More stories

  • in

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

    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

  • in

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

    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

  • in

    Impeachment trial: mob 'believed they were acting on Trump's orders'

    Sign up for the Guardian’s First Thing newsletterThe insurrectionists who attacked the US Capitol on 6 January believed they were acting on instructions from Donald Trump, House Democrats said on Thursday as they launched the final stretch of their arguments to convict Trump during his impeachment trial.Diana DeGette, a Democratic congresswoman from Colorado, played several video clips and pointed to legal documents in which the attackers said they were following Trump’s wishes. In one clip, protesters screamed at police that they had been invited to the Capitol by Trump“They didn’t shy away from their crimes, because they thought they were following orders from the commander-in-chief. And so they would not be punished,” she said. “They came because he told them to.”Congressman Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager, walked senators through several instances in which Trump had encouraged and sanctioned violence by his supporters.Those examples included Trump’s repeated attacks on the Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, last year.After Trump’s repeated attacks, his supporters, some heavily armed, invaded the Michigan state capitol in Lansing last April, which Raskin said was a “dress rehearsal” for what was to come on 6 January in Washington.Trump did not condemn the attack, Raskin noted, leading supporters to again storm the state capitol two weeks later. The dangerous consequences of Trump’s rhetoric would become clearest in October, the congressman alleged, when 13 men were charged in connection with a plot to kidnap Whitmer.“These tactics were road-tested,” Raskin said. “January 6 was a culmination of the president’s actions, not an aberration from them.”The argument rebuts the point, advanced by Trump’s lawyers in their impeachment briefs, that Trump’s speech during a rally near the White House on 6 January is protected by the first amendment to the US constitution, governing free speech, and that he does not bear responsibility for what the rioters chose to do afterwards.House Democrats were expected to focus on Donald Trump’s “lack of remorse” and the lasting damage of the 6 January attack on the US Capitol as they conclude their case for convicting Trump in the ongoing impeachment trial.The impeachment managers – House Democrats essentially serving as prosecutors – will continue to focus on Trump’s role in the attack as well as the deep toll and harm from it, according to senior aides.Their presentation on Thursday follows a day when Democrats repeatedly showed harrowing video of the 6 January attack, some of it never publicly seen before.The disturbing security camera footage and other video clips came as they laid out a meticulous case for how Trump deliberately fomented the violence on 6 January and then, once it began, abdicated his constitutional duty to protect the United States.The footage shown in the session in the Senate on Wednesday included a revelation that the Utah Republican senator Mitt Romney was extremely close to the mob overrunning the Capitol until he was tapped on the shoulder by the Capitol police officer Eugene Goodman and told to turn around.Other footage showed Daniel Hodges, another officer, yelling as he was crushed in a doorway – an image that visibly upset some of the senators watching the proceeding.Tommy Tuberville, a Republican senator from Alabama, also revealed on Wednesday that he had told Trump that his vice-president, Mike Pence, had been evacuated from the Senate chamber as the attack was ongoing.The disclosure was significant because it suggested Trump was aware Pence was in danger as he attacked him on Twitter on 6 January for not overturning the electoral college vote.The disclosure also supports the narrative from House impeachment managers that Trump violated his presidential oath by not doing anything to stop an attack on the US government.The Democrats remain unlikely to succeed in getting the Senate to convict Trump and bar him from holding future office. They need to get 17 Republican senators to vote for conviction, a high bar.Still, impeachment aides projected confidence it was one they could clear.Aides who worked on Trump’s first impeachment trial said there was a notable difference on Tuesday in how the senators responded.“It’s really hard to think of a moment from the first trial where all 100 senators sat at attention and were as rapt and challenged by the evidence as we saw yesterday,” an aide said.To support their argument that they can convince Republicans to vote for conviction, aides have pointed to the Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican who voted on Tuesday to proceed with the trial after voting not to do so last month.Other Republicans show no signs of budging. The South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, a close ally of Trump, called the Wednesday presentation “offensive and absurd”. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida said earlier this week there was nothing the impeachment managers could say to convince him the trial was constitutional.Once the impeachment managers wrap up their case, Trump’s lawyers will have a chance to begin their defense of the former president in full.That defense, likely to begin on Friday, did not get off to the strongest start on Tuesday when Bruce Castor, one of Trump’s attorneys, gave a meandering opening argument. Trump was reportedly furious with the presentation, although Castor has said the president was pleased.Trump’s team will have 16 hours to make their case, over two days, though they are not expected to use all of that time.It remains unclear whether witnesses will be called. If that is not the case the trial could end as soon as Sunday. More

  • in

    Trump impeachment: police bodycam footage shows Capitol attack – video

    Police bodycam footage showing officers under attack at the US Capitol attack has been released during the second impeachment trial for Donald Trump. Democrat congressman Eric Swalell played footage captured from the officer’s perspective showing the crowd attacking police with whatever items were at hand, including crutches and a Trump flag. Swalell also revealed vision showing the evacuation of representatives including Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer being ushered away by security
    Trump trial shown disturbing footage of lawmakers ‘hunted’ by Capitol mob More

  • in

    Impeachment video shows Mike Pence and Mitt Romney fleeing Capitol attack – video

    New video shown during the second impeachment trial for Donald Trump has revealed Capitol police officer Eugene Goodman leading Senator Mitt Romney away from the rioters as well as the evacuation of former vice-president Mike Pence. Representative Stacey Plaskett presented the previously unreleased security footage from the 6 January Capitol breach documenting Romney’s close call as well as Pence and his family’s escape as rioters chanted ‘hang Mike Pence’
    Trump trial shown disturbing footage of lawmakers ‘hunted’ by Capitol mob
    New footage of Capitol riot shows Eugene Goodman rushing to save Mitt Romney – Trump impeachment live More

  • in

    Damned by his own words: Democrats follow Trump's wide-open multimedia trail | David Smith's sketch

    As US president, Donald Trump seemed be talking and tweeting 24 hours a day. That has thrown his near total absence from public life over the past three weeks into sharp relief. The Silence of the Tweets.It also means that when clips of Trump’s rally speeches filled the Senate chamber on day two of his impeachment trial on Wednesday, his voice was jarring and jangling in the ear, like a blowhard from a cruder, coarser time.His speeches, tweets and phone calls were replayed incessantly as the House impeachment managers put their case against him. Seldom has an accused been so damned by their own words. In his fiery claims of a stolen election, his exhortations to “fight like hell” and his failure to denounce hate groups such as the Proud Boys, Trump proved the star witness in his own prosecution.The spectacular irony was that a man who thrived on grabbing attention on TV and social media had left a trail of digital clues that ought to lead all the way to conviction. It was the 21st-century equivalent of a Victorian diary in which the master criminal brags about how he did it.“Trump’s worst problem?” tweeted David Axelrod, former chief campaign strategist for Barack Obama. “Videotape.”It helped Jamie Raskin and his fellow House impeachment managers build a case that this incitement did not begin on 6 January, the day of the insurrection at the US Capitol, but over months of spinning election lies and cheering on political violence.Wearing grey suit, white shirt, deep blue tie, and wielding a blue pen in his right hand, Raskin told the Senate: “He revelled in it and he did nothing to help us as commander-in-chief. Instead he served as the inciter-in-chief, sending tweets that only further incited the rampaging mob. He made statements lauding and sympathising with the insurrectionists.”Congressman Joe Neguse displayed clips of Trump addressing rallies in October where he said he could only lose the election if it was stolen. “Remember he had that no-lose scenario,” Neguse said. “He told his base that the election was stolen.” Such beliefs fueled the so-called “stop the steal” campaign.Another impeachment manager, Eric Swalwell, pored over Trump’s tweets, a goldmine for the prosecution. Among the many examples: the then president retweeted Kylie Jane Kremer, founder of a “Stop the Steal” Facebook group, who promised that “the cavalry” was coming.Swalwell told the senators, who sit at 100 wooden desks on a tiered semicircular platform, that there is “overwhelming” evidence: “President Trump’s conduct leading up to January 6 was deliberate, planned and premeditated. This was not one speech, not one tweet. It was dozens in rapid succession with the specific details. He was acting as part of the host committee.”Swalwell added: “This was never about one speech. He built this mob over many months with repeated messaging until they believed they had been robbed of their vote and they would do anything to stop the certification. He made them believe that their victory was stolen and incited them so he could use them to steal the election for himself.”The trial heard Trump pressuring Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to overturn his election defeat in the state. Congresswoman Madeleine Dean said: “We must not become numb to this. Trump did this across state after state so often, so loudly, so publicly. All because Trump wanted to remain in power.”Her colleague Stacey Plaskett of the Virgin Islands noted an incident last October when dozens of trucks covered in Trump campaign regalia “confronted and surrounded” a Biden-Harris campaign bus traveling from San Antonio to Austin in Texas.“What that video that you just saw does not show is that the bus they tried to run off of the road was filled with young campaign staff, volunteers, supporters, surrogates, people,” she said.And as the saying goes, there’s always a tweet. Plaskett highlighted that a day later, Trump tweeted a video of the episode with the caption, “I LOVE TEXAS.”Plaskett also played a clip of Trump at a presidential debate, telling the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” when asked to condemn white supremacists. They heard him “loud and clear”, she said, and even used the slogan on their merchandise. Several members of the Proud Boys have been charged in connection with the riots.Later, Plaskett presented chilling audio and video evidence, some of it never made public before, that she said displayed the consequences of Trump’s incendiary words. Capitol police and law enforcement could be heard pleading for backup as the mob closed in. An officer could be seen running past Senator Mitt Romney and warning him to turn around, then Romney was seen breaking into a run to safety.Trump’s political career was always like a child playing with matches. On 6 January, he started a fire. And as Wednesday’s hearing demonstrated, if he ever builds a presidential library and museum, there will be no shortage of multimedia material. More

  • in

    Key moments as Senate votes in favour of Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial – video

    After nearly four hours of debate, a divided US Senate voted 56 to 44 to proceed with the historic second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. House Democrats opened the trial with a chilling and dramatic video of the Capitol siege. The House impeachment managers warned that allowing Trump to escape punishment would establish a ‘January exception’ for presidents to betray their oaths of office. In their rebuttal, Trump’s defence team argued that the trial was not only unconstitutional but would ‘open up new and bigger wounds across the nation’ and was based on the Democrats not wanting ‘to face Donald Trump as a political rival in the future’
    Trump impeachment: Senate votes to proceed with trial
    ‘He just rambled’: Republicans unimpressed by Trump’s impeachment lawyers More

  • in

    'He just rambled': Republicans unimpressed by Trump's impeachment lawyers

    The performance of Donald Trump’s legal team on the first day of his second impeachment trial has drawn sharp criticism from Republican senators and other onlookers, many of whom appeared unimpressed by the at times rambling and incoherent opening statements.Two members of the former president’s legal team, Bruce Castor and David Schoen, sought on Tuesday to persuade the Senate to dismiss the trial on constitutional grounds. Castor’s performance in particular drew criticism as waffling and lacking in focus.Several Republican senators said they didn’t understand the lawyers’ arguments. The Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy, who voted with Democrats to move forward with the trial, said Trump’s team did a “terrible job” and was “disorganized”, “random” and “did everything they could but to talk about the question at hand”.Cassidy was not the only Republican who was displeased with Trump’s defense team.Susan Collins, a Republican senator of Maine, said she was “perplexed” by Castor, who is Trump’s lead lawyer, saying he “did not seem to make any arguments at all, which was an unusual approach to take”.“The president’s lawyer just rambled on and on,” said Senator John Cornyn, a Republican of Texas. “I’ve seen a lot of lawyers and a lot of arguments, and that was not one of the finest I’ve seen.”The Texas senator Ted Cruz, one of Trump’s staunchest allies, said he didn’t think the lawyers did “the most effective job”, while praising the Maryland representative Jamie Raskin, who is acting as the Democrats’ lead prosecutor, as “impressive”.Cornyn and Cruz both still voted to dismiss the trial, along with 42 other Republican senators. Six Republicans, including Cassidy and Collins, voted with Democrats to advance the trial.Trump himself was also reportedly unhappy with his lawyers’ showing. Politico reported that sources close to the former president say he grew “increasingly frustrated” as he watched the day unfold. Other outlets, including CBS and CNN, also reported the president was disappointed, according to sources.Per @MajorCBS, “Two sources familiar with the former president’s reaction to today’s Senate proceedings described Trump as angry about his lawyers’ lackluster performances. One source said the President “didn’t sound pleased” on phone calls with close associates.— Doug Sovern (@SovernNation) February 9, 2021
    Multiple people tell me Trump was basically screaming as Castor made a meandering opening argument that struggled to get at the heart of the defense team’s argument.— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) February 9, 2021
    The trial’s opening day saw Raskin deliver an emotional speech that recounted his personal experience of the Capitol attack, describing how his daughter and son-in-law were in an office in the Capitol and hid under a desk, where they sent what they thought were their final texts. Through tears, Raskin said: “This cannot be the future of America.”[embedded content]Castor opened his meandering presentation by praising senators as “patriots” and mentioning that he still gets lost in the Capitol. The speech included such cryptic lines as “Nebraska, you’re going to hear, is quite a judicial thinking place”. He spoke for 20 minutes before addressing the 6 January insurrection and failed to directly address the president’s actions that day or argue against the constitutionality of the impeachment trial.Castor concluded his opening comments by bizarrely daring the justice department to arrest Trump if the allegations at the heart of the impeachment trial were 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.”The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman said a Trump adviser had defended the performance as a “deliberative strategy” meant to distract from Raskin’s emotional presentation – though critics pointed out that a master strategist wouldn’t need to put out a background statement explaining their strategy.It was a performance that left many observers befuddled, with some reporters comparing the 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.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.— Abby D. Phillip (@abbydphillip) February 9, 2021
    If Trump still had his Twitter account, he may Tweet-fire this lawyer on the spot.— Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) February 9, 2021
    Alan Dershowitz, who served as a member of Donald Trump’s defense team during his first impeachment trial, seemed less than impressed with Castor’s rambling 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.”The Associated Press contributed reporting More