The prosecution is about to wrap up its argument against Donald John Trump.
I now am steeling myself for the other side of this riveting U.S. Senate impeachment trial.
Acknowledging my own bias, I believe the House managers put on a stellar case against Trump. He incited the riot on the Sixth of January that sought to derail a constitutional process, which was to certify the results of the 2020 election.
They presented stunning physical evidence. They made their case.
Now it’s about to be Trump’s turn to defend himself through the legal counsel he has hired. Again, admitting my own bias, I must say that Trump team’s legal opening was, shall we say, disjointed and virtually incoherent.
I intend to listen to their case intently. I do not want to prejudge what Trump’s lawyers will present.
I acknowledge, however, that it will be difficult to avoid dismissing their presentation the moment I hear them.
They are responding loudly to the accusations being leveled against Donald Trump during his U.S. Senate impeachment trial. They just cannot stop responding to the mountain of evidence against Trump with accusations of “What about the Black Lives Matter protests?” Or “What about all those angry things that Democrats said about Trump?” Or “What about all the violence that erupted this past summer?”
Give me a break.
The House of Representatives impeached Donald Trump on a charge of inciting an insurrection against the very government he took an oath to protect. He left office on Jan. 20. The Senate trial is proceeding.
The House managers are mounting a stout prosecution against Trump. The allegations that have been leveled against the ex-president stand alone in their infamy. He stoked the flames that erupted on Jan. 6 by egging on a crowd of rioters to “take back the country” by marching on Capitol Hill. We witnessed the carnage in real time. Do you recall that?
I want to be clear about something else. I am an American patriot who abhors violence, particularly against innocent victims. I said so on this blog this past summer, that the “protesters” who rose up against police brutality had no right to loot, to vandalize and to harm other human beings.
Spare me, though, the “What about?” retort we keep hearing from those who somehow seek to give Donald Trump a pass on what I believe was a frontal assault on our democratic form of government.
The prior anger and the violence were inexcusable, too. The here and now, though, deals with a singularly grievous crime against the nation we all love. The “What about?” nonsense does not hold up.
The evidence of incitement of insurrection has been searing, heartbreaking, graphic and it reveals a profound danger to our republic.
Despite what I believe we have seen in the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, I fear it won’t move a sufficient number of Republican U.S. senators to do what they should do … which is convict the ex-president of the crime for which the House of Representatives impeached him for the second time.
Trump will get an acquittal. He likely will crow about it. The good news from my standpoint, though, is that his legacy — and I use that term with great caution — will be scarred forever by the knowledge that most senators believe he violated the sacred oath of his office.
He stood before the crowd of terrorists on the Sixth of January and implored them to march on Capitol Hill. He told them to “stop the steal” of an election he lost fair and square to President Biden. They tried to do as they were instructed to do by their hero, the disgraced president.
It won’t move enough senators to convict Trump. Which means the Senate cannot vote to ban this monster from ever seeking federal public office.
That will be to the shame of all the Republicans — and I am talking specifically to Texas’s two senators, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, both of whom indicate no interest in doing the right thing.
They will hide behind the phony argument about the trial’s alleged unconstitutionality. They will look indifferently at the evidence, at the sight and sounds of terrorists storming the Capitol building, ignoring how many of their colleagues came to being physically harmed … or worse.
The good news, as I see it, will be that Trump will be marked forever as someone who sought to destroy the very government he took an oath to defend and protect.
Imagine where former Vice President Mike Pence is at this moment and then ponder: What is he thinking if he is watching the U.S. Senate trial of Donald John Trump?
The House managers who are prosecuting the ex-president today told a chilling (true) tale of what happened on the Sixth of January, the day Trump incited the riotous mob to storm Capitol Hill.
Vice President Pence was at work in the Capitol Building at that time doing his constitutional duty, which was to preside over a joint congressional session that was meeting to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election — which Trump lost to Joe Biden.
Trump said Pence didn’t “have the courage” to go far beyond his constitutional responsibility and reverse the outcome of the election. The rioters went looking for Pence, declaring their intention to “hang” him.
Did Donald Trump call the VP to offer him comfort? Did he deploy security officers to rescue Pence from the murderous mob? Did he do anything to protect Pence, let alone members of Congress who were doing what the Constitution required them to do? No to all of it! Donald Trump did nothing.
So now I am left to wonder about the former vice president: What in the world is he thinking? How does he remain silent based on what I believe he has seen? How in the name of all that is decent does he maintain any kind of relationship with the man for whom he stood foursquare during their joint term in office?
I noted a while ago that Pence’s relationship with Trump likely ended when he did his job and declared that the 2020 presidential vote was legal, just and that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris would become the next president and vice president of the United States.
Today’s testimony only cements my view that former Vice President Pence likely loathes the individual who asked him to join the clown car parade that ran the executive branch of the federal government.
It breaks as I watch the video being presented by the members of Congress who are making the case to convict Donald John Trump of inciting an insurrection against the federal government.
I fear that it will shatter into a zillion pieces if Republican senators who are sitting in judgment of the ex-president decide to hang with him and vote to acquit this monstrous individual of the crimes for which the House of Representatives impeached him … for the second time!
Make no mistake about this: I have no illusion about whether the video, audio and the text that House managers have presented will sway enough of them to convict this ghastly individual of incitement.
We keep hearing throughout the day that members of the GOP Senate caucus aren’t even watching the videos that House managers present them. They reportedly are doodling on note pads, reading books, looking everywhere except at the screen. Are they not moved? Do they remain committed to the cult leader who masqueraded as a Republican president of the United States?
My goodness! The evidence today tells the world about how the riotous mob that stormed Capitol Hill intended to — and this is tough to write — assassinate Vice President Mike Pence. How in the name of all that is holy and sacred does one accept any portion of that as being normal? I fear the worst, that there will be an insufficient number of Senate Republicans who will listen to their conscience and vote to convict the ex-president of what they know he has done.
That’s in good measure why my heart is breaking while watching this Senate trial unfold.
What is left of my eternal optimism is being tested mightily by what I fear will be the result of this trial.
My broken heart might be healed partially, however, by the knowledge that more than five or six GOP senators will heed the whispers from their conscience.
And that a majority of senators will render a verdict that destroys this monster’s political future.
The more I see the video that came to light once again today at the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, the more difficult it becomes for me to watch it.
U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, one of the House managers presenting the case against Trump, unveiled the 13-minute video today while arguing that Trump had committed an incitement of insurrection.
The video of those lunatic terrorists storming into the Capitol Building is taking its place among the annals of infamy. It ranks with the video of the jets flying into the World Trade Center on 9/11. That video chokes me up. It gets harder to watch that event unfold nearly 20 years ago.
So it is, then, that the monstrous acts of the Sixth of January have taken their place in the annals of infamy.
Whether all of this results in a conviction for Donald Trump, of course, remains an open question. My sense is that the high bar set by the Constitution for convicting an impeached president makes it damn near impossible for those presenting the case against Trump.
I just know that when I see that video of those loons seeking to destroy our democratic system of government the angrier I get.
My anger spills over as well to the Insurrectionist in Chief who exhorted them to commit their heinous act.
The first round of Donald J. Trump’s impeachment trial goes to the prosecutors who serve in the House of Representatives.
I know what you’re thinking: Sure thing, pal … you want Trump to be convicted; spare me your bias.
OK, fine. Think that if you wish.
The House managers presented compelling arguments that Donald Trump violated his oath of office, that he incited an attack on the government he took an oath to defend and protect. The attack occurred on the Sixth of January with the mob of terrorists storming the Capitol Building.
The managers provided a graphic and hard-to-watch 13-minute profanity-filled video of terrorists beating police officers, smashing windows and breaking through doorways.
Donald Trump’s legal team’s response? Incoherent, particularly the hour-long presentation delivered by Bruce Castor. I watched all of it and I cannot at this moment tell you what he was trying to say in defense of his client.
So, Round One goes to the House managers.
Will it affect an anticipated outcome, which means an acquittal on the charge of incitement of insurrection? I doubt it.
Then again, if any of the 100 senators sitting as jurors are actually keeping “an open mind,” well … one shouldn’t slam the door shut on a correct outcome.
All is not lost for those of us who want to see Donald Trump convicted by U.S. senators for inciting an insurrection against the government he took an oath to defend and protect.
The ex-president isn’t likely to “earn” that conviction, given the cowardice that infects so many Republicans serving as jurors in the second-ever impeachment trial that begins today.
However, let us ponder something that isn’t lost on many of us: Even though the Constitution sets a high bar for conviction, there well might be enough Republican senators who no longer fear retribution from Trump and his cult of followers if they vote their conscience.
Imagine, then, a 60-40 Senate vote to convict. The Constitution requires 67 conviction votes to seal the deal. How does Trump pitch a possible political return with the stain of a potentially significant majority of senators believing he did what the House of Representatives impeached him for doing?
A number of GOP senators have announced their intention to retire from the Senate; they won’t seek re-election in 2022. The school of thought goes that Republican “jurors” fear for their political backsides if the were to cross the Trumpkins who still command the political stage in the GOP.
Sens. Pat Toomey, Richard Shelby and Rob Portman are lame ducks. Then we have Sens. Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell and possibly Mike Enzi who could jump from the GOP ship and vote to convict Trump of inciting the riotous mob of terrorists to storm Capitol Hill on the Sixth of January.
The aim no longer is to remove Trump from office. A free and fair election took care of that already. The idea now would be to keep him from running for federal office ever again.
So … I will await a likely pre-ordained outcome. Trump will be “acquitted” — or so it appears — because most of the GOP Senate caucus will stand with him. I do not expect to hear a single senator defend the conduct of the ex-president. They’ll argue that a trial is unconstitutional; I do not believe the argument will hold up.
One final point: I want a quick end to this saga. I am weary of commenting on Donald Trump. Really! I am! I want to move on. However, I want us all to remember what occurred on the Sixth of January 2021. That memory should compel us to remember who was singularly responsible for that hideous event.
May that individual, Donald John Trump, cope with the indelible stain it will leave on what is left of his legacy.
Democrats and Republicans can agree on at least one thing these days.
Politicians in both parties want a quick end to the Senate trial of Donald John Trump. They want to put the matter of his incitement of insurrection to rest quickly so they can move on to take care of business that matters to you and me.
I agree with ’em.
The result likely won’t please me. Trump has been accused of inciting the mob of terrorists to storm Capitol Hill on Jan. 6. To my way of thinking, it’s a clear case of insurrection against the government. Trump egged the lunatics on. The House impeached him one week later and a week after that he left office.
The Senate, which is split 50-50, isn’t likely to convict Trump. The Senate needs 17 GOP members to see the light; some of them will, but not nearly enough to secure a constitutionally mandated conviction … which would precede another vote to bar him from seeking public office for the rest of his miserable life.
I am going to cling to the “unity” on both sides of the great divide. Let’s get this matter over with and done. We have a pandemic to fight and an economy to restore!
It is widely known that freedom of speech has its limitations, even though they aren’t spelled out directly in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The most commonly used example is how “One cannot yell ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater.”
With that is this brief rebuke of Donald Trump’s legal team defense of his action on the Sixth of January. The Trump team suggests that the ex-president was merely exercising his constitutional guarantee of free speech when he told the riotous mob of terrorists to march on Capitol Hill and “take back our country.”
They heard Trump. They acted on what they heard. They stormed the Capitol Building looking for Vice President Mike Pence and congressional leaders who were gathered to continue the transfer of power from Trump to Joe Biden, who beat Trump in the 2020 presidential election.
Several of the rioters told media folks covering the event that they were acting specifically on the demand that Trump made of them! It is recorded! For posterity!
Five people died in the melee! Five lives were sacrificed because, in minds of the lawyers defending Trump in his second impeachment trial, he was speaking freely.
What a crock of fecal matter!
Donald Trump incited the riot. He is guilty as hell of “incitement of insurrection.” The free speech clause in the First Amendment does not apply to what he did on that terrible day.
I am acutely aware that none of this argument is going to change any senators’ minds if they are inclined to acquit Trump on charges that he sought to destroy our democratic form of government. It’s just that the free speech argument is laughable on its face.
