do that. Instead they added claims about a dead Venezuelan dictator and servers hidden in Germany. Dominion Voting Systems is suing Rudy Giuliani for $1.3 billion for running a “viral disinformation campaign.” Trump repeated all those same allegations in his rallies, right up to the end.

When Trump’s attorneys claim that a “rational jurist” could not know that Trump’s claims are false, what they actually mean is an ignorant jurist.  Someone who had been subjected to all these false claims and allowed to view none of the actual information. Like a Fox News viewer. Because a rational, informed juror would definitely be able to tell that Trump’s statements were not just lies, but lies created expressly for the purpose of generating confusion over facts that are otherwise very cut and dry.

But what be most surprising is that Trump isn’t just saying that someone making these statements might have been believed before Jan. 6, he’s still refusing to admit that they are false. This explicit inclusion in his reply makes everything Trump has said before and after Jan. 6 fair game. House impeachment managers should be much happier about that than Trump’s legal team.

Trump’s Lawyers Argue Impeachment Article Is Violation Of The Constitution

Donald Trump’s lawyers argue that the House impeachment charge is unconstitutional and are calling on the Senate to acquit the former President.

In their first formal response, Trump’s lawyers “denied” that the former President “ever engaged in a violation of his oath of office,” and by contrast, he, “at all times acted to the best of his ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

They also assert that going through a process designed to remove somebody from office when he is no longer in the office is a violation of the Constitution.

The brief calls for dismissal of the article stating, “Incitement of Insurrection against him as moot, and thus in violation of the Constitution, because the Senate lacks jurisdiction to remove from office a man who does not hold office.”

45th President’s Answer… by Fox News

RELATED: AOC Equates Republicans to Her Sexual Assault Abuser, Says She Thought She Would Die During Capitol Riots

House Impeachment Managers Say Overwhelming Evidence to Convict Trump

House impeachment managers earlier today filed a pre-trial brief which revealed what their plan of attack will be in the upcoming Senate trial.

“In a grievous betrayal of his Oath of Office, President Trump incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol during the Joint Session, thus impeding Congress’s confirmation of Joseph R. Biden, Jr. as the winner of the presidential election,” they argue.

The filing claims that the “facts are compelling and the evidence is overwhelming.”

The impeachment managers also counter the argument that the trial would be unconstitutional.

“[T]he text and structure of the Constitution, as well as its original meaning and prior interpretations by Congress, overwhelmingly demonstrate that a former official remains subject to trial and conviction for abuses committed in office,” the brief reads.

“Any other rule would make little sense.”

RELATED: Biden Considering Revoking Trump’s Right To Access Classified Briefings

Democrats Still Have an Uphill Battle

An impeachment conviction requires a two-thirds vote, which in the Senate would require 17 Republicans joining all 50 Democrats in voting to convict Trump.

Senator Rand Paul already set the stage by forcing a vote on the constitutionality of the impeachment of the former President.

45 Republicans – including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell – voted that the impeachment trial is unconstitutional.

“45 Senators agreed that this sham of a ‘trial’ is unconstitutional,” he tweeted. “That is more than will be needed to acquit and to eventually end this partisan impeachment process.”

“This ‘trial’ is dead on arrival in the Senate,” he wrote.

“The Constitution says two things about impeachment — it is a tool to remove the officeholder, and it must be presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court,” Paul wrote in an op-ed column.

Neither of those elements exists in this case, as President Trump is no longer in office and Chief Justice John Roberts has declined to preside over the trial.

Trump’s lawyers and the House impeachment managers will submit another round of briefs next Monday, and the trial is scheduled to begin on February 9th.

The post Trump’s Lawyers Argue Impeachment Article Is Violation Of The Constitution appeared first on The Political Insider.

Trump’s legal team is trying to coordinate with Senate Republicans, but Trump is in the way

Though it may seem as if bad lawyers are an infinite commodity, Donald Trump has spent years testing that theory. Trump’s line of personal attorneys have had a tendency to head off on “extended vacations,” often while handing authorities information that creates a challenge for Trump’s next attorney. In the process of contesting the election alone, Trump sifted the nation to come up with a legal team that was eventually headed by Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell after such legal powerhouses as Corey Lewandowski and Pam Bondi had fallen by the wayside.

The problem with being a Trump attorney isn’t just being forced to defend indefensible positions; it’s having to do so in the way that pleases Trump. That sometimes means not staging a defense in the way what’s most likely to lead to acquittal, and instead doubling down on why Trump was perfectly entitled to commit a crime in the first place. And did it perfectly.

In the case of Trump’s second impeachment, Trump is running through whole sets of attorneys, and he still doesn’t seem to have found one who will do what he wants: use the impeachment trial as another opportunity to encourage violence.

Shortly after the impeachment in the House, Bloomberg reported that Trump was “struggling” to find a team of lawyers to manage his defense before the Senate. Trump’s entire first impeachment defense team, including Jay Sekulow and former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, turned down the opportunity for a repeat performance. Even the time limit on Trump’s long-running arrangement with Pam Bondi seems to have expired; she also opted out.

Potential attorneys are likely to be feeling better these days, now that Senate Republicans have made it clear that when they gave Trump a free pass the first time, they really meant it. With 45 Republicans voting that it’s pointless to move forward with the impeachment, and Republicans threatening to drag the Senate into a months-long recounting of post-election events if a single witness is called, it seems as if the legal team of Nobody, Absent, and Nothing could stage an adequate defense.

The problem is that Trump isn’t happy to just sit there, collect another free pass, and move on. Instead, Trump has been insisting to his attorneys that he wants to use the impeachment trial to put on “evidence” of supposed election fraud.

In other words: Trump wants to use his impeachment trial not to defend himself against charges of inciting a murderous, seditious mob, but to explain why that mob was in the right when it smashed into the Capitol on a hunt for hostages.

That insistence is part of what has made it so difficult for Trump to secure a legal crew. Trump got so upset over the reluctance of his legal team to join in the sedition attempt that he parted ways with five members of his legal team last week. However, The New York Times did show Trump picking up two new attorneys to head his impeachment team: former Pennsylvania District Attorney Bruce Castor, and David Schoen. Schoen was most recently in the public eye as the lead attorney for Roger Stone in his defense against multiple charges related to the Mueller investigation. That would be Stone’s losing case, requiring Trump to get out his pardon pen.

But, as the Times is now reporting, just because Trump has new attorneys doesn’t mean that those attorneys are going to follow him off a cliff. Instead the team is arguing that they should conduct his defense on the lines that the trial itself is unconstitutional.

This claim is also false, but it has serious advantages in getting the results Trump, his legal team, and Senate Republicans want. First, it prevents Republicans from having to conduct a trial on whether Trump engaged in incitement while Trump is actively engaged in more incitement. Second, it lets the Republicans lean back into technical arguments they’ve already made about the legality of impeachment post-term. It’s an argument that lets Republicans vote to acquit Trump while still maintaining that they’re just darn horrified about the insurgency thing.

Which is, of course, the whole reason that Republicans launched the claim that impeaching Trump after they purposely allowed the clock to run out is unconstitutional. It’s certainly not because any of them feel there’s a real constitutional issue, and they know their position breaks with past Senate precedent. It’s a position designed to let them have it both ways: They can claim to be against what Trump did without ever going on record against Trump.

And the only thing that could get in their way … is Trump.