I just wanted to pass along the remarks of U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, closing the morning session of the impeachment trial today, which I thought were powerful.
As you know, if the Senate convicts former President Donald Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors, there will be a subsequent vote banning him from holding federal office in the future, which would foreclose him from running for president in 2024. That is actually the most concrete consequence Trump would face, if two-thirds of the Senate votes to convict him, and Raskin pitched his late morning remarks on that fact.
The testimony that had just concluded reviewed many previous instances in which Trump had promoted or winked at physical violence, including in the October 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to punish her for various measures taken to battle the COVID pandemic, which the plotters viewed as rampant socialism/totalitarianism.
Trump not only failed to condemn the plotters but, after the plot was foiled by federal officials (for which Trump took credit) he said of the kidnap plot, “Maybe it was a problem, maybe it wasn’t,” adding, as an aside, of Whitmer at the time, “I don’t think she likes me too much.”
Raskin didn’t include those last details, only an overview of Trump’s lenient, jocular attitude toward the attempted kidnapping. So what? Then Raskin, the leader of the House team prosecuting Trump in the impeachment trial, linked the Whitmer incident to the more recent mob violence in Washington:
[Trump] knew [from the Whitmer incident] that his most hardcore supporters were willing to direct violence at elected officials, indeed, to attack and lay siege to a Capitol building (referring to the Michigan Capitol), and he knew they were ready to heed his call on January 6, to “Stop the Steal,” by using violence to block the peaceful transfer of power in the United States.
He knew they [the mob that attended his rally, then attacked the Capitol Building in Washington] would be ready to heed his call, on January 6, to “Stop the Steal,” by using violence to block the peaceful transfer of power in the United States. He knew they were coming. He brought them here. And he welcomed them with open arms. “We hear you. We love you” from the Oval Office.
My dear colleagues, is there any political leader in this room who believes that if he should be allowed by the Senate to get back into the Oval Office, Donald Trump would stop inciting violence get his way?
Would you bet the lives of more police officers on that?
Would you bet the safety of your family on it?
Would you bet the future of your democracy on it?
President Trump declared his conduct “‘totally appropriate.” So, if he gets back into office, and it happens again, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves.
You hate to say it but Machiavellian is Machiavellian, whatever it takes, scheming, lying, corruption, etc. those that vote to acquit believe in T**** and the Machiavellian way! No ethics, no morals, no honor, no courage, no honesty, no integrity, no remorse. Definitely not what the signers had in mind! “We Mutually Pledge To Each Other Our Lives, Our Fortunes And Our Sacred Honor”
Amen, Dennis…
After watching the managers’ presentation, any arguments that the case against Trumpolini’s Insurrection was not adequately proven are simply made in bad faith, and are exercises in intellectual dishonesty. Trump-absolving excuses and purported criminal law technicalities simply cannot be taken seriously by an objective person. As Raskin said, one is to use common sense in resolving this matter. And harping on the senate’s power to try a president who has relinquished office has been resolved and is now just an attempt at distraction from the facts.
As Raskin (also) asked the jurors, “If this isn’t impeachable conduct, what would be?” One would think it a rhetorical question, but unfortunately, with today’s Repub party, it is an actual query. What WOULD a Repub president have to do to merit conviction?
Failure to convict on these facts would also demonstrate the inarguable end of the impeachment clauses, which the Framers had thought a significant check on the executive. This will result in a major willful crippling of the Constitution by Repubs. Failure to convict also will spell the effective end of the rule of law over the American president, which is naturally a major goal of America’s rising fascist movement, currently led by shadow president Trump.
The defense wants us to believe that Trump’s free speech right as a citizen supercedes his obligations to the country under his oath of office.
Grievously, the answer is “no.” There is no conduct by a Republican president that would merit conviction. In front of an Iowa Christian college audience in 2016, Trump proclaimed, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” — one of endless pompous remarks that puts Trump and Republican hubris on full display. Ignorance, too.
Perhaps more powerful, and local, was our own Congressperson Dean Phillips yelling “You caused this!” to GOP lawmakers as he retreated to a safer location during the planned ahead rush on the Capitol. Note that he says that Republican lawmakers were responsible for the “mob” rushing the Capitol. Odd that he wasn’t called to testify since he voted for impeachment (again) even though he knew that the President was not the cause of the “rioting”.
And note the transcript from the offending speech never referenced by the author, the Strib, or other “Journalists”:
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
It won’t be referenced by the author, the Strib, or other commenters today, tomorrow, or ever as it is the truth.
True, Trump didn’t say: “string up Mike Pence and the other disloyal Senators”. But then neither does someone who yells “fire”in a crowded theater knowing the doors are locked shut to prevent evacuation say: “trample to death anyone in your way”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster
Well, it doesn’t take a psychologist to know that Phillips was referring to the House Repubs’ failure to denounce Trumpolini’s Big Lie (not to say actual agreement with it), as well as their bad faith challenge of the certified AZ results, a decision that aided and abetted Trump’s incitement. I’m hard pressed to see that one could (in good faith) interpret it as anything else. Plus, how could the House Repubs have themselves physically incited the Trump mob when they were assembled in joint session? I wonder if “conservatives” really believe the interpretation you are suggesting?
As for Trumpolini’s single 10 seconds-long statement about “peaceful” “marching over to the Capitol building”, that was obviously an insincere, throw-away CYA comment, plausible deniabilty by an (obvious) violence inciter, understood as such by the brownshirt mob and utterly drowned out by the entire tenor of Trump’s 70 minute harangue of how “their” country is being taken away from them by the “stolen election”.
Did you talk to Rep. Phillips to get your explanation? I thought not.
And you’ll notice that today’s Strib and MinnPost refuse to print the quote or the transcript of the speech. No truth, no justice. The truth must remain hidden lest readers be allowed to decide for themselves.
Tom your second to last paragraph is accurate. Quick internet search shows this phrase appearing in numerous articles from journalists at prominent news outlets. Just fyi.
Actually, it was referenced and put in the proper context that after Trump talked about peacefully marching he said a number of things that were the exact opposite. Yet somehow Trump’s apologists seem to only reference the early statement about being peaceful and ignore the rest. And of course, during the riot, the evidence shows Trump didn’t want to stop it.
Donald Trump is a terrorist. Donald Trump is a traitor. There can be no dispute about this.
Yet somehow only the “Fight like Hell” is printed in our papers and online news sources as if it were the only comment made.