Well, all hell broke loose today in the impeachment trial and Trump’s lawyer lost it. Perhaps you saw it?
"That's the way it works, folks … I don't know why you're laughing … there's nothing laughable here" — the Senate chamber breaks out in laughter after van der Veen threatens to depose Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris not by Zoom, but in his office in Philadelphia pic.twitter.com/T0xiozHckE
There has always been one small hole in the prosecution’s case for Donald Trump’s second impeachment. Trump encouraged a public demonstration, promised in advance it would be “wild,” instructed his supporters that extraordinary measures were needed to save the republic from his “landslide” election being stolen, and repeatedly urged them to take off the gloves and fight dirtier. But there’s been no evidence that Trump knew beforehand that his supporters would actually break into the Capitol building.
Last night CNN added a key new piece of evidence: In an angry phone call with then-House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy during the insurrection, Trump refused to call off his supporters, and praised them for their commitment to his cause.
According to CNN, and confirmed by Republican representative Jaime Herrera Beutler, a witness to the call, McCarthy pleaded with the president to make a public statement to end the riot. Trump at first told McCarthy the rioters were “antifa.” (This is in keeping with his habit of privately repeating lines to his supporters that both know are lies, like the way he instructed Michael Cohen to testify “there’s no business with Russia” when both were perfectly aware there had been.) When McCarthy insisted on correcting him, Trump switched to a new line: “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.”
This is extraordinarily incriminating. Not only was Trump taking sides with the rioters after they had violently sacked the Capitol, he was leveraging the violent threat they posed to pressure McCarthy to work more energetically to defend him.
Indeed, Trump continued his attempts to pressure Republicans to support his attempt to overturn the election results after this call with McCarthy. One of those attempts is known, because he mistakenly called Senator Mike Lee when he meant to reach Senator Tommy Tuberville. Rather than stop the attack, Herrera Beutler writes, “[Trump] and his lawyer were busy making calls to senators who were still in lockdown, seeking their support to further delay the Electoral College certification.”
Yesterday, Michael van der Veen, Trump’s impeachment lawyer, claimed that “at no point” was Trump aware that Mike Pence was in physical danger on January 6. A source close to Pence tells CNN that is false.
Trump created the conditions for his most deranged supporters to commit violence. It was not inevitable that his incendiary rhetoric would lead them to a physical invasion, nor was it inevitable that the invasion would overwhelm the Capitol’s defenses, though he bears responsibility for elevating the risks.
But his behavior afterward is what truly damns him. When the demonstration took a violent turn and the violence overwhelmed law enforcement, Trump had a choice. He could have seen it as a tragic turn of events. Or he could have seen it as a lucky break. He saw it as a lucky break, and set out to use the violent threat as the final effort to overturn the results and install himself in office for a second, unelected term.
And that was obvious from the lame tweets and videos he sent out during the insurrection.
“Counsel said before, ‘this has been my worst experience in Washington,’” Raskin said. “And for that, I guess we’re sorry, but man, you should have been here on January 6th.”
Dahlia Lithwick of Slate reviews Rep. Jamie Raskin’s impeachment trial summary on Friday:
Impeachment Manager Jamie Raskin responded by first noting Van der Veen’s earlier observation that he was having a miserable time at the impeachment trial. “Counsel said before, ‘this has been my worst experience in Washington,’” Raskin said. “And for that, I guess we’re sorry, but man, you should have been here on January 6th.”
Then he went on to make a serious point:
Counsel for the president keep blaming the House for not having the evidence that’s within the sole possession of their client, who we invited to come and testify last week. We sent a letter on February 4th. I sent it directly to President Trump, inviting him to come and to explain and fill in the gaps of what we know about what happened there. And they sent back a contemptuous response just a few hours later. … But in that letter, I said, you know, if you decline this invitation, we reserve all rights, including the right to establish a trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference. What’s that? Well, Justice Scalia was the great champion of that. If you don’t testify in a criminal case, it can’t be used against you, that’s the fifth amendment, but if it’s a civil case and you don’t show up, then according to Justice Scalia and the rest of the Supreme Court, you can interpret every disputed fact against the defendant. That is totally available to us.
Raskin continued:
So for example, if we say the president was missing in action for several hours and he was derelict in his duty and he deserted his duty as commander-in-chief and we say that as inciter in chief, he didn’t call off the dogs and they say, no, he was really doing whatever he can. If you’re puzzled about that, you can resolve that dispute, factual dispute, against the defendant who refuses to come to a civil proceeding. He will not spend one day in jail if you convict him. This is not a criminal proceeding. This is about preserving the republic, dear Senate. That’s what this is about. Setting standards of conduct for the president of the United States so this never happens to us again. So, rather than yelling at us and screaming about how we didn’t have time to get all of the facts about what your client did, bring your client up here and have him testify under oath about why he was sending out tweets denouncing the vice president of the United States while the vice president was being hunted down by a mob that wanted to hang him and was chanting, in this building, ‘hang Mike Pence, hang Mike Pence, traitor, traitor, traitor.’
The day has, to be sure, been a slog. But Raskin’s was a pretty bracing reminder that even though his lawyers are behaving as though this is a witch hunt targeting an unknowable and mysterious man-ghost, they have recourse beyond screaming at the house managers. The president could testify, and explain what he was doing while a violent mob hunted his vice president. That silence should speak volumes. Raskin reminds us that it does.
Remind me not to do anything ever that would put me on the opposite side of a courtroom from Jamie Raskin.
Raskin summarized in under five minutes that preserving the republic is at stake in this impeachment trial, Donald Trump’s second. Raskin needed little more time. The entire Senate knows who and what Trump is.
Republicans were warned in Trump’s first impeachment trial that if they failed to stop him, he would commit high crimes and misdemeanors again. And he did. All but one Senate Republican lacked the spine and the character to stop him in 2020. There is little evidence many others learned from having their hands burned twice and their lives threatened once.
Let your U.S. senators know what you think about Rep. Herrera Beutler’s statement RIGHT NOW! And if their office won’t pick up (it’s Saturday), free e-fax them.
For a review of Friday’s Trump defense follies, see below.
Donald John Trump, former U.S. president, is on trial in the U.S. Senate for incitement of insurrection. Among other absurdities his defense team argued on Friday was that Trump had been denied due process. He had certainly denied himself competent lawyers. They concluded his defense case after only 2½ hours.
Trump’s attorneys used up the first hour-plus arguing that the House managers had deliberately omitted from their presentations information Team Trump considered exculpatory. In essesnce, Trump’s lawyers complained that the prosecution had not used its time to make the defense’s case for them.
Much of it was whataboutism and distraction. At one point, Trump’s own lawyers spotlighted his calls into Georgia for which he is under criminal investigation. They argued that since his hour-long call to pressure Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger into falsifying state election results was never meant to be public (Raffensperger released a recording), Trump could not have intended to incite the Jan. 6 insurrection. They mischaracaterized Georgia’s elections results, of course.
Yet their presentation was rife with the sort of falsehoods that marked Trump’s campaign and his unsuccessful effort to overturn the election results. Lawyers spread Trump’s contention that President Biden did not actually win the state of Georgia, implied that antifa and other leftists were involved in planning of the attack of the Capitol and accused Democratic House managers of withholding key evidence.
As those arguments unfolded, Trump’s lawyers declined to be specific on questions about Trump’s own behavior while rioters broke into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 to block the final certification of Biden’s victory over Trump, such as precisely when he found out about the violence, what he knew about Vice President Mike Pence’s safety and whether he took any action to limit the insurrection.
On that last matter, Trump’s attorneys bobbed, weaved and evaded. For good reason. There is mounting evidence Trump sided with the insurrectionist mob, including this statement issued Friday night from a Washington state Republican House member:
Otherwise, Bruce Castor, David Schoen and Michael van der Veen deployed the “whatabout defense” taught in the nation’s top law schools. Or they argued that rules that apply in a court case were being violated in what attorneys in Trump’s first impeachment reminded the Senate ad nauseam is a political trial. Or they accused House managers of trying to disqualify Trump from ever again holding office — the express purpose of impeachment stated in Article I, section 3, clause 7.
It was a travesty. Digby posted a detailed takedown from The Daily Beast’s Matt Lewis last night.
The Bulwark’s Benjamin Parker had additional observations:
(3) Multiple members of “the 45th president’s” legal team decried “hatred” in politics.
By which they meant the hatred Democrats have for Trump, which they claim was the motivation for this second impeachment.
Trump’s lawyers did not see “hatred” as the motivation that led people to destroy public property, disrupt congressional proceedings, erect gallows, and attack and murder police officers on January 6.
This insane view didn’t even rise to the level of false equivalence.
(4) At one point, van der Veen looked directly toward the House impeachment managers and claimed, “Either words matter or they don’t.” He should take his own advice.
Van der Veen also suggested to the Senate that convicting Trump because of his speech would be a violation of the former—sorry, 45th president’s free speech rights. He even read the First Amendment aloud: “Congress shall make no law…”
But of course impeachment isn’t a law. Either words matter or they don’t.
(5) Van der Veen went on to suggest that to violate Trump’s rights in such a brazen manner (bear with me here) would somehow be a violation of the senators’ oaths.
Yes, you read that right.
A lawyer defending Donald Trump thought it was a good idea to bring up violation of oaths of office as a reason to acquit the former president who incited an insurrection against the U.S. government.
“When you’re making these kinds of made-for-Fox News arguments, you know you don’t really have a good defense,” Lewis wrote.
It promises to be no better when proceedings resume today at 10 a.m. Eastern.
Now, if only House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy could be called to tesify.
Let your U.S. senators know what you think about Rep. Herrera Beutler’s statement RIGHT NOW! And if their office won’t pick up (it’s Saturday), free e-fax them.
Her’es Republican Matt Lewis talking about the trial today:
Lacking any compelling defense of Donald Trump, his lawyers engaged in all sorts of trickery and misdirection and whataboutism on Friday. It’s hard to blame them. They were dealt a bad hand. Trump is obviously guilty. So instead of pounding the facts or pounding the law, they—as the old legal maxim goes—pounded the table.
It started when Trump attorney David Schoen made a somewhat startling accusation: “We have reason to believe the House managers manipulated evidence and selectively edited footage,” he asserted. One such example cited was from Rep. Eric Swalwell’s presentation where he referenced a tweet from a Trump supporter named Jennifer Lynn Lawrence. On Wednesday, Swalwell presented her comments as if she were saying that she was bringing the cavalry. In actuality, though, Lawrence tweeted that she was “bringing the Calvary.”
The obvious conclusion from Swalwell (and everybody, really) was that Lawrence simply doesn’t know the difference between “cavalry” and “Calvary,” but, in a blog post, Lawrence called out Swalwell, arguing that she actually meant “Bringing the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ (AKA the salvation of everyone) back to Washington DC…” This line of argumentation was picked up by the defense on Friday: “The tweeter promised to bring the ‘Calvary,’” Schoen said. “A public display of Christ’s crucifixion, a central symbol of her Christian faith with her. A symbol of faith, love, and peace.”
Based on the context, it appears more likely that Lawrence simply used the wrong word. Regardless, the fact that Trump’s defense began by making an issue out of this sideshow, instead of, you know, proving that he did not incite an insurrection, tells you all you need to know about the amount of evidence at the defense’s disposal.
Next, the defense decided to roll video of what felt like hundreds of clips of Democrats telling their supporters to “fight.” This was supposed to prove that all politicians use martial terms (they do), and that these metaphors are all harmless and meaningless. There is no doubt that the term “fight” is frequently used metaphorically. Likewise, there’s no doubt that some Democrats have behaved badly and hypocritically and have broken norms in the past.
But what Trump did was qualitatively worse. MUCH worse. Without rehashing his pattern of rhetoric and behavior that the prosecution ably demonstrated these last four days, when you tell an angry crowd that is gathered on the day the Electoral College votes are being certified that they have to “fight like hell”—and then you order them to march down to the Capitol (where the votes are being certified)—the notion that the word “fight” translates to “don’t forget to vote against my adversaries in the primary election two years from now” seems absurd.
The defense also took great pains to point out that, during his speech, Trump once told his supporters they should “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” I’m left wondering: Should such a disclaimer, casually dropped once in every communication, make one immune from any consequences from the rest of your language? Regardless of this disclaimer, several members of the mob clearly believed they were taking orders from Trump. Oh, and he used “fight” or “fighting” 20 times in the speech.
Another way the defense sought to undermine the incitement allegation was to suggest that the violence was pre-planned (“You can’t incite what was already going to happen,” said Michael van der Veen). But as the prosecution made clear this week, Trump’s incitement involved months of advancing the “big lie” that the election was stolen. His behavior on Jan. 6 was merely the icing on the cake.
The defense also frequently invoked the “Brandenburg test,” which comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio. The truth is that the legal standard for proving incitement is very high. But here’s the thing. This isn’t a legal trial, it’s an impeachment, which is not subject to this high bar. Still, the problem with crafting an impeachment that is solely based on incitement is that the defense has a clear shot at conflating the legal standard with the political one.
In this regard, Democrats might have been better off by including various articles of impeachment, which might have included incitement, as well as “dereliction of duty” for Trump’s failure to save Mike Pence or quickly send in backup police support, etc. Heck, I think Trump’s call to the Georgia Secretary of State to “find 11,780 votes”—which has nothing directly to do with the insurrection—warranted an article of impeachment in its own right.
Regardless, any normal person watching this trial would vote to convict Donald Trump. The prosecution has him dead to rights. The most absurd idea proffered by the defense might have been that if you impeach Trump you are infringing on his First Amendment rights. But there is no reason to believe that Trump is being penalized for taking controversial political positions. No, he is being held accountable for fomenting an insurrection.
In a desperation move, the defense argued that impeaching Trump was “constitutional cancel culture,” van der Veen said, and tantamount to “canceling 75 million Trump voters and criminalizing political viewpoints.” When you’re making these kinds of made-for-Fox News arguments, you know you don’t really have a good defense.
The fact that the defense only used a fraction of the time they were allotted suggests that even by stretching credulity and inventing defenses of Trump’s behavior, they still could only keep up the charade for so long.
It’s clear that Van der Veen is just providing soundbites for Fox, OAN and Newsmax and nothing else. They’re intimidated the witness/jurors and they know they have the verdict in the bag. So this is just about reassuring their MAGA’s that they owned the libs.
"Lord, infuse them with the spirit of nonpartisan patriotism" — Senate Chaplain Barry Black's prayer begins the Trump defense portion of the #ImpeachmentTrial
Michael van der Veen begins Trump's defense: "The article of impeachment now before the Senate is an unjust and blatantly unconstitutional act of political vengeance"
The Trump defense argument is that Trump was actually urging senators to follow the law, not inciting insurrection, because all he was trying to do is make sure the election was fair. (This argument doesn't accord with reality but will probably be sufficient for GOP senators.)
"gavel them down"
Michael van der Veen is using clips of Dems objecting to Trump's Electoral College win to discredit the House managers' case, but what this overlooks is that Dems didn't encourage a mob to descend upon the Capitol
"incitement to resurrection"
Trump's lawyers are basically turning this into a Trump stump speech with a video montage of how many times he said "law and order"
Trump's lawyers are now using the impeachment trial to spread misinformation about Russia's 2016 interference campaign
Trump's lawyer does some whataboutism by suggesting Bernie Sanders is just as responsible for Steve Scalise's shooting as Trump is for the insurrection
The "75 million people voted for Trump" lie is such a weird and pervasive one. It's a little thing but 74 million people voted for Trump.
again, it's a lie that 75 million people voted for Trump
David Schoen is making a great case for witness testimony!
Schoen accuses House managers of presenting "manipulated evidence" — but his evidence for this is a photo from a New York Times piece that is in no way central to the case and wasn't even presented during the trial
Schoen is now attacking Dems for depicting Twitter accounts retweeted by Trump as verified when they weren't. Doesn't seem like a big deal.
We are now getting some "very fine people" trutherism
Trump's argument seems to be that Democrats have said "fight" a lot of times, therefore checkmate libs
I can't believe Chuck Schumer incited violence against Covid like this
what is this never-ending video of Democrats saying "fight" meant to prove? is it supposed to be a form of torture?
the Trump defense team is now playing a video including footage of dead bodies
It's not on point or really a defense of Trump at all, but Trump's lawyers are putting together a masterclass in owning the libs
watch this clip while reminding yourself that Trump's entire defense so far has been about whataboutism
van der Veen's argument now seems to be that not accepting his arguments about Trump's innocence is an attack on his reputation
This, dear reader, was not in fact what Trump was doing on January 6
Bruce Castor: "Clearly, there was no insurrection."
(His argument was that there was no actual coup, therefore there was no insurrection.)
"Ben Raffensberger"
Castor defends Trump's recorded phone call in which he tried to bully the Georgia Secretary of State into "finding" votes for him
Castor reading part of Trump's call to Raffensperger accidentally illustrates how unhinged Trump sounded
Trump impeachment lawyers’ “defense” of Trump was a buffet of whataboutism
Castor concludes Trump's remarkably short defense with a screed about "constitutional cancel culture"
Day three of former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial was not quite as harrowing as day two, with its never before seen security footage of officials and staff being evacuated just steps away from a frothing mob, but it was startling nonetheless. Having meticulously laid out the case that Trump spent months stoking the fury of his voters the day before, Thursday’s arguments took a look further back into his long history of violent rhetoric and drove home the point that if Trump is not held accountable and barred from running for office he will do it again.
Lead House Manager Jamie Raskin, D-Md, rested the case with encouraging words from Thomas Paine:
“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, yet we have this consolation with us: that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”
If he was listening, no doubt Trump’s ears perked up at the words “glorious” and “triumph” and, in a way, you couldn’t blame him. The Impeachment managers delivered an irrefutable argument that proved the former president incited an insurrection which came horrifyingly close to causing death or injury to members of Congress, the Senate and the Vice President — and yet he is almost certain to be acquitted. A glorious triumph indeed.
Who but Donald Trump could get away with such a thing? Who but Donald Trump would even have the nerve to try?
He will be most pleased with those senators who boldly defend the Big Lie and say that he won the election and everything he did was perfect. There will be a few. There always are. Most, however, will quietly take the proverbial “off-ramp” offered by the discredited constitutional argument that the Senate has no jurisdiction to try a former president. It’s an easy way out that Trump will no doubt accept, but he won’t be particularly impressed and may require some more overt acts of loyalty if Republicans expect him not to call his Red Hat MAGA mob down on them.
There are also going to be a handful who will echo the defense team’s apparent argument that the House managers were “offensive” and divisive by presenting their case with the graphic videos and documents showing the Jan. 6th violence and Trump’s participation in it. This is apparently contrary to the need for “healing” which everyone knows is Donald Trump’s primary concern. Trump’s lead attorney Schoen went on Fox News to explain:
Schoen says House Impeachment managers wanted screen time all to themselves. He also says showing ”that tape” over and over again does nothing for healing pic.twitter.com/a486MOOPem
I think we know by now that if there’s one thing Trump cannot abide, it’s divisiveness.
Schoen’s insistence that the manager’s case is offensive has been echoed by Trump’s most loyal henchman Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and he, along with Sens. Mike Lee, R-Ut, and Ted Cruz, R-Tx, met with the impeachment managers on Thursday night to help them with a strategy in advance of their presentation today. One might think that’s a little bit unusual since they took an oath to be impartial but this is Donald Trump’s impeachment trial so oaths are obviously for suckers and losers.
As I write this, it’s unknown what their advice might be, but perhaps this is a clue:
That’s right. According to Graham, Nancy Pelosi has only herself to blame for the sacking of the Capitol, the mob hunting her down, breaking into her office, terrifying her staff and she really needs to pay for that. “Is this another diversionary operation?” Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI, recently asked about the impeachment trial. “Is this meant to deflect away from potentially what the speaker knew and when she knew it?” Johnson asked on Fox News. “I don’t know, but I’m suspicious.”
Graham and Schoen have been very derisive toward the House managers in general, but their opinion isn’t widely shared, even by the Senate Republicans, most of whom were unable to summon that level of gall and reluctantly had to admit that the case was very compelling.
Texas Senator John Cornyn told CNN’s Manu Raju, “I have to compliment the impeachment managers just in terms of their presentation preparation. I thought it was excellent. I don’t agree with everything. But I think they set the standard pretty high.” Of course he went on to say that the biggest concern he has is the moot constitutional question and “what that means to exact retribution on political opponents.” That’s pretty rich coming from the man who enthusiastically supported the president who led “lock her up” chants for four years and said “you’d be in jail” to his presidential opponent’s face in a televised presidential debate.
Trump’s lawyer Bruce Castor actually suggested on Tuesday that while the impeachment was illegitimate, there was no good reason not to have the former president arrested:
“[If you] actually think that President Trump committed a criminal offense…you go and arrest him…. The Department of Justice does know what to do with such people, and so far I haven’t seen any activity in that direction.”
I thought “so far” was a nice touch. Florida Senator Marco Rubio seemed to think it made sense as well, tweeting, “The 6 Jan attack on the Capitol was far more dangerous than most realize and we have a criminal justice system in place to address it.” It seems odd for Trump’s defenders to take this tack, but I have to say that it is the best idea they’ve had in a very long time. Lock him up.
Whatever “strategy” they decide to go with, they know that it really doesn’t matter because their client has threatened and intimidated the jury and they will vote to acquit regardless of what they say. We already know how this ends and it’s profoundly depressing. After all, if what happened on Jan. 6th does not result in any consequences for the man who incited it, then it’s hard to imagine what would.
Donald Trump has been impeached twice, both times for gross abuse of power. He was the most corrupt, incompetent, demagogic, radicalizing president in US history. And the Republican party cannot quit him even when he’s no longer in power. Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick describes watching this trial as “excruciating” and not just because it’s painful to watch that rabid crowd descend into bloodlust and violent delusion, which it is. It’s excruciating because this terrifying event was real, we watched it happen, and yet it changed nothing. And that’s not even the worst of it:
[T]he same people refusing to contend with its factuality were witnesses and victims themselves, and they still don’t care. Rep. Eric Swalwell narrating in the second person what happened to United States senators was astounding. This happened. And it happened to you. A recitation of facts that were excruciating one month ago is worse today, as new details come out of colleagues, like Romney and Pence, who were closer to harm than they even realized at the time. None of this will change their minds, a fact that starts a spiral of hopeless despair as the back of one’s mind asks: What else will we have to live through before the Republican Party finds its way back to fact-based decision-making?
Watching these GOP senators flounce around like a gang of sullen teenagers, making excuses for Trump’s shameless attempt to overturn the election, it’s clear that we have a very long way to go before that happens. I don’t even want to think about what we will have to live through before we get there.
By the way:
On the final day of the impeachment trial of the former president, the threat of political violence on the Capitol is still so serious the entire Cannon-Capitol tunnel is filled with troops pic.twitter.com/ylhvGxyUiL
Waiting lists are still long, but COVID-19 vaccinations are beginning to ramp up. Finally.
Even though supplies remain short, they are increasing (Washington Post):
President Biden said Thursday that his administration had finalized deals for another 200 million doses of the two coronavirus vaccines authorized in the United States, giving the country enough vaccine by the end of July to cover every American adult.
In statements made after a tour of the National Institutes of Health, Biden announced the contracts and again reminded Americans that wearing a mask to stem the spread of the coronavirus is a “patriotic responsibility.”
“We remain in the teeth of this pandemic,” he said, observing that January was the deadliest month of the pandemic, in which “we lost over 100,000 of our fellow citizens.” Mutations of the virus posenew challenges, he said, even as infections and hospitalizations begin to decline.
“We’ve now purchased enough vaccine supply to vaccinate all Americans, and now we’re working to get those vaccines into the arms of people,” Biden said after he toured the Viral Pathogenesis Laboratory at the NIH complex that developed the COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Moderna.
“The new strains emerging create immense challenges, and masking is still the easiest thing to do to save lives,” the president added.
“As the President directed, we are expanding our supply of COVID vaccines to protect people as quickly as possible,” acting Health and Human Services Secretary Norris Cochran said in a statement.
Almost lost in this week’s impeachment and pandemic news is word that the relief package under review in the House Ways and Means Committee would enhance Affordable Care Act subsidies for two years to compensate for the pandemic’s economic costs (Axios again):
People making up to 150% of federal poverty would be eligible for fully subsidized plans, and no one — regardless of their income — would pay more than 8.5% of their income for health insurance.
People receiving unemployment would also be eligible for full subsidies for a year.
The Energy and Commerce legislation incentivizes states that haven’t done so to expand Medicaid.
Larger subsidies were part of Biden’s plan for upgrades to the ACA. Extending the increases beyond two years might be part of that (TBD). We are still looking for a public option and other improvements. They will still face opposition in Congress and that opposition will stand as long as elections are tilted structurally towards Republicans.
Passage of H. R. 1, the ‘‘For the People Act of 2021’’ for overhauling elections, may have to come first.
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow interviewed Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis Thursday evening regarding her investigation there into the former president. Willis will begin with Trump’s Jan. 2 call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to pressure him to “find” enough votes to reverse Trump’s election loss.
Trump was specific. “I just want to find 11,780 votes,” he told Raffensperger. Just one more than the margin by which he lost Georgia. That is an indicator of Trump’s state of mind during the hour-long conference call Raffensperger recorded. Mens rea and all that.
Willis has notified Raffensberger’s office to preserve documents relating to the call. But not only the secretary of state’s office. Gov. Brian Kemp, Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan and Attorney General Chris Carr all found themselves pressured by Trump:
Willis told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Wednesday that her office was best suited to handle the investigation since all other relevant state investigative agencies have conflicts. In her letter, Willis said her office “is the one agency with jurisdiction that is not a witness to the conduct that is the subject of the investigation.”
[…]
“This investigation includes, but is not limited to, potential violations of Georgia law prohibiting the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration,” Willis wrote.
Calling it a “matter of high priority,” Willis said the next Fulton County grand jury is set to convene in March and added “this office will begin requesting grand jury subpoenas as necessary at that time.” She said investigators have no “reason to believe that any Georgia official is a target of this investigation.”
Trump falsely alleged Fulton County had counted “hundreds of thousands” fraudulent ballots.
Trump also claimed “hundreds of thousands” of signatures on Fulton County ballots were forged. But that would be impossible, since only 147,000 ballots were mailed in Georgia’s largest county, a reliable bastion for Democratic votes. And a claim that a Fulton election worker fed ballots through a tabulating machine three times was debunked by multiple recounts, including one by hand, that showed no discrepancy among the ballots.
Willis told Maddow her investigation might not be limited to the Raffensperger call but “seems that it will go past just this one phone call.” She would follow the evidence where it leads.
Ok, having now watched Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis talk with Rachel, I'm thinking Donald Trump is going to need to get himself a real lawyer. And, like, actually pay them.#Maddow
With Trump no longer shielded by the presidency, he (and/or his family business) faces possible civil or criminal prosecution at the federal and state level for an assortment of offences.
He could still face multiple obstruction of justice charges stemming from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. As ”Individual No. 1‘,’ Trump could face federal charges in the Southern District of New York related to the campaign finance violations that sent his former attorney Michael Cohen to prison.
And while the most Trump faces from an unlikely impeachment conviction is being barred from holding office again, he possible federal and local charges relating to inciting a riot in the District of Columbia — difficult but not impossible to charge. “Because of First Amendment protections for freedom of speech, prosecutors would have to meet a particularly high burden of proof,” Charlie Savage wrote for the New York Times.
The Thursday installment of Trump's #ImpeachmentTrial begins with a Baked Alaska clip
Rep. Diana DeGette is using quotes like this to try and establish that rioters were taking orders from Trump
"We were invited here! … We were invited by the president of the United States"
"Knock the crap out of 'em!" — Impeachment managers put together a video history of Trump inciting his supporters to commit acts of violence
Here's a video montage of Trump praising violence from his supporters
Trump's tweet blaming Gretchen Whitmer and defending right-wing extremists right after they stormed the Capitol building in Michigan is among the most diabolical he ever posted
Raskin details how Trump responded to a kidnapping plot targeting a frequent target of his abuse, Gretchen Whitmer, by continuing to attack her
"He could not bring himself to publicly oppose a kidnapping and potential assassination conspiracy plot against a sitting governor" — Raskin
"Is there any political leader in this room who believes that if he is ever allowed by the Senate get back into the Oval Office, Donald Trump would stop inciting violence to get his way? Would you bet the lives of more police officers on that?" — Raskin
Ted Lieu points out that Trump still hasn't conceded the reality that the election wasn't stolen from him.
"That is why National Guard troops in full body armor still patrol outside," he adds.
choose your fighter
this guy is a real charmer
i had forgotten that Trump retweeted a guy who said "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat"
Cicilline: "Never did any of us imagine that we or our colleagues would face mortal peril by a mob riled up by POTUS, the leader of the free world. But we did. All because Donald Trump could not accept election defeat. Trump chose himself above the people."
From the people who brought you Blue Lives Matter
"1776, bitch!!"
Castro: "Every foreign adversary considering attacking this building got to watch a dress rehearsal and they saw that this Capitol could be overtaken."
Raskin reminds senators that an impeachment trial *is not* a criminal trial — a distinction defenders of Trump frequently conflate
Neguse: "Senators, the evidence is clear … we humbly ask you to convict President Trump for the crime for which he is overwhelmingly guilty of, because if you don't, if we pretend this didn't happen, or worse, if we let it go unanswered, who's to say it won't happen again?"
Raskin is really dropping the ball here by citing Thomas Paine and not literature more up the jurors' alley, like Laura Ingraham chyrons or Hannity tweets
Raskin closes with this Thomas Paine quote: "Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, yet we have this consolation with us: that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." https://t.co/PhzJuF43F6
