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

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

They will need 51 votes to get witnesses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For your morning entertainment.

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

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

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

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. 

Van der Veen is really shocked—shocked, mind you—that the House managers didn’t spend more time on a defense that he put forward which was nonsense.

I’m having trouble believing that this will actually be done in 3 hours, because I’m no sure Van der Veen will get through a paragraph by then.

Van der Veen now going to show another video. Let’s just hope it’s not another rerun.

And that hope has been dashed.

Van der Veen is really going to go down the road of the “First Amendment defense.” Which apparently requires a lot of reading things out slowly.

Since this is the weakest of all the points Trump’s team made, it’s fine if they want to run out the clock with this.

According to Van der Veen, “Wilson” is telling me about something the Senate cannot do. And I confess, I’ve already zoned out enough to not remember who Wilson is.

Apologizing again for mistaking Van der Veen for Castor. Have I mentioned before that I have prosopagnosia. Yup.

Van der Veen feels very bullied just because every constitutional scholar in the nation disagrees with his nonsense position.

Van der Veen insists this is read along time, as he continues to make an claim against an argument the House managers never made.

No playing large parts of Trump’s speech on Jan. 6, including things that have no connection to what van der Veen said he was trying to do. He did make sure to get Hunter Biden into the clip.

Honestly, the House managers could have run this same clip. Because it’s certainly not helping Trump.

So, what the Trump team really meant is they had 1 hour of material that they would use three times over.

Break. Everyone has 15 minutes to sober up from any drinking games before Castor comes on.

And if your drinking game involved the word “fight,” your family has 15 minutes to make arrangements.

And we’re back, and Bruce Castor — yes, actual Bruce Castor — is coming forward.

Castor: “Clearly there was no insurrection.” Who then explains that it can’t be an insurrection unless you take over the television statements.

Castor says the House impeachment managers spent “no time” connecting Trump to the insurrection. He’s now talking about Trump’s “real supporters,” because he’s also leaning into the idea that the people there on Jan. 6 were not real Trump supporters.

And dammit, he’s now repeating a video. Because we can’t go five minutes without a rerun. 

Like the videos, Castor’s whole argument is a rerun, Van der Veen already said everything he’s saying.

About the only thing Castor seems to be adding is a lot of attacking the House managers.

Please. Let's not see the fight video again. Please.

Yup. Insulting the House managers is definitely Castor’s primary role.

1. The Trump “stay peaceful” tweet is over an hour after the attack on the Capitol began.
2. It’s not only after the insurgents broke into the Capitol, after he called Tuberville, and not only after the tweet urging them to go after Pence.
3. And yes, the House managers did show that tweet. More than once.

It’s nice how Trump’s team constantly talks about edited videos, before showing 2 second clips. And screams against using media sources, before citing media sources. 

But really, who expected anything more?

Rep. Joe Neguse is in in the midst of walking the evidence a final time to show that Trump is in fact guilty of incitement. 

The fact that Trump bought $50 million worth of ads AFTER the election has to be one of the strangest features of this whole thing. The insurrection was not only televised, it was advertised.

One last reminder from the people who took part. 

Glad to see Rep. Neguse returning to this aback on Pence. Because it shows that Trump wasn’t just sitting back watching the screen on Jan. 6, he was still actively engaged in steering the insurrection toward specific targets.

Rep. Raskin is back up to close.

Rep. Raskin notes that the authors put the oath of office right into the Constitution, and that one paragraph of four devoted to the office of president describes how a president can be impeached.

Rep. Raskin concludes with a quote from Thomas Paine. 

Sen. Chuck Schumer asks for for a period of ordinary Senate business on Friday morning. Then asks that the traditional reading of Washington’s farewell address be held on Monday.

And that’s it. The Senate is adjourned without Mike Lee finding something else to complain about.

Rep. Diana DeGette continuing the presentation on the aftereffects of Trump’s support for the Jan. 6 insurgency.

When you have an audience of one, and know your jury is fixed. 

Rep. DeGette showing how white supremacist groups are using Jan. 6 as a recruiting tool.

Rep. David Cicilline steps up to begin a presentation on how Trump’s actions related to Jan. 6 has caused harm to Congress and the government as a whole.

Smartly, the House managers today have shown films of Republican state officials and Republican members of Congress when making a point about the threat felt at all levels of government.

Rep. Cicilline: “He was trying to become king, and rule over us.”

Short break.

And they’re back.

Rep. Joaquin Castro coming up to talk about the harm Trump’s actions have caused to national security.

Rep. Castro shows Sen. Marco Rubio saying that the insurgents proved that critical national infrastructure was vulnerable.