"How can you look yourself in the mirror, respect your own oath of office, and utter the words 'not guilty'? It's just not possible." - George Conway on MSNBC yesterday
Having learned their lessons in the first impeachment of Trump (based on his extorting favors from Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky), the House Impeachment managers pulled no punches this time. They opened the second impeachment trial not by boring readouts of documents but with the presentation of a devastating 13-minute video compilation of the siege of the Capitol on January 6th - with every brutal and ugly aspect exposed. Nearly 100 Senators sat and watched in silence as this mob atrocity was once more etched in their memories - a number of them now seeing the events for the first time. Two of the Repukes - Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz- averted their eyes, cowards that they are.
Perhaps it was too much for the lily -livered 'puke cowards as they heard (they didn't plug their ears) Trump's verminous scum mob ramming Capitol doors, attacking Capitol police with shouts of 'Traitors!" and barking 'Where the fuck are they?' - in search of any lawmakers (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) to torture. Namely those who planned to do their constitutional duty of certifying the 2020 general election for Joseph R. Biden.
Clueless to the depredations shown in the video, or maybe leaving their brains up their ass - we beheld Trump's lawyers flailing. First there was Bruce Castor admitting the defense had to change its approach after the Dem House managers' knock out blows. The most this dweezil could summon was a truncated reading of the Constitution's section on impeachment, halting his spiel when he got to the "disqualifying from public office" in the future part. (Which shows there is more to it than mere 'removing from current office') Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe skewered Castor on that deliberate distortion in a segment on ALL In.
Perhaps realizing he'd be caught out, Castor then actually had the nerve - chutzpah one might say - to argue a first amendment defense of Trump's call to insurrection. Thus, stating that free -speech rights were under attack by the House managers. The moron went over the top asserting this first amendment of the Bill of Rights is "what so many of our brave young men fought and died for". Uh yeah, Brucie, but NOT to yell fire in a crowded theater - which is the equivalent of what Trump did on January 6th. In fact, as lead prosecutor Jamie Raskin put it:
"This case is much worse than someone who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theater. It’s more like a case where the town fire chief, who’s paid to put out fires, sends a mob not to yell fire in a crowded theater, but to actually set the theater on fire.”
And if you dispute that, watch the compilation video again, and in particular Trump's open incitement to fight, including his texts and tweets. Then watch his admission of consciousness of guilt when after two hours he asked his "very special people" to "remember this day" and oh, yeah, that the fucker: "loves them". Probably after learning they were defecating in the Capitol.
But on viewing the damning video any imbecile would see Trump's 16-odd exhortations to his mob were not examples of merely "robust" speech as Castor would have anyone believe. Rather clear and open calls for violence and insurrection in the service of trying to give Trump an unearned 2nd term!
As for the Democrats' opening, it was powerful and moreover fully legally based- including using conservatives' own fetish for adhering to "original texts", i.e. in showing the Constitutional basis of impeaching and trying a rat like Trump. This was even acknowledged by FOX News Chris Wallace, in reference to Manager Joe Neguse's presentation.
His 33 minute pre-demolition of the Trump defenders' pseudo. arguments followed Jamie Raskin's powerful chronological video compilation of the events of that day - including showing the mob beating Capitol police to within an inch of their lives- even as lawmakers fled the hallowed House and Senate chambers.
In respect of Bruce Castor, it was interesting to me he didn't open by invoking the process objection of the Senate "lacking jurisdiction" to try Trump. This idiocy is especially lame and reeks of desperation and a dilettante's grasp of the Constitution. The ploy had also been roundly debunked by lawyers across the political spectrum, including Chuck Cooper, a conservative legal icon.
As Cooper argued, the Constitution provides for a Senate vote not just on removal for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but also for “disqualification” from ever holding office again, which by definition must also apply to those who are no longer in office but might run again later.
Regarding Trump's culpability in inciting the insurrection, there is not a scintilla of doubt, and no amount of "free speech" virtue signaling can change that. The case, especially after viewing the video compilation (which many GOP Senators were seeing for the first time), is a slam dunk.
But never mind. Castor's sidekick in stupidity, David Schoen - a pathetic excuse for a man, more a peevish and uninspired wimp - was angered by the professional quality of the video. He railed about the absolute nerve of the House managers to hire a professional film crew to assemble the video. "How dare they turn this into a blood sport!" the twerp screamed. Then in almost the same breath bellyaching: "They don't need to show you movies to know what happened! We know what happened!"
But in fact they did! Not until Tuesday’s presentation — a simply produced, chronological sequence of stomach-churning sights and sounds — did anyone have a chance to process what the clips showed. Before the video, the footage had existed merely as a jumble of disaggregated clips, dumped onto social media after the attack, then looped endlessly on cable news and phone screens.
So Schoen can be rightly pissed (and envious) at the superb quality and splicing of events in chronological order with appropriate text - but that doesn't give him license to be a certified moron. Then going into a deranged harangue about another "vendetta" against Trump, barking about a "group of partisan politicians seeking to eliminate Donald Trump from the American political scene." As well he needs to be eliminated, given what the treasonous rat did in inciting an insurrection. If he isn't eliminated from the scene he will try to do it again.
As for the "blood sport" the little imp referenced, it was Trump and his mob that turned an anger-stoked rally into all out blood sport with their treasonous sacking of the People's House. And yeah, I make a distinction here between people - real humans, citizens and patriots - and the two-legged cockroaches that broke into the Capitol and wreaked so much mayhem. Including using flag poles to beat Capitol police, as they carried more than 60 'TRUMP' flags and banners into the hallowed halls.
Schoen evidently spent his remaining brain cells on his bombastic condemnation of the professional video - despite how effective it was (and will be) as he then resorted to the standard Trump asslickers' tricks: "What aboutism?" and invoking false equivalence (e.g. to the George Floyd and other protests) and even to Rep. Rashida Tlaib's yelling "We need to impeach the mother fucker!" - referring to Trump. BUT - calling for the impeachment of a criminal and traitor (to her constituents) is not the same as calling out a mob to sack the Capitol to halt a democratic process!
The total ineptitude, desperation and lack of discipline of Trump's team - compared to the Dem House managers- got to at least one Reep Senator, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. He then decided to vote with 55 others to confirm the current trial is fully constitutional. No more bullshit about going after a traitor asshole who just left the office. As Jamie Raskin appealed, not if we don't want this to ever happen again.
There is simply no way in hell a sentient being can take in what happened and vote to acquit the orange maggot. Thus, the real choice Senate GOP jurors face is not between sticking with Trump or going against him. Rather, it’s between sticking with Trump or remaining faithful to their oath of office, which requires them to defend the Constitution against those who would undermine or destroy it, and to the oath of impartiality they take as impeachment jurors.
Cutting away all the specious bull crap peddled by Castor and his sidekick Schoen, it is abundantly clear that Trump tried to overthrow U.S. democracy to keep himself in power illegitimately. Indeed, he had barked about it and incited it for months ahead of the Nov. 3rd election, railing against mail ballots as "fraud". As former Sen. Claire McCaskill put it during a trial break: Trump "assembled his sedition and insurrection brick by brick, tweet by tweet".
At first - unwilling to accept reality - he mounted corrupt legal efforts, then through nakedly extralegal means, and then by inciting intimidation and violence to disrupt the constitutionally designated process for securing the peaceful conclusion of free and fair elections.
Trump fully intended to subvert the constitutional process designating how our elections unfold, and intended this every step of the way. GOP senators cannot remain “loyal” to Trump without breaking their oaths to e xecute their public positions faithfully, in which case they indulge in political depravity. In this case, knowingly and willingly putting nation and Constitution behind joining Trump's depraved tribe of traitors, murderers, seditionists and riff raff.
Perhaps this is why The Financial Times editorial two days ago ( US Senate must convict former president Trump) made no bones about its position. Excerpt:
"It is right to preserve this moment of national calm. Not, however, at any cost. Today, the Senate begins its trial of Trump, who was impeached for his role in the capitol siege by the House of Representatives. If it convicts, the large minority of the country that still swears by him will seethe. Any hopes of bipartisanship in Washington over the coming years will vanish.
The US would relive the rancour from which it has just bought some relief. And it would still be the right thing to do. “Incitement to insurrection”, the article of impeachment, is not too strong a phrase for what Trump attempted last month.
With the connivance of other Republicans, he raised a mob against the certification of his election defeat. Five people died, including a police officer, and the lingering thought is how much worse it might have been.
To favour the quiet life over the application of the law is dangerous at any time. To do so when the charge is as grave as this one would compromise the state and its values. In the absence of new evidence to the contrary — the potential discovery of which is another good reason for a trial — the Senate must convict."
No comments:
Post a Comment