Impeachment Liveblog Day 4: Trump's Razzle Dazzle Legal Team Gonna LAW SO HARD
Last night, Senators Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and Mike Lee, three of the "jurors" in the ongoing second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, met with Trump's impeachment lawyers behind closed doors.
"We were discussing their legal strategy and sharing our thoughts," Cruz told CNN's Manu Raju.
"I think that's the practice of impeachment. There's nothing about this thing that has any semblance of due process whatsoever," Trump's lawyer David Schoen told the reporter. This from an attorney who stepped out of the hearing yesterday to hop on Fox and whine about the lack of due process and Democrats treating this solemn event as an "entertainment package."
Trump's lawyer, David Schoen, SLAMS the Left for caring more about emotion than facts and due process. https://t.co/UbG20Qbnfi— MRCTV (@MRCTV)1613071800.0
Schoen, an Orthodox Jew, is out for tomorrow during the Sabbath. And after Trump
lost his shit over Bruce Castor's disastrous performance Tuesday, he's being sidelined. Which may mean that, lacking an attorney to present tomorrow, Trump's team rests its case today.
Hosanna! Alleluia! And Lord help us. It's time for your Day 4 Impeachment LIVEBLOG!
Here's your livestream!
Don't forget Wonkette relies on YOUR donations to keep us watching this shit, please and thank you!
12:00 Still waiting for kickoff, but CNN's Manu Raju says that senators are being asked to submit questions now. Might could get questioning tonight, if Trump's lawyers decide to say FUCKIT and finish today.
Even though Dems aren’t saying if they’ll ask for witnesses, it’s widely expected they won’t. Meantime, GOP and Dem… https://t.co/MFLwdXHBE1— Manu Raju (@Manu Raju)1613143143.0
12:02 Senate Chaplain Barry Black praying that the Lord will unite the senators to "make choices that will be for your greater glory." Well ...
12:05 Oh, here we go. Attorney Michael van der Veen is up to denounce this appalling act of "political vengeance." WITCH HUNT! THE LEFT! SLANDER! RUSSIA! Donald Trump is a man of peace. How was he to know that the crowd of enraged lunatics he sent to march on congress would ... march on congress and act like lunatics?
LOL, he's making a bizarre argument that Trump was just exhorting them to pass voter ID laws "in the next election."
On the plus side, this atorney seems to have written his remarks out this time, so we're spared freefrom blarping about Rome or whatever.
12:10 Now we have video of Democrats objecting in 2017. Thought the GOP didn't like slickly produced videos?
12:15 And now we're getting supercut of Trump reading paeans to "Law and Order" with Democrats expressing support for BLM. Also Chris Cuomo. Good we're getting this campaign ad for a guy who already lost.
Anyway, van der Veen says a small group "of various different stripes and political persuasions ... hijacked" the event. He blames antifa, of course.
12:18 See, it's Democrats' fault that rioters stormed the Capitol because they objected to Trump teargassing racial justice protestors. Lock up Mayor Muriel Bowser!
12:20 Nancy Pelosi is the real inciter. Also the national news media, for reporting on Russian political interference. Democrats supported "riots that destroyed vast swathes of American cities."
As the resident of an American city that is often invoked in these situations, let me offer a hearty FUCK YOU, Mr. van der Veen.
12:22 The theme of the day is CULTURE WAR.
"Constitutional cancel culture!" Because if we impeach Trump, we're really impeaching the "75 million" (not really) Trump voters.
"Unlike the left, President Trump has been consistent in his opposition to mob violence." You know, like the time he
offered to pay the bills of his fans who beat up protesters at his rallies.
12:28 David Schoen is up to tell us more about how Trump couldn't possibly have incited a riot because he loves police so much.
But first he's going to holler some more about that due process he cares about so much.
12:30 While Schoen is yelling about something or other — he's mad right now about the videos Democrats showed in their prosecution, says they were withheld from the Defense which is UNFAIR — can we just point out that Trump was offered the chance to testify, and he declined. He had a chance to defend himself; he chose not to.
12:32 Now we're yelling about due process in court. This is not a court, it's congress.
Also, Schoen is real mad about reliance on news reports which are uncorroborated. Then he goes on to accuse House managers of doctoring tweets and videos. Without proof, natch.
LOL, he's accusing Raskin of manufacturing graphics because they recreated tweets. You know why Democrats have to recreate Trump's tweets? BECAUSE THE FUCKER INCITED A RIOT AND GOT BOOTED OFF TWITTER, SO HIS DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE.
12:40 OMG OMG OMG! They're actually arguing with a straight face that this nitwit Trump retweeted, the one who organized the march, was bringing JESUS, aka "calvary", not just botching the spelling of "cavalry."
12:40 Missed this "incitement to resurrection"
12:45 Well, we were just treated to five straight minutes of video of Trump yelling at reporters about Charlottesville. Not sure how they think this helps. Supposedly "context?"
12:47 Here's a supercut of Democrats calling for Trump's impeachment. You know, as a chaser for that long lecture on the evils of manipulated videos taken out of context.
12:50 More video of Maxine Waters. And Nancy Pelosi. Also Johnny Depp and Madonna???
12:52 Oh, noes! Not big, scary Elizabeth Warren talking about "fighting back!" Remember all the times she riled up hordes of ladies in their hand-crocheted pink hats to beat a cop to death with a flag?
12:52 Apparently the entire defense is going to just be unending videos of Democrats using the word "fight." Not, like, to a bunch of people who actually went on to lay siege to the Capitol. But, you know, because Democrats are the real inciters.
What even is this shit?
sleepy clarissa explains it all GIF Giphy
12:57 What the hell is even happening?
12:59 Oh, great. Now we're going to watch video of riots interspliced with totally out of context videos of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and Maxine Waters.
1:02 What does Jamie Raskin objecting to Florida's electors in 2017 have to do with Trump sending the rioters to the Capitol? Fuck if I know.
1:05 This is all soooooo bad. I believe Schoen's argument is that an hour of Democrats objecting to the count in 2017 is exactly the same as the sustained, monthslong campaign of outright lies about nonexistent voter fraud and attempts to get legitimate electors thrown out Republicans have waged this year.
1:10 What is the point of this horseshit? Like why are we watching videos of Jerry Nadler during the Clinton impeachment? The Republicans already have the votes to acquit, why go out looking like idiots?
1:12 Oh, TG, Schoen's AV Club is done. We've got van der Veen back to talk about First Amendment. But first, a disquisition on "political hatred," from the people who just showed us a supercut of Maxine Waters and Hillary Clinton.
1:15 Okay, before we get too far into this bullshit about "there is no First Amendment right not to be impeached" business: There's no "hearsay" in congressional proceedings, and there's no due process. If Trump gets arrested, he can assert all these constitutional protections he likes. This isn't a court of law, this is a political body which can do whatever it likes.
And for van der Veen to criticize the quality of the legal work in the House brief is fucking rich.
1:18 "This is not whataboutism" van der Veen said, introducing the same ten clips of Democrats, but this time with ominous back music.
Did Madonna try to assassinate Trump and we missed it?
1:19 LOLOLOL, VDV just sighed the heaviest, most community theater sigh directly into the microphone. He is deeply disturbed by this terrible rhetoric destroying our democracy. That's why he's here defending <checks notes> Donald Trump.
1:22 And now we will dry hump the First Amendment and pretend that impeaching the president for his speech violates the prohibition to "make no law respecting speech."
In this bizarroworld interpretation, swearing allegiance to a foreign government in a KKK robe would be totes cool because FIRST AMENDMENT.
And now we're inventing a standard for "high crimes and misdemeanors" that pretends the definition is not entirely at congress's discretion.
1:28 Van der Veen is now indignantly exclaiming that he's being threatened by a bunch of law professors who wrote a letter saying his argument is frivolous shit and that he should be disbarred for advocating it.
"How dare you!" he howls.
Because Republicans are always, always, always the victim.
1:30 When y'all figure out what these words have to do with the issues at hand, please let me know.
1:30 But while we're on the subject of WHO IS DISGRACE, this implication that there is an extensive body of law saying that presidents have First Amendment rights in impeachment hearings is nonsense. The cases he's citing have ZERO to do with impeachment — they're First Amendment case in regular court.
This is not a regular court! Because this is congress, not the judiciary.
Congress is constituted under Article I, the (federal) judiciary is constituted under Article III. It's just shocking hackery to pretend otherwise.
"The House managers do not mention Wood or Bond in the trial brief or anywhere else. Why?" wonders van der Veen.
1:40 What's that sound you hear? It's every lawyer on Twitter throwing their phones across the room in disgust at once.
1. explicitly OR IMPLICITLY calls for lawless action. "Implicitly" is EXACTLY what he did. But again, this is su… https://t.co/JYd0CCBeUK— Elie Mystal (@Elie Mystal)1613155383.0
1:42 And if Counselor van den Veen wishes to bring up the Brandenburg test for incitement, he is entirely free to address it in a court of law. Which this is not.
1:45 Who's here for a lecture on hypocrisy from a guy who wept about evil democrats airing quotes out of context — "manipulatively, selectively edited parts of Trump's speech" — with half an hour of supercuts of Democrats using the word fight?
1:50 Does the Trump brain trust think video of Donald Trump helps their case? Because he's been off the TV for six weeks now, and our ability to tune him out has eroded. He's crazy as a loon, but thanks for the reminder.
Also, this video is edited, which is UNLEGAL.
1:51 "Spare us the hypocrisy and false indignation!"
Oh, it's fight video o'clock again. Thank God, it's been like ten minutes since we saw these clips.
1:55 Hahaha, here we go again. Van der Veen is pretending that Trump was instructing the insurrectionists to "fight" for "electoral reform" and to "hold big tech responsible" — not to overturn the electoral college.
And now it is break time. FIGHT!
2:02 You guys! I regret to inform you that Trump's lawyers may have told a wee fib when they said that they didn't get the House managers' evidentiary videos before the trial.
Try not to pass out.
2:20 And the senators are filing back in. Hang tight. In the meantime, whores gonna whore.
President’s lawyers blew the House Manager’s case out of the water. Legally eviscerated them.— Senator Ron Johnson (@Senator Ron Johnson)1613156957.0
2:25 Here, while you wait, let Jamie splain you how pig ignorant and deliberately deceptive Trump's legal arguments are. Spoiler Alert: VERY.
2:35 WE'RE BAAAAAACK!
Steve Castor is up, and he's launching into an exegesis into his feelings about representing Trump. Cool, cool, Trump must be delighted.
2:40 Castor just totally made up a legal definition of "insurrection" having something to do with taking over TV stations or something.
Here's the real statutory definition:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
If the foo shits ...
2:43 Castor says he hopes this catchy phrase he just made up will be a "mantra" in the days to come: "Political hatred has no place in the American justice system, and most certainly no place in the congress of the united states."
And now it's video time again. Surprise, it's the exact same dozen clips, interspersed with Trump saying "Law and Order" over and over again.
2:45 "Manipulated video." DRINK!
2:46 Their entire argument appears to be that Trump can't have incited a riot because he loves cops.
Oh, wait, we're back to pretending this is a court of law where Trump could get locked up and is thus entitled to due process.
Also lying about Supreme Court holdings.
2:50 Castor just totally lied about Trump not being invited to testify to the House in his own defense.
He said NFW.
🚨Response to Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin🚨 https://t.co/I13JBvbkmD— Jason Miller (@Jason Miller)1612471199.0
2:55 Trump didn't incite the riot, because the riot was always going to happen. Everyone in government knew that beforehand. That's why he went down to those people who were raring to riot and told them to fight. Ipso facto totally innocent.
2:57 LOL, fresh off his lie about Trump being asked to testify, Castor is clutching his pearls about evil House managers deceiving the Senate with manipulated video. Steve Castor wouldn't do that, because he knows God is watching!
3:00 You guys, I don't know how to break it to you. But ... this is some extremely shite lawyering.
Bruce Castor: "I don't know if we're under oath here, but I sure felt like it."... is just an amazing statement from an attorney.— Elie Mystal (@Elie Mystal)1613159807.0
3:02 Castor is now referring to "open source reports" to corroborate his timeline. Wait 'til David Schoen finds out his own side is relying on "unverified" news reports?
3:03 Oh, great, it's movie night again. Bunch of manipulated video of newscasters saying the insurrection was preplanned over screaming Fox music. But, please, sir, go on about evidence which would not be admissible in a court of law.
3:08 Castor is now refuting the House managers' contention that the "surreptitiously recorded" call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is proof that Trump tried to incite a riot (a contention they never made). See, Trump isn't the one who released the call, so how can he have been using the call to incite a riot.
This is gobbledygook. The call itself is impeachable conduct, and it goes to show that Trump's intent was to overturn the election result, not encourage his voters to get out and vote in 2022, as these legal eagles have claimed.
And now we're on to the Big Lie trying to "prove" election fraud.Trump will be happy again.
Castor is accusing Democrats of taking Trump's request to "find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have" out of context. Because there's, we guess, a good context for pressuring an elected official to commit vote fraud.
3:10 WHY IS CASTOR READING THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE GEORGIA CALL? It makes Trump sound so fucking guilty!
3:13 Castor just accused "the media and their Democratic allies" of distorting the call to make Trump look bad. The call which was immediately released unedited in its entirety, and without a screaming soundtrack to let listeners know how to feel about it.
3:15 JFC, this hearing has more videos than Netflix.
"In a world ..."
3:16 LOL, Castor just told Congress to quit impeaching Trump and pass some damn covid relief. No doubt Mitch McConnell appreciates the nudge.
Also, cancel culture is bad. THE END.
Seriously, they're done. Just couldn't do any better than that limpdick performance.
Rebecca here, Liz is gone for the day and MAN we miss her already!
Question 1 from Chook and DiFi: Isn't it true that the violence would not have happened BUT FOR President Trump?
Joaquin Castro: He invited the mob, incited the mob, sent the mob, and then sat on his fat ass, so: YUP. The mob "didn't come out of thin air."
Don't feel like Castro really needed to take the full five minutes there, but at least it gave me time to yell at Shy that I need a drink. He looks really handsome though, and I believe Liz fell down on the "handsome screenshots" part of the job. Oh probably because it was those other guys all day, YOWCH, NO SCREENSHOTS.
4:06 Question from Graham, Cruz, Marshall (???) (oh, Kansas): Did AOC doing bail for protesters mean Democrats are Black?
Trump lawyer: BLACK!
4:09 Question from Senator Rev. Warnock of Georgia (yay!): Did dozens of courts tell Trump's kraken lawyers to GTFO?
House managers: For sure! And we sure are not impeaching him for going to court! MAN did he get so much due process for his "big lie." Good for him and his frivolous lawsuits! We're impeaching him for all the rest of it. Like Rep. Cheney said: Summoning a mob, assembling a mob, and lighting a match. The president's lawyers should have addressed it, but they were too busy playing hours of clips of "Fight Song" like five times each because it was the "we have 16 hours of argument to fill" equivalent of three inch margins and 26-point font.
4:14 Susie Q and the Murk: When Trump learned of the breach, what did he do SPECIFICALLY to stop it, Trump lawyers?
Oh this is RICH: Trump's lawyer says it's the House Managers' fault they don't know what their client did (nothing), because THEY did not INVESTIGATE. I cannot even unpack right now how bad-faith it is that they're blaming the Democrats for not their own ignorance of their client's actions, but it is CHOOTSPAH. (The answer is he did literally nothing; sorry the Dems didn't investigate you up an alibi.)
4:20 I didn't listen to the last question, but here is House Manager Stacey Plaskett talking about "yeah, his incitement was not just a Rocky training montage and the word fight" it was HAVE YOU NOT BEEN LISTENING? He is "not on trial for those prior statements, no matter how vile, but those statements make clear his
1) pattern of encouraging violence, never condemning it
2) his behavior is different; not just an official calling to fight for a cause, but calling upon people whose prior conduct was already violent, assembling them and inflaming them and deliberately encouraging them to engage in violence at a specific day, time, and purpose to stop the certification physically with every reason to know they were armed and violent
Plaskett says that is why he must be convicted and acquitted ... er disqualified.
4:25 Tim Scott and Haggerty (?): Isn't this just a show trial to attack Trump's voters?
Trump lawyers: <dribbling shitmouth>
4:30 Markey and Duckworth: No seriously, did he do anything to stop it?
Stacey Plaskett: It was on TV. Everybody saw it. He didn't even tweet them to stop. How come? We don't know! At 4:29 a police officer was still battling, after two three hours. Why didn't he even condemn it? HE DID NOTHING.
4:33 Mitt Romney: When he did poops on Mike Pence, did he know people were trying to kill Pence?
Joaquin Castro: Sure seems like it, everybody else knew. He took NO measures to send help to the overwhelmed police, didn't even acknowledge the attack, and Tommy Tuberville was like no YOU hang up, oh wait I gotta hang up, they're evacuating the VP.
Trump lawyers: Nope, he did not know the VP was in danger, and the House rushed through the impeachment and didn't do its due diligence to give the president an alibi, impeach the House! Also he repeatedly tweeted the crowd to be peaceful and go home (MANY HOURS LATER BECAUSE WHAT IS EVEN CHRONOLOGICAL TIME).
4:38 Amy Klobs for herself, Casey, and Brown: Blah blah "precedent," what message does acquitting him send?
Plaskett: Dude. Just the worst message! FBI watch listees took photos of memos, desecrated John Lewis's statue, the WORLD WATCHED US. So what are we gonna do about it? They'll know what we did this day one hundred years from now. You wanna embolden the bad guys? Do it. Embolden them? They're "standing by" and "standing ready," waiting and watching, to see if it was, like Donald Trump said, "totally appropriate."
And by the way, continues Plaskett, the defense sure had a lot of videos of Black women talking about fighting for a cause. Some things happened that WERE violent. And some things happened that gave us comfort: Amish people standing up for us Black women and our children. It's a monumental decision like you have made before: you've voted on wars, you've freed slaves. Our decisions can be controversial but they define us as a people. History will await our decision.
Goddamn she is SO GOOD.
4:45 Lee, Hawley, Blackburn, Portman, and the whole crew:
Why Constitution not state constitutions? They specifically allow impeachment of former officials? Do these underwears go under or over my pants?
Trump lawyer: BURP. Framers smart! Many drafts! No typos!
4:50 Padilla our new California senator: This is more of a comment than a question, but "Big lie," yeah, I fought that? On the "front lines"?
Castro: Cool, buddy, thank you for your service, anyway, people sure died. The defense says everything Trump did was okay, and he could do it again and that'd be great. We really wanna let that happen? He said six months ahead of time it was a rigged election. There's a cost to doing that. And by the way, the defense intimated I misspoke before when I said Trump implied people should fight to the death (reads tweet about Trump saying "if election was stolen from Democrats, they would fight to the death but Mitch won't do anything"), I will MISSPEAK my SHOE up your ASS.
4:55 Josh Hawley for himself and Kevin Cramer: How many angels can dance on the head of this pin? Or more precisely, could the Senate disqualify a president without removing him?
Trump lawyer: No. Also Castro was lying. Trump guy LITERALLY does unfrozen caveman lawyer: "I'm not from here. I was being polite. They made shit up, and I only had TWO DAYS! Trump said Democrats would be bad, and all hell would break loose, but Republicans are SMARTER!" That's Trump, always complimenting Mitch McConnell!
Jamie Raskin: I rule you PROFOUNDLY inaccurate and irrelevant, anyway, I'm a law professor, here's the answer to your question. Eight people have been convicted and removed, and three disqualified. You need two-thirds for conviction and THEN a simple majority for disqualification. You're welcome.
5:00 Question from Minnesota, so either Klobs or Smith? Hey, those times you objected to the certification, was that with a mob?
Jamie Raskin: No ma'ams. No mob insurrections! No injured and dead cops! If we want to reform the Electoral College, let's do it without violence.
5:05 Kevin Cramer: Does anyone love Israel more than Donald Trump?
Trump lawyer: Nope, he is basically Hebrew Jesus!
5:10 Bernie Sanders and oh how I wish we could hear it in his voice: So, did Trump win the election?
WATCH: Sen. Sanders and Trump lawyer exchange words over question on claim that then-Pres. Trump perpetuated a lie… https://t.co/uuKQto08eP— MSNBC (@MSNBC)1613168833.0
Plaskett: Nope. He lost by millions of votes AND the Electoral College. He went to 61 courts and he lost. He lost the election, he lost the court cases, McConnell recognized it EVENTUALLY. When I lost my first election, I stayed in bed for three days. I didn't lead a riot. He had no support for his rigged claims, but he didn't care, he was just trying to anger up their blood.
Trump lawyer: My judgment's irrelevant! (And he has such a SNEER!) The Senate starts throwing poo at him. Leahy says NO POOP THERE, YOU. The question is, Michael van der Veen continues, were his words inciteful to violence or riot. Why won't they answer THAT question! The question they want my client to be punished by! The House managers have showed ZERO evidence of him inciting them (it did, Evan blooged the whole thing). He is v mad!
5:23 Missed some, PBS was talking and my puter was froze! Anyway, how short was the Capitol Police's skirt?
Trump lawyer: Jiminy Crickets, v v short! (Your Wonkette agrees, the Capitol Police fucked off its prep! So therefore Trump is innocent.) Who ignored it, van der Veer asks, AND WHYYYY????
Plaskett: They got any exculpatory evidence? They are welcome to exculpate all over the place. The House wasn't required to get their alibi for them, particularly when there is no alibi. Why wasn't the National Guard deployed for more than two hours? Mayor Bowser does not have the authority to deploy them. Why didn't the president? Why didn't he say he would send help? He did not defend the Capitol.
Anyway, it's probably Nancy Pelosi's fault.
5:28 Jeff Merkley: If the president stokes Americans, sends a mob to the Capitol, and then expresses "pleasure and delight" (as GOP Sen. Ben Sasse described it!), is that wrong?
Castro: Yeah. Once the mob stormed the Capitol, the VP, the Congress, the cafeteria workers, EVERYBODY was in danger, and then he said a few times "stay peaceful" when they'd already gotten violent, already hurt people. What he never said was STOP THE ATTACK. LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. In his 11,000 word incendiary speech, he said "peaceful" once. He said fight almost as much as a Democrat does, BUT TO ARMED PEOPLE.
5:35 Ted Cruz: Isn't Kamala Harris the real violence inciter? Blah blah blah "House Managers made up a new standard."
Jamie Raskin: Yeah, there's never been a case like this before, where a president attacked the government with a mob, so ... new shit yo!
Trump lawyer van der Veen: Trump's incitement fails Brandenburg (it really really doesn't) and when Kamala called on people to burn down cities, that too was protected speech.
5:40 Patty Murray: After the riot was finally contained, Trump tweeted, "this is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps," what was that about?
Castro: Right? He saw it, we all saw it, why was he like "this is what you get when you're bad to me"? Unless you agree it's something to praise, not condemn. No consolation, no reassurance, no condemnation of the violent attack on Congress? That guy's the WORST!
5:45 Alaska Senator somebody: Why do Democrats hate due process for a private citizen?
Van der Veen: Prosecutorial misconduct! They say it's our burden to prove their case! (That is ... exactly the opposite of what has actually been happening; the defense lawyers have been mad that the House didn't come up with the answer to "what did Trump do to help" because the answer was nothing.) Without due process, Trump is not entitled to a lawyer or a notice of the charges against him, neither of which is a thing that has happened here! REGIMES!
5:50 from somebody: Brandenburg more please!
Raskin: Yeah, so many bipartisan law professors say he actually Brandenburged. How do we know he was "likely" to incite violence? BECAUSE HE DID! Brandenburg was about a bunch of racists in a field; the Court said they were unlikely to imminently incite violence because they were in a field! Trump was not in a field!
ERGO AND SUCH AS! USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. They're treating their client like he's a criminal defendant. The president is not going to spend one minute in jail (BOOOOO), this is about the standard for what kind of country has a shithead like that as president.
5:55 Marshall of Kansas: But they went to the Capitol before he was done talking and knocked over the stuff, so ... right?
Van der Veen: Yes. And Brandenburg is about crimes, not elected officials, so Jamie Raskin is wrong.
The fuck he think this gotcha is? "Standards for public officials are higher." Um ... yeah? Now he's talking about tweets and fire chiefs and he's so full of shit his name is Michael van der Veen.
6:00 Chris Van Hollen: Hey Jamie Raskin, what the fuck did van der Veen just say?
Raskin: Don't even know, man. But he talked about Bond v. Floyd. I knew Julian Bond. Julian Bond was a friend of mine. And you, sir ... well you know the rest. Bond was about how they wouldn't swear in Julian Bond to the Georgia state lege because he was against the Vietnam War. SCOTUS said that was a violation of his First Amendment rights. That's ... not what happened here. Trump was sworn in and violated his oath of office. KEEP JULIAN BOND'S NAME OUT YOUR MOUTH.
6:08 Fucking Rubio: Doesn't this new precedent of impeaching a former official (not new) let us LOCK HER UP Hillary Clinton?
Raskin: Don't know how many times I can say this, "the jurisdictional issue is OVER. It's GONE." The Senate voted for it and also [PRECEDENTS, YOU IDIOTS]. Well, it's not like any of them were listening on Tuesday when we went over this.
Van der Veen: Oh my yes. It could happen to Hillary or anyone, and that would be so awful and bad. And Mr. Raskin doesn't get to tell YOU what you can do, he's not the king of jurisdiction! NULLIFY IT!
“Members of the jury, if you convict my client of inciting a violent mob, you will also be logically required to co… https://t.co/dKOV4HjGAb— Scott Lemieux (@Scott Lemieux)1613171660.0
6:17 Bennet of Colorado: What if Georgia officials had said, "okay Mr. Trump and Mr. Trump's mob surrounding the state capitol"?
Castro: Man, the pressure and intimidation — by Trump! — of all the state officials! Michigan, PA, he was blowing up their phones. Georgia was way worse! Siccing death threats on Raffensperger, a Republican, and his family. Did he ever say sorry? Of course not. Another Republican official warned him, "if this continues, someone's going to get killed." (Someone did.) He didn't stop. He said they'd face criminal penalties if they didn't do what he wanted! Just find him those 11,780 votes! THAT IS FUCKING NUTS! You all cool with that? Overturning the election by any means necessary? It wasn't just one speech, one thing, he was trying ERRETHANG. Did a rabbit come out of a hat an a mob show up here all by themselves? COME ON.
6:27 Either Cruz or Cornyn: So they're whining about the "January Exception," but we can just put him in jail if it's such a big deal right?
Van der Veen: Boring thing.
Raskin: Yes, he could be prosecuted; the reason the Framers gave "impeachment powers" to Congress was to protect the Republic. It's not about vengeance. We're not here in anger, but protecting the country. Their January exception would invite officeholders to run rampant in the last few weeks in office because we wouldn't have time to investigate. The transfer of power is always the most dangerous time, coups and seditious plots. You don't have to look at history: IT JUST HAPPENED TO US. Listen to the tapes, unless they're going to claim we fabricated those too!
6:30: QUESTION TIME OVER! Chuck would like to vote on a Congressional Gold Medal for Officer Eugene Goodman, who is now getting BIG CLAPS. Bet Rand Paul votes against it.
6:34 Mitch McConnell: What Chuck said, not even gonna be a dick about it.
You are welcome for this half of the liveblog, which was very great and perfect I'm sure except for the parts I couldn't hear or understand or skipped. Join me at 10 Eastern tomorrow (Saturday) for MORE BLOOG!
Follow Liz Dye on Twitter RIGHT HERE!
Please click here to support your Wonkette. And if you're ordering your quarantine goods on Amazon, this is the link to do it.
Liz Dye lives in Baltimore with her wonderful husband and a houseful of teenagers. When she isn't being mad about a thing on the internet, she's hiding in plain sight in the carpool line. She's the one wearing yoga pants glaring at her phone.