Not showing up also gives GOPers an opportunity to cry that the Dems railroaded the trial and conviction. It would be a lie, but it would play well to their base, who won’t think about it twice once the Dems have been blamed.
Not that it’s likely to affect the final outcome much, but I’m at least a little bit heartened to see that many Republicans acknowledged the reality that we all saw here: this was a terrible defense.
From an AP story:
In practical terms, everyone including those lawyers knows that it doesn’t matter if they present a terrible defense because it’s so unlikely to change the outcome. They also know that most of America won’t be paying close attention to anything they say anyway, so they got lazy.
But it turns out that one person they need to keep happy did notice…
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/09/politics/trump-impeachment-bruce-castor/index.html
I wonder what the odds are of Trump firing these clowns mid-trial and choosing to represent himself.
(I am soooo appropriating that image)
He won’t fire Castor and Bollocks, because no one is going to send “Air Force One” to shuttle him to DC.
This “trial” gives a whole new meaning to “jury nullification”.
I’ve been listening in today to the defense put forward by Trump’s attorneys, and the main thrust of it seems to be repeatedly playing the same montage of video clips of Democrats using the word “fight” in their past political speeches (set to a dramatic musical score) then asking how it could possibly be inappropriate for Trump to use that word with his crowd when other politicians have used it in the past. It’s quite disingenuous and really not great lawyering, but probably serves the intended purpose of providing talking points for the Fox News crowd. The team must think the strategy is effective because per NPR they played that same video four times.
I also thought it was interesting and kinda weird that one of the lawyers feigned indignation at a letter that a group of legal scholars (including conservatives) signed attacking some of his arguments as frivolous, and he noted that if he really were advancing frivolous arguments he’d be at risk of disbarment and his livelihood and family’s financial security would be at stake. Why would he even bring that up?
Exactly my impression. It’s the “Reality TV” style of governing, season 5. They’re just throwing all the talking points out there to be picked up as sound bites since Fox isn’t broadcasting the actual proceedings. It doesn’t matter if they’re valid or meaningful, just churn them through the propaganda machine. Boo.
And now the lawyer is spending a lot of time trying to explain that in Trump’s call to the Georgia secretary of state asking him to “find” the exact number of votes that he’d need to win was totally appropriate. This is just really painful to listen to.
It’s such a blatant case of whataboutism that when it’s used on this here BBS the community often comes down hard and fast on that nonsense. That dramatic music score as well, oh good lord…
It’s the phase in the trial where senators submit questions to the house managers and defense. Most are simple friendly set-up questions asked by senators sympathetic to whichever side is receiving the question, but a moment ago one of the Republicans asked the defense an actual relevant, straightforward question that should have been easy to answer: “when exactly did the president learn about the incursion at the Capitol and what specific steps did he take at what time to end the violence.” The defense seemed unable or unwilling to answer the question, eventually saying that nobody knows because the Democrats didn’t do a through enough investigation. That was a really weak answer.
Another question was that this impeachment was just about shaming the 75 million people who voted for him.
I heard that and was like: “YES, SHAME THEM!”
Oh damn Raskin had some good lines today.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.