Read on Twitter
3:17 minutes in, and Trump's lawyers have not answered
1) Why Trump ordered Pence to do something unconstitutional.
2) Why Trump tweeted abt Pence in real time.
3) Why the Commander in chief did nothing while watching a terrorist attack against the Capitol.
1) Why Trump ordered Pence to do something unconstitutional.
2) Why Trump tweeted abt Pence in real time.
3) Why the Commander in chief did nothing while watching a terrorist attack against the Capitol.
Here are the four questions Raskin left off with last night.
Trump's team answered none of them. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1359975798606864385
Trump's team answered none of them. https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1359975798606864385
The Republican Party, as an institution, is about to vote in approval for a Commander in Chief who -- EVEN ACCORDING TO HIS OWN LAWYER -- did nothing as Commander in Chief as he watched a terrorist attack unfold a mile away. https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/02/11/republicans-prepare-to-sanction-a-president-doing-nothing-as-the-country-was-assaulted-by-terrorists/
Impeachment Managers should call witnesses but get depositions, and then come back ... say, in 9 months ... to present the evidence.
The only time Trump doesn't harm this country is when he's worried about a legal case.
The only time Trump doesn't harm this country is when he's worried about a legal case.
Actually a good question: When did Trump know, what did he do to get the rioting to end.
One of Raskin's questions.
One of Raskin's questions.
Trump's lawyers claim not to know when Trump learned about the rioting.
Now saying he knew in December--after they just said he didn't know they were going to be violent.
Now saying he knew in December--after they just said he didn't know they were going to be violent.
Van der Veen making a great case that Trump should testify under oath.
Again PART OF THE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT is that Trump did nothing.
His own lawyer says he has no defense to that.
His own lawyer says he has no defense to that.
I'd pay money for the Managers to note that Billy Barr called threats from the proud boys a technicality but that's just me.
GOPers saying that the 200 people charged are the appropriate people to be held responsible.
[At least they noted it was only 74 million.]
So when he is criminally charged they'll be good with that?
[At least they noted it was only 74 million.]
So when he is criminally charged they'll be good with that?
I would also love for a Dem to ask Trump's lawyers if they're cool with him being criminally charged for his actions.
The answer Dems should provide is when they know calls were made to the President. By 2:30 PM Trump knew Pence was in trouble.
And answer is ... ask Tommy Tuberville.
Dems need to focus on the calls from people in the House. They know those happened.
Also they should say that Trump DENIED everything in their brief.
Van der Veen claims to know that Trump was not informed Pence was in danger.
"What the President did know is that there was a violent riot at the Capitol."
That sounds like a yes, sir.
That's a true shitshow of an answer.
"What the President did know is that there was a violent riot at the Capitol."
That sounds like a yes, sir.
That's a true shitshow of an answer.
Somehow Van der Veen thinks incitement against Pence is not incitement. It was explicitly in the article.
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
I argued we needed answers from Tuberville on Jan 8. Looking pretty smart.
Investigate Tommy Tuberville's Pre-Speech and Debate Actions https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/01/08/investigate-tommy-tubervilles-pre-speech-and-debate-actions/
Investigate Tommy Tuberville's Pre-Speech and Debate Actions https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/01/08/investigate-tommy-tubervilles-pre-speech-and-debate-actions/
Note: Portman is on this former official question (with a bunch of hacks). I assume they're trying to get his acquittal solidified.
Dems better follow up on that bc Trump was not impeached as a former.
Padilla asks a question as a recent SoS.
It would be really useful to refer to the court filings showing how many of the terrorists believed in The Big Lie.
Van der Veen, who falsely claimed Antifa was behind the riot accuses Democrats of being dishonest.
NOw seems to admit that he DID get the evidence, an admission he lied.
NOw seems to admit that he DID get the evidence, an admission he lied.
Van der Veen is gonna end up being Trump's favorite when this is done.
I actually think that Raskin, who at least TRIED to answer the question, did, bc what he needed to do was say that Trump was "impeached" while still President, meaning the Senate has an obligation to try him, and THEN get into the disqualification.
Fact check of Raskin: 140 Capitol Officers were assaulted.
There were dozens injured. About 15 were hospitalized.
There were dozens injured. About 15 were hospitalized.
Van der Veen is bitching about what he claims is doctoring the evidence.
Jeebus, Trump is going to marry this man.
Jeebus, Trump is going to marry this man.
I gotta say, Cramer has been part of every single exceptionally hackish question.
Sanders asks both sides if Trump actually won the election.
Pretty horrible that Plaskett describes it has "his" DOJ.
Trump's favorite Van der Veen is trying to dodge whether The Big Lie--which is part of the charge--was false.
Again, Mr. Angry lawyer wants to say all his actions going back to the summer were irrelevant. THAT'S NOT THE CHARGE. He has refused to respond to the actual charge.
Honestly, Rudy better watch his back, Trump is gonna love this Van der Veen dood.
Johnson asks a legit good question: Why LE weren't prepped.
But Trump's defense has already said it was known that the riot was planned.
But Trump's defense has already said it was known that the riot was planned.
Van der Veen says, Jimmminy crickets there is no due process.
He's actually complaining that Dems didn't investigate his client more closely.
So ... let's call that client.
Now he's patently misrepresenting the Bowser decision.
He's actually complaining that Dems didn't investigate his client more closely.
So ... let's call that client.
Now he's patently misrepresenting the Bowser decision.
Plaskett: The President of the United States did not defend the Capitol of this country.
CastroL He said stay peaceful when they had already gotten violent. What he never said was "leave immediately."
Raskin: Come on: how gullible do you think we are?
LOL. Van der Veen basically admits he presented the Kamala speech out of context, misleadingly.
Van der Veen keeps talking about the law, as if Trump is not President. He just won't deal with that.
Castro: Why commemorate a day like that, an attack on the US Capitol? No consoling the nation. Not a single word condemning the attack, or the insurrection against Congress.
He foresaw it. He helped incite it.
He foresaw it. He helped incite it.
Castro: This shows he reveled in this. A day to remember. Not a day of disgrace, but a day to remember.
Cassidy raises Tuberville more specifically.
At 2:24 PM Trump tweeted that Pence lacked courage. Did not call for LE backup until then.
At 2:24 PM Trump tweeted that Pence lacked courage. Did not call for LE backup until then.
Van der Veen is saying that Tuberville's comments are hearsay, basically suggesting he's lying.
Also, Lee was lying.
Also, Lee was lying.
Van der Veen claims not to know whether Tuberville--who's in the room--was telling the truth.
But says he's sure that Trump would never do something awful to Pence.
But says he's sure that Trump would never do something awful to Pence.
Raskin: They responded more quickly to my letter than President Trump did to the invasion of the US Capitol.
Booyah.
Booyah.
That was a barn-burner.
Manchin: Would the President be responsible for protecting the govt?
[Baiscally, if he got intel, why didn't he defend?]
[Baiscally, if he got intel, why didn't he defend?]
Plaskett suggests that some of the Senators know what it's like when they do things Trump doesn't like.
Van der Veen argues due process bc his client will lose his liberty.
Which, he won't.
Not sure that Van der Veen realizes this is an impeachment.
Which, he won't.
Not sure that Van der Veen realizes this is an impeachment.
I actually think Van der Veen is doing far better than others think.
Republican Senators don't want honest. They want outrage.
Republican Senators don't want honest. They want outrage.
Van der Veen repeats his false claim that he didn't get evidence.
Then admits they got it on the 9th.
Then admits they got it on the 9th.
This.
And if nothing else, it'll establish the necessity of getting Trump to testify under oath. https://twitter.com/Delavegalaw/status/1360360622937038849
And if nothing else, it'll establish the necessity of getting Trump to testify under oath. https://twitter.com/Delavegalaw/status/1360360622937038849
Raskin: They're already treating their client as if he's a criminal defendant.
This is a hilarious question bc it actually gets to how the Defense ignored most of the article of impeachment.
VdV: Fire chiefs are not elected officials.
Again, he's ignoring Commander in Chief duty.
Again, he's ignoring Commander in Chief duty.
Raskin: Please don't desecrate the name of Julian Bond by linking him to this insurrection.
Ooh. That was good too.
Rubio is dumb. This is not a new precedent.
For the first time today, Raskin notes Trump was impeached when he was in office.
Van der Veen is of course lying.
Trump was impeached AS PRESIDENT.
Trump was impeached AS PRESIDENT.
BREAKING: Van Der Veen now a fan of the Senate making its own rules after arguing strongly against same just hours ago.
