Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Lincoln Project enveloped in scandal over harassment allegations

      by

      After the publication on Thursday of further revelations about a founder member who sexually harassed gay men, the anti-Trump conservative Lincoln Project acknowledged what it called a “central truth”: that John Weaver’s conduct was “appalling” and that he “abused” some who sought work with the group.But it also continued to deny mishandling the allegations. Responding to reports by the Associated Press, New York magazine, the New York Times and other outlets, the group said: “Recently published stories about the Lincoln Project are filled with inaccuracies, incorrect information, and reliant exclusively on anonymous sources.”The group also said it had retained “a best-in-class outside professional to review Mr Weaver’s tenure with the organisation and to establish both accountability and best practices going forward”, and would not comment further.On Thursday night, however, the group published on its Twitter feed private messages between a journalist and a founding member, the New Hampshire Republican Jennifer Horn.The Lincoln Project’s message said: “Earlier this evening, we became aware that Amanda Becker of The 19th news was preparing to publish a smear job on the Lincoln Project with the help of [Horn]. You hear a lot of talk about hit jobs in journalism, but rarely do you get to see their origin story. Enjoy.”Messages between Becker and Horn were attached. The messages were soon deleted. Horn, who denies the Lincoln Project’s contention that she left over a financial dispute, said she did not consent to have her messages published and alerted Twitter.Responding to the Lincoln Project’s complaint about the sourcing of reports about Weaver, Becker tweeted: “Sources discussing the inner workings of an organisation tend to be anonymous when interns to senior management sign NDAs at an organisation’s behest.”In its statement, the Lincoln Project said “any person who believes they are unable to talk about John Weaver publicly because they are bound by an NDA should contact the Lincoln Project for a release”. In an open letter provided to the New York Times, four former members of the group did so.Like other Lincoln Project founders including Rick Wilson, George Conway and Steve Schmidt, Weaver, 61, is a veteran of Republican politics, in his case having worked with John McCain and John Kasich among other prominent figures.He did not comment about the new reports about his behaviour towards young men. Earlier this year, he said in a statement: “The truth is that I’m gay. And that I have a wife and two kids who I love. My inability to reconcile those two truths has led to this agonising place.“To the men I made uncomfortable through my messages that I viewed as consensual mutual conversations at the time: I am truly sorry. They were inappropriate and it was because of my failings that this discomfort was brought on you.”He also said he would not return to the Project from medical leave.What the Lincoln Project knew of Weaver’s behaviour, and when it knew it, remains in dispute. The AP reported that founding member Ron Steslow was informed of allegations against Weaver last June, told the group’s legal counsel and advocated Weaver be removed. The Washington Blade, an LGBTQ+ news outlet, has reported other communications from last summer. Weaver went on leave in August.Weaver’s harassment of young men was first reported in January by the American Conservative; Scott Stedman, an independent reporter, and data analyst Garrett Herrin, who said they were harassed by Weaver; and Axios. At the end of the month, the New York Times published a detailed report.The Lincoln Project denied having known of the allegations for months. This week, Schmidt told the AP no “employee, intern, or contractors ever made an allegation of inappropriate communication about John Weaver that would have triggered an investigation by HR or by an outside employment counsel.“In other words, no human being ever made an allegation about any inappropriate sexualized communications about John Weaver ever.”Speaking to New York magazine, Schmidt said he had called Weaver and “said, ‘You need to know that this is out there. Is there anything that we need to know?’ He said, ‘No, it’s bullshit. It’s not true.’”Alex Johnson, a former intern who alleges harassment by Weaver, said: “I really wanted to believe everyone that they didn’t know the extent of it. They made it seem like this was out of the blue and there wasn’t even a baseline knowledge at all. This just seems like they were lying; it seems like they were not being truthful to me.”The AP report and others also contained details of Lincoln Project fundraising and fees paid to consulting firms owned by founding members. From the political right, the National Review, a longtime antagonist, responded with a stark headline: “Yes, the Lincoln Project Is an Ugly Grift.”Schmidt said: “We fully comply with the law. The Lincoln Project will be delighted to open its books for audit immediately after the Trump campaign and all affiliated Super Pacs do so.”Contacted by the Guardian on Friday, the 212th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, Wilson said no further comment would be issued while the review continued.Horn tweeted a picture of the 16th president, with a famous quote from his speech in 1860 at Cooper Union in New York – the venue where the Lincoln Project held its formal launch in February 2020.“[Let us] have faith that right makes might; and in that faith let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.” More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      The Fringe Feeds a Familiar Narrative

      by

      Finally, it has come to pass in the land of the free and the home of the brave that the cancerous core of America’s Republican Party is in full metastasis, spreading its poisonous tentacles far into the body politic. There is so little substantive pushback from Republican Party “leadership” that the spread of the disease threatens not only the party but the institutional integrity of the nation as a whole. The only good news is that unchecked cancers usually destroy the host.

      In this case, it might just be the best outcome. The fringe has morphed into the identity of the Republican Party so completely that somewhat hinged used-to-be Republicans don’t stand a chance of turning this around. But they don’t deserve another chance, having previously sold their souls to Ronald Reagan’s vision of undermined governance and unchecked capitalism as a means to a better end. Many Americans are just now beginning to figure out how poorly that has actually worked out for them.

      How Tough Is Biden Prepared to Look?

      READ MORE

      The spectacle of the Republican Party dancing around their new poster child, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, is a bit like watching some moron taking a selfie at the edge of a cliff only to realize as she falls that the rope around your waist is tethered to her waist. Republicans should have known that they would be in trouble when their old Uncle Mitch warned them that that rope was a bad idea.

      Since Greene is no ordinary moron teetering at the edge of a cliff, she has been empowered to drive the Trump narrative as a creed for both the party and the nation. Then there is the newly crowned “conscience” of the Republican House leadership, Representative Liz Cheney. She covered herself in “glory” by voting to impeach Trump for sedition and inciting an insurrection, and then a few scant weeks later covered herself in dung by failing to take the minimal step of removing Greene from her committee assignments. I can only guess, but maybe she used up her family allotment of “conscience” on that first vote.

      If you are wondering about the top guns in the Republican congressional orbit, you would be wondering about Mitch McConnell, now Senate minority leader, and the wannabe speaker of the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy. These two supported the whole Trump national trauma for four years and then, faced with armed insurrection inside the Capitol, still can’t say never again. And they still can’t clearly and unequivocally hold Trump responsible for his incitement of the mob.

      Republican Frauds

      Let me be clear about one thing: Even though there are those trying to proclaim themselves newly-crowned “heroes” of the Republican Party, they are all frauds of one kind or another. This includes the Lincoln Project crowd and the host of “former” Republicans trying desperately to resurrect their right-wing version of their right-wing party. Today’s self-proclaimed Republican heroes did everything they could to torch the Affordable Care Act, have for decades pushed scandalous tax relief for the wealthy, and have promoted some version of unregulated capitalism through which their personal greed could thrive amid the economic distress of so many others.

      And that doesn’t even reach the infamy of a political party and its adherents who have for those same decades fueled racial animus and anti-immigrant sentiment in the country for political and personal gain. Before trying to find virtue amid the wreck of the Republican Party, remember that the party and its minions are now, and have for those decades, promoted the delusional “American exceptionalism” so comforting to their white base and so destructive of a meaningful confrontation with the nation’s past that is rooted in the truth.

      Embed from Getty Images

      As with the racists in their midst that Trump legitimized and encouraged, any welcome unmasking of these new Republican “heroes” is long overdue. Some of them served a useful purpose in giving voice to the national disaster that was the Trump presidency. But none of them has given us any reason to believe that the recent past has engendered a new and truly inclusive vision for a policy partnership with Democrats that could begin to legislate a better future for those who have watched and waited for so long.

      The coronavirus pandemic has done more than even a close reading of history and outraged truth telling could have done to lay bare the moral and institutional bankruptcy that is America today. Systemic racism is finally on the lips of a US president because it has to be. Huge health care, housing, educational and economic deficits are everywhere to be seen, and now so obvious that ignoring them again would be yet another epic betrayal.

      To understand the depth of that betrayal and the Republican Party’s role in it requires a clear understanding that the kind old Republican “hero,” Ronald Reagan, cravenly gave white America a clear path away from the promise of the civil rights movement. That same national “hero” told the nation that government was the problem, not the solution and then set about to prove it on the backs of those most dependent on good government to realize a share of America’s bounty. Other Republican Party “heroes” willingly followed in those soiled footsteps.

      This is not to say that there is a purity of vision or spirit in the Democratic Party. Rather it is to say that America’s way forward cannot depend on either the cooperation or the acquiescence of Republicans. If you doubt this, the spectacle of the Trump impeachment trial in progress will again demonstrate the depths to which the Republican Party has sunk in its drive to regain power at all cost. A disgraced former president with the blood of hundreds of thousands of citizens already on his hands who delivered insurrection to the Capitol will continue to command Republican loyalty and get it.

      A Message for Biden

      So, President Joe Biden, don’t waste a minute on them. Don’t repeat the mistakes you and Barack Obama made from 2008 forward. Go all in this time. With those same Republicans already at work legislating new voter suppression measures where they can, your time to act may be short. In doing so, remember every day that closing the human value gap in America is essential to any attempt to reach for a better nation.

      And whatever else you do, President Biden, remember every day that systemic racism is the original sin that begat today’s deeply flawed America. Telling the truth about that is America’s irreplaceable first step forward.

      *[This article was co-published on the author’s blog, Hard Left Turn.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Josh Hawley's schooldays: ‘He made popcorn to watch the Iraq invasion’

      by

      Before Josh Hawley became known as a leader of the attempt to overturn the 2020 election in the US Congress, he was remembered by former students and staff at St Paul’s, the elite British school for boys where he spent a year teaching, as an aloof, rightwing political obsessive who had made himself popcorn to watch the US invasion of Iraq.The Republican senator from Missouri has been the target of ire of millions of Americans after he became the first senator to say he would object to election results. Ultimately, 146 congressional Republicans joined the rightwing lawmaker in seeking to block votes from Pennsylvania and Arizona from being counted, an extraordinary move that was seen as stoking the flames of a pro-Trump mob who attacked the US Capitol.Before the assault, Hawley was photographed walking past the crowd and raising his fist in salute to them.While Hawley has painted himself as a man of the “American heartland”, and has expressed contempt for what he says is the US’s liberal “elite”, the graduate of Stanford and Yale Law School, who once clerked for the supreme court chief justice, John Roberts, spent a year in suburban London in 2002, at the top all-boys private school St Paul’s that dates back to 1509.An examination of Hawley’s time there by the London-based magazine the Fence, found Hawley was not the first choice to serve as a “Colet fellow” at the prestigious private school, a role reserved for Ivy League graduates.But Hawley persuaded the interview board with what some called his intellectual rigor and drive.Hawley taught A-Level politics jointly with Rob Jones, a leftwing former policeman who was described fondly when he left in the school magazine as “able to create a fearsome reputation, but is also worshipped by his students. There cannot be many who have their own Facebook appreciation society.”The teaching style of the pair, former pupils said, was combative, with it apparent that Jones was on the left and Hawley on the right. “Rob had him take some lessons, he would sit with the boys and throw grenades every so often,” said one.Jack, a former student who is himself now a teacher, explained further: “Jones and Hawley would sit on opposite sides of the classroom. We’d get these photocopies of, you know, excerpts from Nietzsche or Marx or John Locke, for ideologies, given them in advance and told to highlight them. Then it was a debate, a discussion, about what conservatives think about society, is nationalism inherently aggressive, and so on and so on.“Fairly quickly it was known … you know, Hawley, he’s the conservative one, he’s the rightwing guy. But then, as I say, he didn’t hide it in discussions. He was forthright about defending his views even at that stage.”The ex-pupil added that Hawley was clearly highly intelligent. “I’m sad to see some of the things he’s saying now, the people he’s aligning with, and the simplistic, glib phrases he’s coming out with, but he’s a serious thinker and he was seriously impressive even back then. And everyone could see it. I think that’s why Jones was happy for him to take such a big load of the teaching, as it was very apparent that this was a very impressive young person,” he said.Hawley, who left comments on pupil’s essays in green ink, “could be quite tough at some points”, according to Jack.“It was a great incentive to work hard and try and do better and see, gosh, would I be capable of writing an essay that wouldn’t be scrawled all over or, you know, would at least get some positive feedback. So, yeah, that was really the first time at St Paul’s where I really loved the education. And I did very well in A-Level politics because I was so, what’s the word – these lessons were exhilarating. And that inspired me to keep going with politics, and he had a lot to do with that,” Jack said.But not all of Hawley’s former pupils were as kind. “He ran my Oxbridge preparation classes. He’s useless, I didn’t get in,” remarked one graduate of Durham University.The reading material set by the young American teacher spoke to his Christian faith, with the devout Hawley setting Paul’s letter to the Romans as Oxbridge reading. In politics, Hawley also went beyond the syllabus to teach John Rawls, Michael Sandel, John Locke, Thomas Paine and other classic works of studying American democracy.More than anything, the prevailing impression left by Hawley on one pupil seems to be that of a politics wonk. “He was really, really into American political logistics. It was around the time of the 2004 election, or run-up to it, and he had his postal voting pack with him and was so proud and protective of it,” he said.Such was his tidiness – or “creepily American” appearance – that the best nickname his pupils could devise was “The All-American Hero”.“He looked like somebody who’s going to be president. If you imagined what a 22-year-old would look like before they became president, he was the figure. Can’t typecast better than that,” added one former charge.But what did his colleagues make of him? In a now-deleted tweet, Mike Sacks, a former Colet fellow who arrived two years after Hawley, said that a teacher asked him: “You’re not a fascist like that Joshua Hawley, are you?”Another described him as “too rightwing and Christian for my sensibilities”, but it seems Hawley did little to help himself in becoming friendly with the staff.“He made a point to keep himself aloof. My take on that is that he had an attitude that he was better, and that the sort of mingling and socializing was just below him, and not something he’d engage in. There were lots of opportunities to spend time together, either in the staff room or at drinks down at the pub – and he doesn’t drink, or he didn’t drink, let me put it that way. He’d never once go to the pub. Not once,” the ex-colleague said.Another former teacher, who says Hawley took an instant dislike to him, recalls an unfriendly Sunday morning encounter with Hawley at a bus stop, where he stayed wordless for 20 minutes as Hawley clutched a huge Bible full of colored ribbons to mark bits of scripture, off to an evangelical gathering.With few social appearances, staff actually remember little of Hawley, though one remembered incident seems striking.“The only anecdote I remember about him in the staff room is he made himself popcorn to watch the news coverage of the Iraq invasion. You know, shock and awe. […] Holding forth about how this is a good military move, and it’s a show of American strength. He was very hawkish,” a teacher recalled.“The common room is, I think, a bit more liberal – he really felt they weren’t quite as aligned with some of his morals. This kind of came across as him making his mark – maybe he was hamming it up a bit to make his point. But it’s not like popcorn was usual in the staff room. We are, after all, in London – we have tea and coffee, not exactly popcorn. He was quite excited about that kind of military endeavor. That was a funny, bizarre kind of moment,” the teacher added.Hawley’s connections to St Paul’s persisted after he left, attending a dinner celebrating the school’s 500th anniversary on 4 April 2009 at the Library of Congress in Washington DC and posing for a photograph with other former Colet fellows and the then High master, Dr Martin Stephen.But the events of attack on the Capitol on 6 January have changed St Paul’s attitude to their former employee.A spokesperson for the school said: “Like people the world over St Paul’s has been shocked by the scenes taking place in America and those resisting the delivery of the legitimate election process. Our records show Josh Hawley came over from the United States for 10 months as a postgraduate intern 18 years ago. We are relieved that democratic process is now prevailing in the US Capitol.” More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      'Accomplice' senators who amplified Trump's lies now get a say in his fate

      by

      Sign up for the Guardian’s First Thing newsletterA desk in the US Senate was notably empty for chunks of Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial on Wednesday.Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, was instead lounging in the upstairs public gallery with a pile of documents. He explained to CNN: “I’m sitting up there A, because it’s a little less claustrophobic than on the floor, but B, I’ve also got a straight shot,” – a reference to his seating location that also conjured an unfortunate image.But some critics would suggest that Hawley’s rightful place is in the dock, along with his colleague Ted Cruz of Texas and others who unabashedly endorsed Trump’s assault on democracy.This week’s trial necessarily has a narrow focus on the ex-president but that means little scrutiny of Hawley, who was photographed saluting Trump supporters with a raised fist hours before the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January.The Kansas City Star newspaper in his home state wrote in an editorial: “No one other than President Donald Trump himself is more responsible for Wednesday’s coup attempt at the US Capitol than one Joshua David Hawley, the 41-year-old junior senator from Missouri, who put out a fundraising appeal while the siege was under way.”Undeterred by the deadly violence, Hawley and Cruz were prominent among eight senators and 139 representatives who objected to certifying Joe Biden’s electoral college win. Both faced calls to resign. Yet now they get a say in whether Trump should be held accountable for his actions.Hillary Clinton, a former secretary of state and first lady, tweeted on Thursday: “If Senate Republicans fail to convict Donald Trump, it won’t be because the facts were with him or his lawyers mounted a competent defense. It will be because the jury includes his co-conspirators.”In detailing how Trump’s tweets and rally speeches fuelled false claims of election fraud and spurred supporters to “fight like hell”, the House impeachment managers have been careful not to dwell on how Hawley, Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul were among the senators who enabled and amplified those same incendiary lies.It is a pragmatic choice by prosecutors who need some 17 Republican senators to join all 50 Democrats to secure the two-thirds majority required for Trump’s conviction – still something of a mission impossible.Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman from Illinois, said: “It’s one of the great ironies of this trial, and one of the reasons why the Senate Republicans will not convict Trump, that most of these Senate Republicans have been Trump’s accomplices. If they convicted Trump, they would have to convict themselves.”To an outside spectator, the stripped-of-context prosecution case might imply that Trump was imbued with superpowers that enabled him to singlehandedly summon, assemble and incite the mob when, in reality, he was lifted by an ecosystem of Republican politicians, conservative media personalities, social media platforms and far-right extremists.Walsh added: “Donald Trump is on trial. He’s the one who originated the big lie, the stolen election lie, but why the hell isn’t [Fox News host] Sean Hannity on trial? Why isn’t Ted Cruz on trial? Why isn’t [congressman] Kevin McCarthy, [congressman] Jim Jordan, [radio host] Rush Limbaugh? I mean, anybody over the last eight months in any position of power or influence who spread the big lie is every bit as culpable as Donald Trump.”For their part, Hawley and Cruz will not necessarily escape scot-free. Both men are facing an investigation from the Senate ethics committee over their conduct before the siege and leadership of the Senate challenge to the electoral college vote. Bob Casey, a Democratic senator from Pennsylvania, told CNN that the pair should face censure as a “bare minimum”.Other Republicans could still face a backlash from donors and voters for their complicity. Last November Graham, a Trump loyalist, called the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, who alleges that the senator seemed to suggest he find a way to throw out ballots that had been lawfully cast; Graham denies this was his intention.The senator from South Carolina tweeted about the trial on Wednesday night: “The ‘Not Guilty’ vote is growing after today. I think most Republicans found the presentation by the House Managers offensive and absurd.”Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, refused to acknowledge Biden’s victory until it was certified by the electoral college in mid-December. He has twice voted that the impeachment trial is unconstitutional because Trump is now a private citizen but, according to media reports, continues to keep an open mind as to his final verdict. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Dozens of former Republican officials in talks to form anti-Trump party

      by

      Dozens of former Republican officials who view the party as unwilling to stand up to Donald Trump and his attempts to undermine US democracy are in talks to form a centre-right breakaway party, four people involved in the discussions have said.The early stage discussions include former elected Republicans, former officials in the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, George W Bush and Trump, ex-Republican ambassadors and Republican strategists, the people involved told Reuters.More than 120 of them held a Zoom call last Friday to discuss the breakaway group, which would run on a platform of “principled conservatism”, including adherence to the constitution and the rule of law – ideas they say have been trashed by Trump.The plan would be to run candidates in some races but also to endorse centre-right candidates in others, be they Republicans, independents or Democrats, the people involved say.Evan McMullin, who was chief policy director for the House Republican conference and ran as an independent in the 2016 presidential election, told Reuters he co-hosted the Zoom call with former officials concerned about Trump’s grip on the Republicans and the nativist turn the party had taken.Three other people confirmed to Reuters the call and the discussions for a potential splinter party had taken place, but asked not to be identified.Among the call participants were John Mitnick, general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security under Trump; the former Republican congressman Charlie Dent; Elizabeth Neumann, deputy chief of staff in the Department of Homeland Security under Trump; and Miles Taylor, another former Trump homeland security official.The talks highlight the wide internal rift over Trump’s false claims of election fraud and the deadly 6 January storming of the US Capitol. Most Republicans remain fiercely loyal to the former president, but others are seeking a new direction for the party.The House of Representatives impeached Trump on 13 January on a charge of inciting an insurrection by exhorting thousands of supporters to march on the Capitol on the day Congress was gathered to certify Joe Biden’s election victory.Call participants said they were particularly dismayed by the fact that more than half of the Republicans in Congress – eight senators and 139 House representatives – voted to block certification of Biden’s election victory just hours after the Capitol siege. Most Republican senators have also indicated they will not support the conviction of Trump in this week’s Senate impeachment trial.“Large portions of the Republican party are radicalising and threatening American democracy,” McMullin told Reuters. “The party needs to recommit to truth, reason and founding ideals or there clearly needs to be something new.”Asked about the discussions for a third party, Jason Miller, a Trump spokesman, said: “These losers left the Republican party when they voted for Joe Biden.”A representative for the Republican National Committee referred to a recent statement from its chair, Ronna McDaniel. “If we continue to attack each other and focus on attacking on fellow Republicans, if we have disagreements within our party, then we are losing sight of 2022 [elections],” McDaniel said on Fox News last month. “The only way we’re going to win is if we come together.”The Biden White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.McMullin said just over 40% of those on the Zoom call backed the idea for a third national party. Another option under discussion is to form a “faction” that would operate either inside the Republican party or outside it.Names under consideration for a new party include the Integrity party and the Center Right party. If it is decided instead to form a faction, one name under discussion is the Center Right Republicans.Potential members are aware that the US political landscape is littered with the remains of previous failed attempts at establishing a third party.“But there is a far greater hunger for a new political party out there than I have ever experienced in my lifetime,” one participant said. More

    • 200 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Impeachment trial: Trump accused of inflaming insurrection while defense insists it was free speech – live

      by

      Key events

      Show

      4.10pm EST16:10
      Trump lawyer appears to warn of more violence if impeachment trial continues

      3.36pm EST15:36
      Trump’s defense team warns against punishing political speech

      3.07pm EST15:07
      Trump’s legal team argues impeachment trial is unconstitutional

      2.46pm EST14:46
      Raskin provides emotional account of January 6 insurrection

      1.25pm EST13:25
      Impeachment managers play videos from Capitol insurrection

      1.03pm EST13:03
      Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump begins

      12.51pm EST12:51
      Community health centers to receive one million vaccine doses, White House says

      Live feed

      Show

      4.44pm EST16:44

      Some viewers of the impeachment trial wondered why David Schoen, one of Donald Trump’s defense lawyers, kept resting his hand on his head as he took a sip of water while making his opening argument.
      Daniel Goldman, the lead counsel of the House inquiry during Trump’s first impeachment, explained it was because Schoen is an observant Jew and must cover his head and say a blessing when he drinks a sip of water.

      Daniel Goldman
      (@danielsgoldman)
      Mr. Schoen is an observant Jew who must cover his head when he takes a sip of water and quietly says a blessing. Since he is not wearing a kippah, he therefore covers his head with his hand.

      February 9, 2021

      4.35pm EST16:35

      David Schoen, one of Donald Trump’s lawyers, argued that House Democrats inappropriately delayed the impeachment trial by holding back the article of impeachment.
      But it was then-Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell who said he would not bring the chamber back early from recess to start the trial, despite Democratic leader Chuck Schumer’s requests for an emergency session to immediately begin the proceedings.
      So it is not accurate to blame Democrats for the delayed start date of the impeachment trial.

      4.26pm EST16:26

      Congresswoman Ilhan Omar pushed back against the arguments presented by Donald Trump’s defense team in the impeachment trial.
      Omar sent a tweet about the proceedings shortly after the defense team played a video showing Democrats, including Omar, calling for the impeachment of Trump as early as 2017.
      “Let’s be clear, we might have all done and said things we regret, but only Trump and the #seditioncaucus words and actions have let to an insurrection of our nation’s Capital, death and bodily harm,” the Democratic congresswoman said. “Don’t let them confuse you.”

      Ilhan Omar
      (@IlhanMN)
      Let’s be clear, we might have all done and said things we regret, but only Trump and the #seditioncaucus words and actions have let to an insurrection of our nation’s Capital, death and bodily harm. Don’t let them confuse you.

      February 9, 2021

      4.21pm EST16:21

      Lauren Aratani

      Bruce Castor’s bizarre opening argument in defense of Donald Trump could be part of the team’s “deliberative strategy,” a Trump ally is telling reporters, including the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman and NBC’s Peter Alexander.

      Peter Alexander
      (@PeterAlexander)
      A Trump source, just now, describes Castor’s argument as a “very clear, deliberative strategy.”Says defense is “lowering the temperature… before dropping the hammer on the unconstitutional nature of this impeachment witch hunt.”

      February 9, 2021

      It seems that the defense team was trying to tamper emotions after the House’s impeachment managers appeared in front of the Senate. Castor was “lowering the temperature” before the team went on to “dropping the hammer on the unconstitutional nature of this impeachment witch hunt,” according to an anonymous Trump ally who spoke to Alexander.
      It is unclear what part of Castor’s statement was part of this strategy given that he acknowledged moments ago on the Senate floor that the team “changed what we were going to do on account that we thought the House managers presentation was well done.” Perhaps the admission was part of the “deliberative strategy”?

      4.13pm EST16:13

      David Schoen criticized the House impeachment managers for playing “movies” to make their case for Donald Trump’s conviction.
      The impeachment managers opened their arguments today by playing a video showing the violence and destruction at the Capitol on January 6.

      Shortly after Schoen issued his criticism, he played his own video, showing Democrats calling for the impeachment of Trump as early as 2017.
      Schoen’s video opened with a clip of Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager, as menacing music played in the background.

      4.10pm EST16:10

      Trump lawyer appears to warn of more violence if impeachment trial continues

      David Schoen, a member of Donald Trump’s legal team, accused Democrats of abusing the impeachment power to gain a political advantage.
      The former president’s lawyer argued Democrats are pursuing impeachment because they are still mad about the results of the 2016 election. (The impeachment managers’ opening argument focused exclusively on the violent insurrection at the Capitol last month, which Trump incited.)
      “I promise you that if these proceedings go forward, everyone will look bad,” Schoen said, warning that the trial would “open up new and bigger wounds across the nation”.
      Schoen then appeared to suggest that the impeachment trial could spark another civil war, saying, “This trial will tear this country apart, perhaps like we have only seen once before in American history.”

      Updated
      at 4.10pm EST

      4.01pm EST16:01

      As he concluded his opening comments, Bruce Castor also bizarrely seemed to suggest Donald Trump should be arrested if the allegations at the heart of the impeachment trial are true.
      “A high crime is a felony, and a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor,” Castor said. “After he’s out of office, you go and arrest him. … The department of justice does know what to do with such people. And so far, I haven’t seen any activity in that direction.”

      Aaron Rupar
      (@atrupar)
      Castor winds down his very bizarre speech by daring the DOJ to arrest Trump pic.twitter.com/jmoxdIU6Pm

      February 9, 2021

      3.55pm EST15:55

      Bruce Castor closed his opening comments by acknowledging that Donald Trump’s defense team was caught off guard by the strength of the House impeachment managers’ presentation.
      The former president’s lawyer said the defense team reshuffled because they thought the managers’ presentation would focus only on the question of Senate jurisdiction rather than recounting the violence and destruction of the January 6 insurrection.
      “We have counter-arguments to literally everything they have raised, and you will hear them later in the case,” Castor said.
      And with that, he handed things over to another member of Trump’s defense team, David Schoen.

      3.47pm EST15:47

      Alan Dershowitz, who served as a member of Donald Trump’s defense team during his first impeachment trial, criticized Bruce Castor’s rambling opening presentation.
      “There is no argument. I have no idea what he is doing,” Dershowitz told the conservative outlet Newsmax. “I have no idea why he’s saying what he’s saying.”

      Newsmax
      (@newsmax)
      ‘There is no argument – I have no idea what he is doing,’ @AlanDersh on Trump’s defense lawyer Bruce Castor ‘talking nice’ to U.S. Senators – via Newsmax TV’s ‘American Agenda.’ https://t.co/VlT7z8drtO pic.twitter.com/7P7uVk5X19

      February 9, 2021

      Dershowitz said Castor was too focused on “talking nice” to senators rather than making a “constitutional argument” for why the impeachment trial should be dismissed.
      “I have no idea what he’s doing. Maybe he’ll bring it home, but right now it doesn’t appear to be effective advocacy,” Dershowitz said. “Boy, it’s not the kind of argument I would have made. I’ll tell you that.”

      3.36pm EST15:36

      Trump’s defense team warns against punishing political speech

      About 20 minutes into his speech, Bruce Castor addressed the January 6 insurrection, pointing to a First Amendment defense for Donald Trump inciting the violence.
      “We can’t possibly be suggesting that we punish people for political speech in this country,” the former president’s lawyer told senators.
      The impeachment managers preemptively addressed this argument in their final pre-trial brief, which they filed earlier today.
      “The First Amendment does not immunize President Trump from impeachment or limit the Senate’s power to protect the Nation from an unfit leader,” the managers wrote in their brief.
      They added, “And even assuming the First Amendment applied, it would certainly not protect President Trump’s speech on January 6, which incited lawless action.”

      Updated
      at 3.36pm EST

      3.28pm EST15:28

      Bruce Castor, who is leading Donald Trump’s defense team, opened his presentation by praising senator as “patriots” and mentioning that he still gets lost in the Capitol sometimes.
      Castor did not directly address the president’s actions on January 6 or argue against the constitutionality of the impeachment trial.
      Reporters compared the former president’s lawyer to a college student who did not do the reading before class, joking that Castor would be fired by tweet if Trump still had access to his Twitter account.

      Abby D. Phillip
      (@abbydphillip)
      I have been in this government class before, where someone hasn’t done the reading, napped through the first half of class, gets called on and just riffs for 15 minutes.

      February 9, 2021

      James Hohmann
      (@jameshohmann)
      Bruce Castor’s opening speech feels a little like this. pic.twitter.com/D2j5soQ6s8

      February 9, 2021

      Seung Min Kim
      (@seungminkim)
      If Trump still had his Twitter account, he may Tweet-fire this lawyer on the spot.

      February 9, 2021

      3.17pm EST15:17

      The beginning of Bruce Castor’s presentation seemed to be mostly him rambling, which did not escape the attention of those watching the impeachment trial.

      Susan Glasser
      (@sbg1)
      Yes. https://t.co/tOAiYJFRCH

      February 9, 2021

      Castor, who is leading Donald Trump’s defense team, spent several minutes explaining how senators are different than other Americans. It was very unclear how that issue relates to whether the impeachment trial is constitutional.
      The contrast to House impeachment managers’ presentation, which started with a video showing the violence and destruction of the January 6 insurrection, was quite stark.

      Dave Weigel
      (@daveweigel)
      This is a “My Cousin Vinny”-level mismatch of opening statements so far

      February 9, 2021

      3.07pm EST15:07

      Trump’s legal team argues impeachment trial is unconstitutional

      The impeachment trial has now resumed, and Donald Trump’s legal team has started delivering its argument that the trial is unconstitutional.
      Lawyer Bruce Castor opened his remarks by acknowledging the “outstanding presentation” offered by the impeachment managers.
      Castor also emphasized that he and Trump’s other lawyers denounced the violence at the Capitol on January 6, saying they believed all the insurrectionists involved in the attack should be prosecuted. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Analysis: Democrats use Trump impeachment to show sometimes symbolism is the point

      by

      Sign up for the Guardian’s First Thing newsletterThe Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin stood at the lectern, faced 100 senators and removed his black face mask to begin the historic second impeachment trial of former president Donald John Trump.Don’t worry, Raskin assured them with a disarming note of humour on Tuesday. He might have been a constitutional law professor for three decades but he would not be lecturing them on the Federalist Papers. “A professor is someone who talks in someone else’s sleep,” he quoted from the poet W H Auden.Instead Raskin promised “cold, hard facts” and he was as good as his word. He let the murderous mob do the talking. The congressman stood aside to a play a brutal, raw, shocking video of the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January.For the senators riveted to their seats, forced to relive the nightmarish quality of that day, there was something especially spooky about watching the mob rampaging through the very building where they were sitting, smashing windows, crushing police officers in doors, waving far-right regalia and chanting “Fight for Trump!”For Republicans, it must have been uniquely stomach-churning to see what their champion had unleashed – knowing that most of them will continue to defend them during this trial for fear of angering his “base”. Never can they have been so relieved to have been wearing masks that concealed their expressions from the press gallery.The video ended with a tweet from Trump from that day insisting this is what happens when an election is stolen (it wasn’t stolen). He told his fans: “Go home with love & peace! Remember this day forever!”The montage was an early indication that, whereas Trump’s first impeachment trial a year ago – which turned on a phone call seeking political favours from Ukraine – was like a white-collar criminal case, this time is more akin to a mob trial with Trump cast as the instigator of violent thugs.It was a dramatic, roaring start to the trial that promises to plant a giant exclamation mark at the end of the Trump presidency. Raskin and his eight fellow House impeachment managers want to make sure that 6 January will become the operatic climax of America’s four years of living dangerously.They also want to send a message. They are aware that the world’s faith in America has been badly shaken by the election and presidency of a reality TV star who thrives on petty insults and breaking rules. And they are aware that the 6 January riot may have been breaking point for some.Peggy Noonan, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, told the MSNBC network on Tuesday: “I have spoken to many people in foreign affairs, including ambassadors and others representing other countries, and since the events following the November election and the president’s attempt to overturn it, they have been not been disappointed, they have been anguished by this, by the sense that America is dropping the ball and can no longer function as the thing you are aiming at.”But Joe Biden likes to say that betting against America is always a bad bet. His election and orderly inauguration last month sent a signal to the world that it should not write off the young republic yet.Democrats are aware that the trial outcome is a foregone conclusion – another Trump acquittal, barring sensational new evidence – and that the stakes are lower because he has already left office. But sometimes symbolism is the point. The impeachment trial is a test of accountability, stability and rule of law before a global audience.So in a Capitol building where some windows remain cracked, they observed the solemn rituals and traditions, filing into the Senate chamber beneath the busts of 20 former vice-presidents gazing down from marble plinths in alcoves. This time there were no members of the public in the gallery because of coronavirus precautions.Just before 1pm, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate minority leader, walked in a little unsteadily and stood at his desk. He was approached by Susan Collins, who is expected to vote against Trump and spoke to him animatedly. Then came Tom Cotton, who is expected to vote for Trump’s acquittal, for another deep conversation.McConnell remains the pivotal figure at the trial and in the coming years. For a few days after the attack on the Capitol he seemed to be ready to cut Trump loose, and persuade many colleagues to do likewise, yet he then voted to support the notion that this trial is unconstitutional. His future actions will offer clues as to whether the Republican party can shake off Trumpism without having to learn the hard way at the ballot box.Marco Rubio sat at his desk writing with a quill pen. Bernie Sanders had an iPad resting on a folder. Some seats were empty for the opening pledge of allegiance and prayer.The Senate president pro tempore, Patrick Leahy, presiding over the proceedings, led the chamber in reciting the pledge and gaveled in the Senate as a court of impeachment.The prayer, from Chaplain Barry Black, included a pointed quotation from the poet James Russell Lowell: “Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, / In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side.”Then, after a procedural vote, Raskin began his argument that the trial is indeed constitutional – a former president can be tried even after leaving office. To deny this, he said, would create a “brand new January exception”, meaning that an outgoing president could act with impunity during his final weeks in the White House.Once such technical arguments are out of the way, Democrats were expected on Wednesday to prosecute the case like a criminal trial with more compelling videos and graphic descriptions of that day.But they didn’t want to overdo it. Trump is gone and Biden is facing the most daunting presidential inheritance since Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. While this trial plays out, the new president is trying to win support for a $1.9tn rescue package and tackle the coronavirus, economic, racial justice and climate crises.As Biden tries spinning these plates, the last thing he needs is a rancorous impeachment trial to bring it all crashing down. But Democrats insist they can get it done. If you had a dollar or pound for every time a member of Congress insists they can “walk and chew gum at the same time”, you would be very wealthy indeed.Like a criminal lawyer, Democrats are seeking to appeal to not only the head but also the heart. They are not only prosecutors but also survivors of the rampage, a point brought home with visceral force by Raskin in a closing argument that had the chamber silent and spellbound on Wednesday.“And then there was a sound I will never forget,” he recalled. “The sound of pounding on the door like a battering ram. The most haunting sound I ever heard and I will never forget it.”Raskin’s 25-year-old son, Tommy, a Harvard law student who struggled with depression, took his own life on New Year’s Eve. A day after Tommy was buried on 5 January, the congressman had brought his daughter and a son-in-law to the Capitol for the ratification of Biden’s victory.He had assured them it would be safe but, after the mob stormed the building, they were hiding under a desk in a barricaded congressional office sending what they thought were final text messages to loved ones. More than an hour later, they were rescued by Capitol police.Raskin, fighting back tears, said of his 24-year-old daughter: “I told her how sorry I was and I promised her that it would not be like this again the next time she came back to the Capitol with me. And you know what she said? She said, ‘Dad, I don’t want to come back to the Capitol.’”At that Raskin broke down for a moment, putting fingers to his eyes before regaining his composure. “Of all the terrible, brutal things I saw and I heard on that day and since then, that one hit me the hardest. That and watching someone use an American flag pole, the flag still on it, to spear and pummel one of our police officers – ruthlessly, mercilessly tortured by a pole with a flag on it that he was defending with his very life.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump prosecutors pitch to the public in made-for-TV impeachment trial

      by

      The lethal Capitol invasion by Donald Trump supporters that is at the heart of the former president’s second impeachment trial happened more than a month ago. But Democrats leading the prosecution of Trump are counting on an element of surprise.Surprise, the impeachment prosecutors are calculating, because while most Americans understand the broad outlines of what happened during the 6 January attack on the Capitol, relatively few have come to grips with the shocking audio and video footage from that day – portraying a cauldron of violence, vandalism, bloodlust and fear.And in what is shaping up as history’s first made-for-TV impeachment trial, Democrats are planning to make some of these surreal scenes the centerpiece of their case against the only president ever to be impeached twice.A police officer crushed in a doorway. A woman wearing a Trump flag shot in the neck. Mobs in Trump gear breaking doors and smashing glass, and hunting the halls of legislature for members to tear “into little pieces”. Staffers for the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, huddled under a conference table, sending texts for help, as rioters pound on the doors. A woman trampled to death as her friend begs for space.And the chants: “The steal is real!”, “Hang Mike Pence!” and “USA! USA! USA!”A Senate split 50-50 will act as jury at the trial, and Trump is expected to retain enough Republican support to avoid conviction and a ban on his holding future office.But the prosecutors’ case as previewed this week is not principally directed at lawmakers. Instead, it is unmistakably pitched to the public.Impeachment managers led by Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland are expected to draw on hours of previously unseen footage from body cameras worn by police, from the media and from live streams captured by the insurrectionists themselves to produce what is shaping up as a shocking inside account of the Capitol attack.With unique access to evidence gathered by law enforcement officers in nearly 140 cases related to the invasion so far, the prosecutors will try to break through calcifying versions on both sides of the political aisle of what happened, and to provoke a new reckoning with how close the country came to an act of mass violence inside the halls of government.That realization, they think, could jolt a reconsideration of Trump’s guilt for the article of impeachment with which he has been charged: incitement of insurrection.The Huffington Post politics reporter Igor Bobic was inside the Capitol that day – but outside either legislative chamber – and captured some of the most notable footage of the invasion.“One month since the attack and I’m still learning harrowing details about the day,” he tweeted at the weekend. “Staffers I haven’t seen since recalling how they barricaded themselves in offices in terror. Members telling me how they followed my feed on their phone while in the chamber in disbelief. Reporters still trying to make sense of it all. All of us still coping.”Last month Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was forced into hiding during the invasion, described hearing threats from insurrectionists and told thousands of followers on Instagram Live: “I thought I was going to die.”Trump’s defense team seemed to sense the danger to their case that the video scenes represented, and in a brief submitted on Monday they floated multiple pre-emptive responses.Heatedly condemning the attack on the Capitol and denying Trump’s complicity, the defense accused Democrats of “a brazen attempt to further glorify violence” by presenting the facts of the case. In a footnote, the lawyers went so far as to suggest that the crowd was a mix of pro-Trump and anti-Trump elements.Trump’s quotes were expected to be juxtaposed with scenes of violence at the CapitolBut the footage may make plain what no legal argument might deny. The crowd proceeded from a rally at which Trump spoke and arrived at the Capitol wearing red hats and Trump 2020 flags, mixed in with militia patches, white supremacy group insignia, Confederate flags and illegal firearms and knives.In an initial brief submitted last week, the impeachment managers described Trump’s “singular responsibility for the assault”, mustering dozens of quotations in which the former president spread the falsehood of a stolen election, demanded intervention, then “summoned a mob to Washington, exhorted them into a frenzy, and aimed them like a loaded cannon down Pennsylvania Avenue”.Trump’s quotes were expected to be juxtaposed with scenes of violence at the Capitol, as prosecutors hope to make a case that will drive home their charges against the former president.“We cannot, for a moment, treat the attack of 1/6 as something normal that happened,” tweeted Andy Kim, a Democratic representative from New Jersey. “It was a truly dark day in our nation’s history and it deserves a response of that magnitude.”It may be history’s first made-for-TV impeachment. But as for President Joe Biden, his press secretary, Jen Psaki, said his attention would be elsewhere: “He will not spend too much time watching the proceedings.” More