The question and answer period continues true to form: lies and evasions from Team Trump and a solid performance from the House impeachment managers but for the lingering question of why they aren’t calling witnesses—something the questions have repeatedly if inadvertently highlighted the need for.
The impeachment trial is being aired on major television news networks and streamed on their websites. Daily Kos will have continuing coverage.
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.