**** TRUMP IMPEACHMENT, DAY FIVE ****

[crickets]

Discussion thread for anyone who wants a conversation as the action unfolds.

Watch the action live here:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?508959-1/impeachment-trial

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/

[crickets]

1. Events of the day so far:

This morning's vote on witnesses
https://www.c-span.org/congress/votes/?110248/Senate/117-1/58

Also, statement by Rep. Beutler has been placed in the record
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4945998/rep-herrera-beutlers-statement-read-entered-evidence

Raskin has made his concluding remarks.

Cicilline is currently speaking.

eta to add video links

[TwilightZone]

2. Trump's attorneys acknowledged that the call with McCarthy went exactly as described.

Hererra Butler's statement about it will be put into the record.

One thread about it here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215105683

[fishwax]

3. what just happened with the interruption that Leahy addressed/spoke about?

I missed it as I was pulled away from the computer for a minute and came back to hear him gaveling and telling someone to sit down and saying he would consider the issue.

[dweller]

4. What is VDV

objecting to now ?
Leahy just told him to sit down

✌🏻

[crickets]

6. Cicilline was reading a Feb 12 Josh Dawsey tweet regarding Pence

saying Pence and his team did not agree with trump lawyer's assessment that trump was concerned about Pence. Someone from trump's team objected that the tweet was not in evidence. Leahy reminded him that counsel had a chance to speak later, asked him to sit down saying that the chair would consider the issue.

[JohnnyLib2]

5. What is happening now? A quorum call?

Sen. Lee is apparently disrupting, probably against the rules.

[crickets]

8. +1

[crickets]

7. Cicilline concludes. trump's team is angry about a tweet quoted by Cicilline.

Point of order called, gaveled down by Leahy. Parliamentarian says debate is not in order. Quorum suggested. Roll call being taken now.

eta Claire McCaskill on MSNBC pointing out that Lee has no standing to make a stink and knows it. He's doing it to disrupt for points, again.

[crickets]

9. Leahy speaks regarding the earlier objection.

The evidentiary record is closed. New evidence is not allowed in closing arguments. References to such new evidence will be stricken.

[dweller]

10. So something Cicilline said

was considered ‘new’ evidence ?

✌🏻

[crickets]

12. Yes, apparently Cicilline quoted a new tweet today and it's been struck.

It won't go into evidence. Claire McCaskill pointed out that the contents of that tweet were essentially covered elsewhere so it's no real loss, and that usually that type of complaint just means that the House got too close to a point the defense is nervous about. In the end, it was a minor thing.

[dweller]

13. and now they say it was in evidence

so it goes back in ... probably objected to by a repug was either wasn’t there or not paying attention but it appears to be a sticking point as discussion is ongoing

✌🏻

[Kali]

14. no the first objection was over a "new" tweet

second objection over video of Katrina Pierson

[crickets]

11. Madeleine Dean is up

Defense suggests this was just one speech and that one speech can't incite insurrection. Also, because the attack was preplanned by some insurrectionists, trump can't be held responsible.

Rebuttal: trump's conduct occurred over time. The Big Lie, Stop the Steal, Fight like Hell to Stop the Steal were tactics developed and used over many months.

Defense argues there's no way trump could know what would happen.

Rebuttal: there is overwhelming evidence he knew the violence crowds were capable of because of his pattern of inciting it before. (Texas campaign bus video, etc) He'd received warnings beforehand from law enforcement and online.

Defense suggests the insurrectionists came Jan 6 of their own accord.

Rebuttal: they came at trump's invitation, and they themselves have repeatedly stated this publicly and later complained that trump 'duped' them.


Another complaint re new evidence after a slide is shown. Dean: Statement was in evidence though slide was not. Slide withdrawn. A video shown also drew objection. Dean states it is part of the record and should stay. Leahy conferencing over the issue. Much hubbub and Repubs milling toward the dais.

McCaskill says the trump team is trying to break up the powerful argument being made by the House team. It's just to slow things down and try to blunt the impact of the evidence.

Leahy asks for Dean to continue.

Dean: "Of all the trials I have been a part of, this is certainly one of them." gets a chuckle.

[Kali]

15. Neguse is up

[crickets]

16. It's a shame the Constitutional issue has be addressed over and over

Impeachment is explained in the Constitution, the issue was voted on earlier, trump was impeached before he left office. The relevant question is whether trump committed an impeachable offense by inciting insurrection.

Who among us really thinks the answer to that question is no?

Neguse also covering due process, just for angry dancer van der Veen. These arguments about constitutionality and due process are just distractions, because the trump has nothing else to use as a defense.

Neguse is doing an eloquent job, as all the House team have done.

[Tommymac]

17. McConnell has already said he will vote no because the trial is taking place after T left office...

because McConnell blocked it from happening when T was in office.

Constitutionality be damned.

This is a travesty.

[crickets]

18. I saw that too. Mitch is just plain evil. nt

[crickets]

19. Raskin speaking again.

[Kali]

20. so good

[crickets]

21. It hurts so much to hear Raskin go through the day's events again.

That he continues to be so persuasive and compelling in spite of his recent personal loss is just amazing.

[dweller]

37. RASKIN ROCKS !

👏

✌🏻

[crickets]

22. van der Veer up. Will angry dancer do another jig today?

Already making disparaging remarks about the House closing arguments, followed by a compliment to himself and his own presentation. What a peach.

So far, he's treading the same old ground from yesterday. Mute button: activate.

Will try to post specific vid link later for those who want to see it. In the meantime, Wonkette is a great place to go to see real time comments and analysis with humor:

https://www.wonkette.com/your-impeachment-saturday-something-or-other-nobody-knows

See ya when the House team returns!

[edhopper]

23. If you can't argue the facts

attack the opposition.

[crickets]

29. He's a broken record.

I think there's even a debate rule that covers this - the moment you resort to ad hominem, you've lost the debate. van de Veer concedes right away, every time.

[IcyPeas]

24. it's Democratic you moron van der veen

and it's all the both sides do it bullshit now.

[edhopper]

25. Defending the actions

at Lafayette Park.

[Mossfern]

26. Does the defense

have a defense?

[Mossfern]

27. Ah.....

he's blaming the media.
Yep - look to Fox and OAN.

[edhopper]

28. He just referenced

"Black Liars Matters" a right wing slur.

[crickets]

32. I'm muted. He actually said that?

I hope someone pulls a clip of that bit and he gets pilloried for it. There's no excuse for using such language.

[edhopper]

33. He said Kamala Harris

was funding bail for the "Liars" who had been arrested in the Summer.

[crickets]

34. Ah, okay. That old chestnut again?

Some of the staffers raised bail money for protestors, not rioters, and he knows it. This man seems to lie a lot and with such ease. He's the kind of lawyer who gives the profession a bad name.

[IcyPeas]

30. he had to read lots of stuff in little tiny text....

probably times new roman 12 pt.

[Lars39]

31. I bet every judge he's been in front of

has wanted to smack him, just for that whiny psycho voice alone.

[crickets]

35. Raskin is back!

Taking five of the remaining 27 minutes to talk. Says he will resist the temptation to refute every one of the false things he's just heard.

eta

There are principles and elements of incitement have been talked about ad nauseum, this is an inherently and intrinsically fact based judgement, but if that is the 'Raskin doctrine' that a president of the US cannot incite violent insurrection against the Union and the Congress, then I embrace it and take it as an honor. Most law professors never get a doctrine named after them so I will accept that.

re Free Speech: When has trump's speech ever been stifled?

Correcting the Julian Bond issue re the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Bond ran for state legislature in GA, won, but GA legislature tried to keep him from being seated. Supreme Court said you can't prevent someone from being sworn into a legislative body because of a position taken before they got sworn in (take oath.) Opposite to trump. He was sworn into and then incited insurrection, so is being charged for his actions after he took his oath, not before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Bond#In_politics

[crickets]

36. Remarks concluded. Vote is next. Clerk will read the Articles of Impeachment.

Leahy has to gavel order so that the clerk can read.

Roll call vote, currently 24-23 guilty. Will post final vote after.

Mitch voted not guilty. Vile.


Final vote is 57-43 not guilty.

48 Dems, 7 Repubs, and 2 Independents voted Yea

43 Repubs voted Nay

Did not reach the 67 votes need for conviction.

In spite of this, the House impeachment team did a stellar job in presenting evidence against trump. Thank you to them for all of their hard work.


Vote is followed by remarks by Schumer.

McConnell also speaks.