154 replies to this topic

[LFC]

Holy crap! Read this and realize that the vast majority of Republicans, including McCarthy, had no problem letting it slide.

Quote

In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.

McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump's supporters and begged Trump to call them off.

Trump's comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. A furious McCarthy told the then-President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, "Who the f--k do you think you are talking to?" according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call.

The newly revealed details of the call, described to CNN by multiple Republicans briefed on it, provide critical insight into the President's state of mind as rioters were overrunning the Capitol. The existence of the call and some of its details were first reported by Punchbowl News and discussed publicly by McCarthy.

The Republican members of Congress said the exchange showed Trump had no intention of calling off the rioters even as lawmakers were pleading with him to intervene. Several said it amounted to a dereliction of his presidential duty.

"He is not a blameless observer, he was rooting for them," a Republican member of Congress said. "On January 13, Kevin McCarthy said on the floor of the House that the President bears responsibility and he does."

Quote

At Trump's impeachment trial Friday, his lawyers argued that Trump did in fact try to calm the rioters with a series of tweets while the attack unfolded. But his lawyers cherry-picked his tweets, focusing on his request for supporters to "remain peaceful" without mentioning that he also attacked then-Vice President Mike Pence and waited hours to explicitly urge rioters to leave the Capitol.

A source close to Pence said Trump's legal team was not telling the truth when attorney Michael van der Veen said at the trial that "at no point" did the then-President know his vice president was in danger.

Asked whether van der Veen was lying, the source said, "Yes." Former Pence aides are still fuming over Trump's actions on January 6, insisting he never checked on the vice president as Pence was being rushed from danger by his US Secret Service detail.

[LFC]

One of Trump's attorneys says if the Dems want a witness he'll need to depose "at least 100" and they MUST come in person to HIS Philadelphia office. Senators laughed at him and he threw a little hissy fit. Sounds pretty much on message for a Trumpy.

Quote

Trump impeachment lawyer Michael van der Veen told senators Saturday that if Democrats wish to call a witness, he will ask for at least 100 witnesses and will insist they give depositions in person in his office in Philadelphia.

He said many depositions need to be taken including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Kamala Harris.

"If they want to have witnesses, I'm going to need at least over 100 depositions. Not just one," van der Veen said.

Van der Veen said the depositions should not be done over Zoom, the online video chat service that has grown in popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

"We did not do this hearing by Zoom," van der Veen said as he tapped his podium with each word.

"These depositions should be done in person in my office in Philadelphia," van der Veen said. "That's where they should be done."

His animated statement was met with laughter from the chamber, which visibly angered van der Veen.

He continued, "I don't know how many civil lawyers are here, but that's the way it works, folks. When you want somebody's deposition, you send a notice of deposition and they appear at the place where the notice says. That's civil process."

He then responded to the laughter in the room.

"I don't know why you're laughing," van der Veen said.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, president pro tempore, who is presiding over the Senate's second impeachment trial against former President Donald Trump, interjected.

"I would remind everybody we would have order in the chamber during these proceedings," Leahy said.

Van der Veen who stepped away while Leahy was speaking returned to the podium.

"I haven't laughed at any of you and there's nothing laughable here," van der Veen said.

[Rue Bella]

Acquitted. Surprise!

https://news.yahoo.c...-132645969.html

Quote

Senate votes to acquit former President Trump

For the second time in 13 months, the Senate on Saturday voted to acquit former President Donald Trump of impeachment.

The trial began Tuesday but wrapped up quickly after Trump's defense team kept their arguments short and Democrats opted not to push for witnesses earlier Saturday.

The Senate needed two-thirds of the 100-member body to vote guilty in order to convict but fell short with a 57-43 margin.

All 48 Democrats, both independents and seven Republicans voted against Trump.

The GOP senators who voted to convict were Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. R
Romney was the only Republican to vote to convict at Trump's first impeachment trial while both Burr and Toomey are set to retire at the end of their current terms.

[pnwguy]

Once again, Republicans sell out their country and oath of office. Trump could have ordered a nuclear strike on Canada and the GOP would have approved. They are chicken shit brownshirts who would have pushed Jews into ovens under Hitler. I may encourage my daughter to finish college and find another country to live in.

[LFC]

Rue Bella, on 13 February 2021 - 03:56 PM, said:

Acquitted. Surprise!

I would have lost the over/under on a 6.5 spread. I never expected 7 to actually be patriots and turn their backs on fascism and treason ... for now.

[golden_valley]

And McConnell provides them all cover. "Trump is totally guilty of incitement to insurrection. So sorry to let him off, but oh well this bad faith Constitutional argument forces the decision." Now the Senators can all go home and tell one audience that it was a witch hunt and tell another less Trumpian audience that the Constitution kept them from convicting him. "Now donors, write your checks to ______ for Senator 2022 or 2024 campaign."

[LFC]

Josh Marshall felt the Dems folded on witnesses. This reader disagreed.

Quote

TPM Reader JG, a law professor, adds this dissent to my comments below …

Quote

I think your take on “Dems cave on witnesses” is simply wrong. The managers said they wanted one witness — a one hour deposition of Herrera Beutler. They leaked the fact that no one around Trump or Pence with direct knowledge of Trump’s actions would agree to testify. So with the stipulation that admitted H-B’s statement into the impeachment record, they have an evidentiary basis to argue that Trump fomented insurrection after the fact as well. If they had more witnesses they would have wanted their testimony! I don’t think it has much to do with the threat to call Pelosi, etc. I think the only objection to their strategy is that with more time — a delay to depose H-B, etc., more folks with knowledge would have agreed to come forward. Also not unlikely: McCarthy could come under pressure to dispute H-B (her testimony is hearsay, after all) and could have put in a counter-affidavit disavowing the truth of what she said. So net: the managers’ added to their case. The externals may look messy but it’s up to folks like you to focus on the bottom line.

[golden_valley]

LFC, on 15 February 2021 - 04:09 PM, said:

Josh Marshall felt the Dems folded on witnesses. This reader disagreed.

They could have trotted out a million witnesses. It would not have mattered. Look at McConnell hiding behind the bogus Constitutional reason...all the Republican Senators would have used his rationale. Not even Trump coming to confess would have made a dent in that group.

[JackD]

It also would have extended the "trial" for weeks if not months and kept Trump's issues in the media lead and spotlight instead of letting the Democrats concentrate on getting their agenda enacted and keeping Biden and that agenda in the spotlight. The next midterm election isn't going to turn on what happened to Trump; it will be on what the Democrats got done and whether or not it helped anyone.

[LFC]

Getting the phone call between McCarthy and Trump, where Trump REFUSED to call of his Storm Trumpers, was damning enough. That's going to come back during the elections. I wonder how that will play in 2022 for McCarthy.

[LFC]

Here's a review of Moscow Mitch's moves to prevent Trump from being convicted.

[golden_valley]

LFC, on 16 February 2021 - 10:01 AM, said:

Getting the phone call between McCarthy and Trump, where Trump REFUSED to call of his Storm Trumpers, was damning enough. That's going to come back during the elections. I wonder how that will play in 2022 for McCarthy.

McCarthy's constituents will not care. He might have wavered a bit in his loyalty to Trump but he kissed the ring afterwards and will continue to do so. His only threat would come from someone who is also a Trump loyalist who was not present in the building on 1/6.

[Rue Bella]

https://www.cnn.com/...tter/index.html

Quote

New York Times: House Republican shunned by family members over Trump criticism

Eleven members of Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger's family sent him a vitriolic letter accusing him of being a member of the "devil's army" in light of his criticism of then-President Donald Trump after the January 6 insurrection, The New York Times reported Monday.

"Oh my, what a disappointment you are to us and to God!" they wrote to the Illinois Republican, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the paper, rebuking his "horrible, rude accusations of President Trump."

"It is now most embarrassing to us that we are related to you," they continued in the letter, which was dated January 8, after Kinzinger called for the 25th Amendment to be used to remove Trump from office. "You have embarrassed the Kinzinger family name!"

Kinzinger was one of 10 Republicans who later joined all House Democrats in voting to impeach Trump last month for "incitement of insurrection" in light of his role in encouraging the riot at the US Capitol.

[Traveler]

OMG, a disappointment to God?

[LFC]

Now that the Trump team was publicly buried during the impeachment and the Republican votes were clearly all about party (expect to the MAGAts of course) frothing nutjob Michael van der Veen is hitting the news outlet trail to spread lies and make mountains out of molehills. Vox describes it as "performative outrage", a term I may be using a lot in the future. Notice how he threw a hissy fit when asked to explain in detail what he meant. A lawyer with a strong case would have relished that moment. Instead he threw a child's temper tantrum in a desperate bid to make it go away.

Quote

In the days following former President Donald Trump’s acquittal on an article of impeachment alleging incitement of insurrection, his lawyers and allies have tried to weaponize the trial with allegations that House impeachment managers resorted to manufacturing evidence.

These claims are extremely flimsy and can’t withstand basic scrutiny. But they provide people like Trump attorney Michael van der Veen and Donald Trump Jr. with a pretext to go on TV and complain about how unfairly Donald Trump was treated.

In a Saturday interview with CBS that has been viewed nearly 10 million times as this is published, van der Veen went as far as to equate the January 6 insurrection that left five dead with Trump’s treatment during the impeachment trial.

“What happened at the Capitol on January 6 is absolutely horrific, but what happened at the Capitol during this trial was not too far away from that,” he said. “The prosecutors in this case doctored evidence.”

CBS News host Lana Zak responded by trying to unpack what van der Veen meant in saying that Democrats “doctored evidence.” It didn’t sound like much.

“To be clear for our viewers, what you’re talking about now is a check mark that’s a verification on Twitter that did not exist on that particular tweet, a ‘2020’ that should’ve actually read ‘2021,’ and the selective editing, you say, of the tapes. Is that the doctored evidence of which you’re speaking?” she asked.

Zak’s characterization of van der Veen’s allegations was accurate. But before she could even finish asking the question, van der Veen — perhaps cognizant of how flimsy his allegations sound when laid out like that — angrily fired back.

“Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait — that’s not enough for you? No, no, no. It’s not okay to doctor a little bit of evidence,” he said, adding later: “I can’t believe you would ask me a question indicating that it’s all right to doctor just a little bit of evidence.”

Van der Veen’s adversarial performance was widely praised by right-wing pundits. Less adversarial but equally telling was Donald Trump Jr.’s appearance on Monday night’s edition of Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, when he went as far as to suggest the House managers should be imprisoned.

“The reality is this: If this wasn’t a kangaroo court, you’d have the Republicans clamoring to go after the supposed prosecution for literally manufacturing evidence,” he said. “I mean, imagine any prosecutor in America was caught manufacturing evidence against a witness. That would be a jailable offense. They would be disbarred, they’d be thrown out of their positions, they’d be impeached. That’s what should happen here, when they’re manufacturing, putting up fake blue check marks, altering tweets, doing all these things for effect.”

Another Republican, another alternative fact peddling traitor to American democracy.