Watch live: Trump impeachment trial

Originally published at: Watch live: Trump impeachment trial | Boing Boing


Seeing if the PBS News livestream will link:


So, on the one hand, I understand why the case needs to be laid out that conducting an impeachment trial against a former president is a valid thing. On the other hand, I am annoyed at all the time that is going to be wasted on this topic instead of laying the case regarding the actual crime.


Usually the GOP is better than the Democrats at adopting buzzwords that steer the narrative, but I gotta admit that the repeated, dismissive mentions of “the so-called ‘January Exception’” makes for the kind of soundbyte that will probably get picked up by the news networks.


Ugh. Gave me flashbacks to that whole “Biden rule” bs they trotted out around the delayed SCOTUS appointment. Giving a speech does not constitute a “rule.”
But I digress.
So far I’m very underwhelmed with these D senate arguments. I don’t know how much difference any of it will make in terms of the vote, but I think they could be making a stronger argument for their case. I’m not in favor of the shouting style of political discourse, but I also cringe when it comes across as pleading and whiny (not the words, but the tone).

ETA: I don’t mean the tone comment in relation to the emotional reports of what people experienced. When I wrote that, the guy speaking was doing the whole earnest and heartfelt tone about the soul of our nation type thing. It never seems to work.

1 Like

During the break, the commentator mentioned how “only one or two” senators had nodded off as if it was a good thing. Cringe.

She also mentioned that a bunch of the senators physically turned away to avoid watching the video montage of the lead up and breaching of the Capitol. Assholes.

Editing to add link to video:


that video was traumatizing all over again. even still, it should be required viewing. Rep. Raskin is bringing the goods.


I think that the first Republican to speak up in in Trump’s defense just brought up the difference between murder and manslaughter as an analogy for why Trump’s actions didn’t rise to the level of impeachable conduct. Maybe not the best argument.


I think he may have also been making an argument for why the rioters got so worked up because it sure couldn’t have been from the words of a “Gallant Man” like trump.

Oh, and women… in the parlance of our times.

ETA: As Evan Hurst points out, he has yet to make a single point of rebuttal to any of the House Managers. He is stuck in first gear and can barely string a coherent sentence together. Records, what are those even, anymore?


Gah, and just now he made some argument about the risk to democracy of allowing totalitarianism a foothold. But he means the impeachment trial is the dangerous slide toward totalitarianism.
The utter level of projection is making my head explode.
I’m kind of half listening while working, so maybe (hopefully?) misheard, but I don’t think so.

Ahhh, no, I didn’t mishear. He’s really drilling down. Holy shit. I’m hating this, but also can’t seem to turn it off. Living through history, right here.


And at the same time discounting pre-Constitutional law while also invoking the Articles of Confederation. He’s all over the map, which probably delights trump, but he’s also the thing he despises most: low energy.


Literally like tossing confetti to the crowd. Everyone on the fox and oann circuits will have something (or several things) to latch onto.
Now he makes it seem like the “dangerous precedent” will be set. Then goes straight to Clinton. Wanna talk about partisan impeachment’s?
And really, the only reason they didn’t impeach Obama is because, despite 6 years of continual investigations that guy was literally unimpeachable.


Some of the Republicans who are now claiming Trump can’t be convicted because he’s not President anymore were still trying to drum up support for impeaching Obama (for unspecified crimes) almost three years after he left office.


Whaaa??? He’s now arguing that there is no such thing as a January Exception because the DOJ would be a backstop? So he’s saying that their core argument that he can’t be tried because he’s no longer sitting is moot, yet he quotes directly from the article that states that the Senate shall have sole jurisdiction over such matters?



Yeah, and now this guy is saying, if you were really serious, you would wait longer, for the investigation to play out.
My eyebrows hurt.
Oh, I hate this guy up now. But I love watching him hold the top of his head on while drinking water. Who is he?


Welp, looks like he found his election fraud schill.

He was also Roger Stone’s lawyer and that worked out great.

ETA: @ClutchLinkey, this guy :point_up:

1 Like

He needs it, though. He’s crackly af.


Fucking Lindsey Graham was attacking the Democrats for not calling witnesses for the House Impeachment proceedings and then flipping around just a few days later to insist it would be a travesty of justice to allow witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial.


“Unprecedented snap impeachment process” is going to get a LOT of play on the news…
And now this montage, as if there were not truly valid reasons to seek impeachment in every case they’re showing.

But, you know, lock her up. :disappointed:


Invited and incited.