I’m afraid he’s going to run again and lose

Yesterday I wrote about the arguments made by the House prosecution in the second impeachment trial. So here are the rest of their arguments. Again, liveblogging was done by Laura Clawson, Joan McCarter, and Mark Sumner of Daily Kos. The House prosecutors showed that the attackers believed they were doing what the nasty guy asked and that they acted in coordination with the nasty guy. He was actively steering them. They showed the many times the nasty guy encouraged violence, and that he saw how easy it was to incite violence in Michigan over the summer. Rep. Val Demings tweeted what lead prosecutor Rep. Jamie Raskin said:

Trump knew exactly what he was doing in inciting the January 6th mob. Exactly. He had just seen how easily his words and actions inspired violence in Michigan. He sent a clear message to his supporters.

Jamie Raskin, as quoted by Kos, also said:

My dear colleagues, is there any political leader in this room, who believes if he is ever allowed by the Senate to get back into the Oval Office, Donald Trump would stop inciting violence to get his way? Would you bet the lives of more police officers on that? Would you bet the safety of your family on that? Would you bet the future of your democracy on that?

They showed the administration officials who resigned in response to the incitement. That included Elaine Chao, wife of Moscow Mitch. They showed that white supremacist groups are using the attack as a recruiting tool (as in see what we can do!). They showed GOP state legislators talking about the threat at all levels of government. They showed how the actions have harmed national security. In response to the defense saying what the nasty guy said is protected by the First Amendment, they said one can’t say just anything and hide behind the First Amendment. They showed the nasty guy bought $50 million in ads after the election. The insurrection was advertised. Sumner summarized the day. He included a tweet from Laurence Tribe:

I’ve closely studied every impeachment trial in our history. No impeachment has ever been as ably prosecuted in the Senate. In no prior impeachment has a conviction been as overwhelmingly justified. Now the Senate is on trial. To acquit itself, it must convict Donald J. Trump.

Sumner concluded:

House managers did a fantastic job. They left it all on the floor. No one watching could have any question about Donald Trump’s guilt. Republicans don’t have any question about Trump’s guilt. But they seem shockingly willing to convict themselves.

Rep. Ted Lieu, of the prosecution, in a segment tweeted by Politico, said:

I’m not afraid Donald Trump is going to run again,” said Rep. Ted Lieu, one of House impeachment managers. “I’m afraid he’s going to run again and lose. Because he’s going to do this again.

I heard the end of the prosecution closing arguments (though I don’t have a source) went something like this: If you don’t convict Donald Trump this will happen again. As I heard that I thought there’s a slight problem. Many GOP senators, many GOP legislators across the country, and many GOP voters want it to happen again. The defense, the nasty guy’s lawyers, did their whole bit today, using only a few of the 16 hours allotted. The next day or so both sides will respond to questions asked by Senators. Then they discuss and vote on witnesses (in the first trial the GOP voted to not have witnesses). Alex Howard tweeted some questions that should be asked of witnesses. Why did the Pentagon strip the DC National Guard commander of his authority to dispatch troops? We should hear from the head of the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, the Sergeants-at-arms. Why were panic buttons removed? To what extent were members of Congress involved? Curtis Colee tweeted:

Question: why did the rioters show up ready to go? They did not go back to hotel to change, back to car to get any gear. Go back home and come back. They were ready as instructed.

A tweet by Josh Dawsey made me think of another witness: Mike Pence. What did he think of having a mob after him? Sarah Kendzior tweeted:

Americans deserve to know not just what happened in the Capitol coup, but who was complicit, why it wasn't stopped in advance. They need to know the full context of Trump's criminality, which was also left out of the first impeachment. We have heard there won't be witnesses, and we hope that isn't the case. Americans should hear from Capitol police, from officials threatened by Trump and his backers, from participants, from people who nearly lost their lives that day. Pelosi and Schumer allegedly want a quick second impeachment 'for the good of America', but this is NOT good for America. This is a repeat of their worst ideas. Other representatives want to be thorough but are stifled by bad leadership. … We cannot thrive in a nation run by mafia state culture. We can't battle the pandemic and climate change or fix our public schools and broken economy if we can't get rid of criminal operatives who've tried to destroy the US for 40+ years.

In another thread Kendzior talked about the defense team:

Trump's lawyers are frequently members of his criminal circle. This pattern dates back to Roy Cohn, but we also see it with Michael Cohen, Rudy Giuliani, Alan Dershowitz, and others. Trump is not looking for a lawyer. He's looking to flaunt his criminality *through* his lawyer. Trump is saying 'Yes, I am everything you think I am, I am from this criminal underworld, and I've brought this world deep into the heart of the US government, and you cannot get me out, because my GOP -- the GOP which I own -- will acquit me.

Nicholas Grossman, a professor of international relations, tweeted:

If GOP Senators vote to excuse Trump for his lie-filled effort to overturn the election that culminated in violent insurrection, it’s not because Dems failed to find the perfect argument or insulted them in some way. It’s because they’re making a choice to excuse it. It’s on them. “I was all set to defend the Constitution, as I swore an oath to do, but then a Democrat said something about a violent attack on America that I thought was a bit much, so now I can’t defend the Constitution anymore, sorry.” The proper response to arguments like that is disdain.

Ryan Goodman, a former special counsel to the Department of Defense, tweeted:

A central paradox of the trial: (1) Trump’s lawyers will argue that Trump’s supporters on Jan 6 were not controlled by Trump. (2) Republican Senators will vote to acquit because they believe that Trump’s supporters are highly controlled by Trump. (h/t: Prof. Stephen Holmes)

Kyle Griffin tweeted a quote from Sen. Lisa Murkowski:

I don't see how Donald Trump could be re-elected to the presidency again. I just don't see that.

Andrea Chalupa replied:

1) Big Tech fueled disinformation 2) Far right propaganda machine (Fox, Newsmax, etc.) 3) Misogyny & white supremacy 4) Kremlin dark money & political warfare Trump lost the EC by tens of thousands of votes. Convict and ban him from running. This is not hard, @lisamurkowski.

Meteor Blades, in his night owl column for Kos quoted Alex Shephard of The New Republic on prosecution’s opening video and the short memory in the media. A bit of it:

The video was so convincing, however, that it led reporters and analysts into some erroneous historical revisionism. The second impeachment trial is an open-and-shut case, they said; the first one, not so much. The truth was that the first impeachment trial was also open-and-shut, and the fact that it is no longer seen as such reveals the extent to which the Republican narrative continues to dominate coverage of Washington.

Dartagnan of the Kos community took another look at a video of attackers walking through the Capitol calling out for Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He was prompted to take that second look by Monica Hesse of the Washington Post. Dartagnan said of the attackers:

It wasn’t some high-minded notion about the election that motivated a lot of these folks. Yes, they all were avid Trump supporters, but, for many of them, Trump was just an authority figure who finally validated their anger and hostility. He was someone who had confirmed and stoked their deep-seated hatred and made them feel good about themselves. He was a soothing presence telling them that it was okay to be a racist and okay to be a misogynist. When he told them it was okay to march on the Capitol, they felt a sense of freedom. They could be exactly the people they always wanted to be, unbound by any constraints.

As for these men hunting for Pelosi, Hesse explained:

Oh Naaaaaaancy is said in a singsongy voice. It is the same voice that a child would use to say, Come out, come out, wherever you arrrrre in a backyard game of hide-and-seek tag. It is playful. It is sinister. It says, I am planning to take my time, and it will not be pleasant, and it will not end well for you. The men looking for Pelosi in the Capitol were strolling, not running.

Dartagnan said this revealed their intentions. Yeah, they intended murder, but if they happened to find a woman, some also intended sexual assault. Dartagnan reviewed some of the people seen during the riot who had a history of violence against women. White supremacy meshes perfectly with misogyny. Kerry Eleveld of Kos discussed a few political forces that are gathering against the GOP. I had written that a breakaway moderate conservative party seemed to be only talk. Eleveld sees the talk might be serious talk. Other signs of things moving against the GOP are voters fleeing the party, the plummeting party image, and donor backlash. Judd Legum tweeted a summary of an article in his newsletter Popular Information:

As the Senate debates Trump's responsibility for the events of Jan 6, a relatively new group is organizing the next insurrection. And this one could be more sophisticated, efficient & violent. At the center of the scheme is a familiar name: Ammon Bundy.

Bundy is known for a standoff at a wildlife refuge in 2016 (a “dress rehearsal”) and for using force to enter a closed portion of the Idaho Capitol.