IMPEACHMENT STRATEGY FOR HOUSE MANAGERS 101

 

Maryland Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, one of the impeachment managers. One can only hope that he takes advantage of the opportunity to do the nation a service. However, in all likelihood, Democrats will Democrat and manage to once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, even as Donald T***p fires his lawyers and says he wants to make his "defense" to the charge of inciting a deadly riot to destroy democracy that the election was "stolen" from him. Which, if the impeachment managers have any sense, they can liken to the guy being denied a mortgage who robs a bank at gunpoint and kills the security guard.

There is no doubt in my mind that the impeachment managers from the House will never hear my proposal that they do the nation a service. On January 25, 2021, the Senate held a vote on Kentucky Senator Rand Paul's motion to dismiss the entire impeachment charge- and 45 Republicans voted to dismiss the entire case. Even Senate Minority Leader (and that is sweet just to type that) Mitch McConnell of Kentucky voted for that mere days after he gave the one honest speech of his life in which he blamed Donald T***p for inciting the mob that attacked the Capitol and drove 535 Congressmen and Senators and one Vice President to safe rooms. That means only 5 even want to have a trial.

Since there is no reasonable hope of gettng 17 Republican votes for conviction (assuming we get all 50 Democrats), then House impeachment managers should turn this moment into the opportunity to render a true public service to the nation.

Tell T***p and his team iof lawyers n advance (and as of this writing, all of them have quit and he's down to 0) that he will be the first witness they call. That they will give him every opportunity to bring with him the evidence that he won in a landslide in the 2020 presidential election but that Democrats engaged in massive, nationwide voter fraud (in four states at least) and "stole" the election from him.

Get this message out on every network. Show up on Fox. Every day, tell the nation that T***p will get his day in the court of the United States Senate- under oath- to prove that his lies are in fact true. And challenge him: call him a liar. A con man. Who has no evidence whatsoever- nothing that was ever admitted in any courtroom out of all of the lawsuits his campaign filed. None he can bring to the Senate. Tell him he's a bully. A coward. Too craven to even testify because he knows that once he takes an oath and swears to tell the truth. when he lies he can be tried for perjury. Tell him he's a fat bucket of turds and worthless. Whatever it takes.

Now only two things are likely to happen. And either is good for this republic:

(1) Trump takes the Fifth Amendment, which is widely perceived as an admission of criminal guilt, and also shows that he is a cowardly weasel who refuses to take the one opportunity to publicly bring forward his "evidence" that the election was stolen. Not innuendo. Not rumor. No hearsay. Not wild conspiracy theories. Actual evidence that is admissible in a court of law.

(2) Trump testifies. And if he does, get out the popcorn. Because he will be subject to a piercing cross examination. (My post two below this one has the cross, in full.) He will trip up. He will contradict himself. He will contradict other witnesses (like Mark Meadows, his chief of staff who was in the room with him) who will also be testifying under oath. He will be unable to produce one piece of evidence of actual fraud. (By the way- Rand Paul doesn't even know what that word means, as he angrily told George Stephanopolous that county or state registrars who allowed votes to be counted that didn't include all of the information allegedly required on an absentee ballot was the same as "fraud." It has nothing to do with fraud.) T***p will absolutely fall into what his own lawyers said during the Mueller investigation is a "perjury trap."

And Trump should be mercilessly grilled about his spending hours watching on tv as his mob, the terrorists he incited, stormed the Capitol, driving his Vice President and members of Congress, including his own party, including his own enablers willing to overthrow democracy and install him as king, into hiding, fearing for their safety and their lives. And they called him for help. And he did nothing.

A good trial lawyer would win a conviction in the Senate and in the court of public opinion- the only one that counts at the moment- by roasting him over the coals for his complete indifference to the fate of Congress. As long as the vote counting had stopped, he was happy. And he sent no troops. He didn't so much as put out a Tweet asking his supporters to peacefully walk out.

That's a picture that should be painted not just with T***p, but with other witnesses. Mark Meadows. Every other person in the room with T***p. The members of the House who called the White House and got no help. Especially the Republicans who were his most vocal supporters.

The cross I crafted ends with the question, after posing the fact of the Capitol police being overrun, T***p watching it on tv, the rioters- wearing his hat, carrying banners with his name- killing a policeman, getting one of their own fatally shot trying to beat down the doors to the House chamber- after every question " And you did nothing."

By the end of that trial, the public will revile him. As much or more for sitting there happily watching the mob take the Capitol- the mob he had promised to walk down to the Capitol alongside- and he absolutely should be grilled about that lie, because it will reveal to his MAGA people what a true cowardly weasel the rest of us have always known he was.

*****

If only..... (writes the frustrated trial lawyer).

*****

15 Republicans who aren't complete spineless crapweasels:

Just as Liz Cheney- deplorable during her entire career until the moment arrived when she actually showed courage- enough to cost her her seat in Congress representing Wyoming- and 9 other Republican Congressmen showed courage by voting for the article of impeachment- something no one did a year ago, there were five Republican senators who voted to hold a trial. And who presumably will be fair, and may actually vote to convict: The five brave ones: Mitt Romney (naturally), Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins (apparently being in the northernmost state on the east coast and likewise on the west provide some insularity from Republican T***p lovers' backlash.) Ben Sasse of Nebraska- who should leave the party, become an independent, and caucus with the Democrats like Angus King of Maine did. And Pat Toomey of my home state, Pennsylvania, who is not running for re-election next year. Even Rob Portman of Ohio, who is also retiring next year and doesn't have to fear a primary challenge, voted to dismiss the whole thing. Fuck 'im if he can't take joke.

BAR MITZVAH'S AND PRESIDENTS....

The prophet Jeremiah was right- he predicted that if the Jews did not return to the rule of law and the commandments of God, they would be destroyed by foreign powers... 

 THE BAR MITZVAH BOY AND THE HAFTORAH

When a Jewish boy or girl is privileged to stand before his or her congregation as a Bar or Bat Mitzvah- at age 13, when the transition into adulthood is celebrated by being allowed to read from the Torah (the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,  Deuteronomy) it is a great moment- a dividing line between all that went before, the years of Sunday School and Hebrew School, the hours of study, learning to read Hebrew without vowels as it was originally written by the extraordinarily skilled scribes on the sheepskin scrolls, and to translate it, and also learning how to chant the required blessings- in Hebrew, of course, before and after reading the Torah.   

There is also another portion of the ceremony- in Reform Temples, anyway.   I should know but have no idea whether this is also done in Bar or Bat Mitzvah ceremonies in Conservative or Orthodox (the latter of which I assume still only have Bar Mitzvahs- no females allowed to read from the Torah (!)) synagogues.  But we read from the Haftorah.  Which is Hebrew meaning "parting from the Torah" and which is traditionally read from the book of prophets after the Torah portion is read.  

All of these works- the Torah, Judges, Kings, Prophets, etc.  refer to the books and stories in our Bible referred to by Christians as "The Old Testament" to contrast it with the "New Testament," the books of Jesus and his life and teachings from hundreds of years after the last book of the Jewish Bible.   I always thought it was a bit condescending to use the words "Old Testament."  Kind of like the way a two car family refers to the older of the vehicles, less bright, less shiny, less desirable, less cool, than the new car.   

Anyhoo, the Torah is limited to the Five Books of Moses which end with Moses gazing across the Dead Sea from Mount Nebo (in present day Jordan, rising up from the east bank of the Dead Sea) towards "the promised land," which he, by a somewhat cruel fate, may not enter.    I have stood on that mountain, possibly near that very spot, and I took a photograph from where Moses might have stood looking across the Dead Sea to the Judean mountains.  That is my Facebook cover photo since the day my very talented son set up my Facebook page when I visited him in Israel where he was working nine years ago.

And at my Bar Mitzvah many, many years ago, my Haftorah portion was about the prophet Jeremiah.   And I learned a sobering lesson- way more than from my pretty dry and dusty Torah portion (which, in actuality, was amazing, as it foretold future bankruptcy laws and the need for them).  Jeremiah was not a fun guy.  He was called by God to tell the Jews that they had strayed and needed to repent and return to the ways set forth for them in the Torah.   He predicted that bad things were going to descend on Israel from the Hand of God in the form of foreign invaders to punish the Jews for their sins.

As one might imagine, Jeremiah was not celebrated in his time.   He was like the man on the corner with the banner "The End is Near!"   But in his case, he was right.  The Babylonians came under Nebuchadnezzar and conquered what was left of Israel circa 594 B.C.E.   When the Jews revolted, he returned in 586 B.C.E., destroyed the Temple of Solomon.  (As it happens, the Wailing Wall, the Western Wall in Jerusalem so sacred to Orthodox Jews and revered by all Jews is actually an outer wall- not a portion of the Temple, and it is not from the era of Solomon.  It was built under the auspices of the Persian King Cyrus, who conquered the Babylonians decades after the first Temple was destroyed.  Cyrus let the Jews- those who wished- return to their homeland.  And they rebuilt, circa 516 B.C.E. until it too was destroyed after a Jewish revolt.  This time by the Romans in 70 C.E. (A.D. for Christians).

Which is a long run up to what it means to be a prophet.   Being right guarantees nothing.  In fact,  being right is almost always a negative in the world we live in.  As Jeremiah found out-  he was reviled for his predictions of doom and his nagging the Jews to repent and return to the ways set out in  the Torah.

*  THE LAFFER CURVE IS NO LAUGHING MATTER- TURNS OUT, CUTTING TAXES INCREASES THE DEFICIT.  WHO KNEW?

 In recent times, we had a president who claimed that he could cutting taxes and increase military spending and the result would be that the government's annual  deficit would decrease.   That was a lie, and it didn't happen.  Plenty of people said so at the time (I'm pretty sure I was one of them- but it was a long time ago).   Instead, deficits increased.  But surprise- it wasn't Trump.  Or even W. Bush.   It was Reagan, 40 years ago.  He  famously championed the infamous "Laffer Curve" and the more infamous "trickle down economics." That  was the theory that if you give a rich guy enough money to buy a second yacht, the waiter at his posh club will benefit because the rich guy will be inclined to tip a few bucks  more after lunch.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/01/trump-is-giving-arthur-laffer-presidential-medal-freedom-economists-arent-laughing/

 And  twenty years later, another president said the exact same thing- he could cut taxes, increase military spending, and decrease the nation's debt.  I knew this was false.  So did a whole bunch of other people, including Al Gore.   I probably wrote about it for publication in our local paper.   But Congress, just like Charlie Brown every Fall after Lucy promises for the umpteenth time to hold the football steady as Charlie tries to kick a field goal, did the same thing- cut taxes and increased military spending.   And the debt skyrocketed- going from a $160 billion surplus under Clinton, to deficits of over half a trillion dollars annually under the president who told that lie, George W. Bush.   

Sixteen years later, in 2017, a third president made the same promise,  He would cut taxes, increase military spending, and cut the deficit in half (the deficits were left over from the rescue package necessary from the last Republican president who managed to crash the economy and almost cause a worldwide depression).   Congress did it again- this time a Congress with both houses controlled by Republicans who no longer seemed to care about the deficits which were such an urgent concern during Obama's years in office.   And they passed a bill making huge tax cuts to the richest Americans.  They celebrated with high fives and appearances on the White House lawn.  Of course they also increased defense spending - in a world where we have no military adversaries gearing up to go to war with us (North Korea is a joke- a popgun).   And, of course,  deficits skyrocketed to almost a trillion dollars annually- and this was before the pandemic destroyed the economy.   

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/investinganalysis/david-stockman-tax-cut-pipe/2017/10/20/id/821088/

Meanwhile, our annual defense budget is more than the next ten countries- combined.  Astonishing.  Yet Republican presidents get away with falsely claiming that the previous president, a Democrat (first Carter, then Clinton, then Obama) had somehow allowed our national defense and the budget paying for it to dangerously decline.   Absurd as that claim was every single time, nobody ever bothered to check- not the voters who voted for them, anyway.   Math isn't their strong suit.  Neither is history, as politicians repeating the same lies and being wrong every single time never seems to register with them

.

*  THE WAR IN IRAQ:  THE NON-EXISTENT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY, AND THE "FEW DEADHEADS" OF THE INSURGENCY

A year after those tax cuts, after the punch to America's gut by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, had emotionally devastated the American people and sent our government into a panic, we managed to make another huge mistake.   It started the day after the terrorist attacks, then went on through 2002, when George W. Bush suddenly began claiming that Saddam Hussein and Iraq was an existential threat to the United States.  And he also somehow conflated them with radical Islamist jihadists.  That was a ridiculous asserttion- that Iraq- the only Arab country that was secular, where women appeared in public with faces uncovered, could drive, and even hold government positions, where men could appear clean shaven. where bars sold alcohol, which was the only country that had NOTHING to do with the radical Islamists who were known as Al Qaida, who had attacked the U.S. from training camps in Afghanistan, two countries to the east- was a threat to us.   No way Jose. 

 Bush and Company claimed that Iraq was busy making nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction to threaten America.  Colin Powell even went before the United Nations and told the lie about their attempts to purchase yellow cake uranium to build bombs- probably the single greatest regret of his otherwise praiseworthy career in the military and in government.

But the story about weapons of mass destruction was an absurd, blatant lie.  And despite later claims to the contrary, it was never an "intelligence failure."   Because our professional intelligence agencies- CIA, NSA, FBI, correctly reported at the time that there was no credible evidence to support this contention (Google the name "Curveball" for some enlightenment on the subject.).

 Undeterred by the failure to get an intelligence assessment to justify the attack on Iraq they wanted all along,  the Bushies farmed out their intelligence in this area to a specially created group in the Department of Defense headed by one  Douglas Feith.   His job:  to create the lies upon which a war would be launched.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/lie-factory/

 A war that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and many others centrally located in the Bush Administration had desperately sought since midway through Clinton's second term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century_Calls_for_regime_change_in_Iraq_during_Clinton_years

 And this was something I later researched and wrote about extensively when I wanted to try to understand why my son- and thousands of others-  had been sent off to a war that made no sense whatsoever.

http://buildabettermousetrap.blogspot.com/2012/09/

 Douglas Feith was later accurately labeled as "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet” by no less than General Tommy Franks, an actual member of the military who served in Iraq.  But Feith and his acolytes created the intelligence assessment that Bush- more accuratetely, Dick Cheney, the V.P. who was actually running the show- wanted to justify the invasion that the nefarious Project for a New American Century always wanted.

Yet my buddy Glenn, a Republican, and I, a Democrat, sitting in my living room in late 2002, with no special knowledge, knew this was complete bullshit.   We both said the exact same thing:  Bush would be insane to invade Iraq.   That country was not close to being a reasonable threat to the United States as the Bushies claimed.  In fact, other than Liechenstein, it may have been the one country on earth by which we had the least to feel threatened  We had it surrounded on four sides- two  with our troops (in Saudi Arabia, our bases were still there, left over from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the 1991 Gulf War which ended that occupation), Turkey (a NATO ally) and with Jordanian troops on the west and Iran, their bitter rival  to the east.  Iran was their mortal enemy, after Saddam Sussein had invaded southern Iran 1981, resulting in a bloody war lasting through the 1980's in his attempt to seize their oil fields on the Persian Gulf.  Also, in 2002 we had "no fly zones" since 1991, which prohibited Iraq's air force to even fly over portions of their own country, including  northern Iraq, where our Kurdish allies held power, and over southern Iraq, where Shiite Muslim tribes lived (Hussein and his ruling Baath Party was Sunni).   So, no threat.  None.  And Glenn and I knew this.

And history would soon prove that Glenn and I were right, and the Bushies and his supporters were 100% wrong.

Because of course, as history shows, Bush did the worst possible, the stupidest possible thing.  He sent our military to invade and occupy Iraq from the south, from Kuwait, with U.S. Marines and the United States Army, after bombing Baghdad in an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate and take out Hussein on the first day of war.

Try as they might, they found no weapons of mass destruction.  They did topple Hussein, but that set in motion a series of dominos following which creating far worse problems than we had with that brutal dictator in power (although he totally deserved to be tried and hanged for his mass murders and crimes against humanity- no regrets there).

As much as I deplored this worst foreign policy mistake since Vietnam, once we had conquered the country and toppled Hussein's government, I strongly suggested in an e-mail to members of my son's Marine Corps Unit, which had led the invasion (not just his unit, the whole division), that we get U.N. peacekeeping troops in as soon as possible and get us out as soon as possible, warning- presciently- that if we didn't, we'd be facing an insurgency and suicide bombers.  Here is what I wrote  in April of 2003, about a war we had started on March 19, 20003:

April 19, 2003, e-mail to one of the family members of a Marine in my son’s unit:

“Why the UN should take over is simple- whether or not they do a better job, the perception among the people in the region will be hugely different regarding a UN sponsored trusteeship of the country. It simply is in our national interest to have a respected international organization take over the rebuilding of Iraq. The sooner American and British soldiers are out of there, the less likely that terrorists or suicide bombers will attack our loved ones there or here. And a quick exit will defeat the absurd arguments that we are a colonialist country seeking to exploit Iraq's oil.”

After my worst fears were exceeded by the growing insurgency and suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices (I.E.D.'s) which killed or maimed so many of our troops,  our esteemed and awful Vice President, Dick Cheney, with all of the resources of all of the intelligence agencies of the United States government, said this on television (I think it was Meet the Press with Tim Russert) in 2005, two years later, after the major disaster had unfolded:

"the insurgency is in its last throes."

Well, that was dead wrong, too.  As Cheney himself had to admit two years after that.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-cheney/cheney-admits-was-wrong-about-last-throes-in-iraq-idUSN3126648720070731

Meanwhile, early on, Bush Secretary of Defense, one Donald Rumsfeld, had dismissively referred to the insurgents as a "few dead enders."   Again, another spectacular fail.  Of intelligence (Rumsfeld's, not the professionals who knew better) and reason.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,543740,00.html

https://www.gq.com/story/dan-bartlett-george-bush-aide

So, Glenn and I were right.  If we had a platform in 2002- if we were in power- thousands of American lives would have been saved.  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would be alive.   Iraq would not have reinvigorated Al Qaida and spawned ISIS.  Both of which happened.  Iran would not have lost their natural rival to the west and been vastly strengthened as a regional power and emboldened to act throughout the region, including through proxies in Iraq, Syria Lebanon, and Yemen.   Our national debt would be a few trillion dollars less for the money we poured down the sewer to run that war and the hundreds of billions we will owe for our veterans' medical care for injuries occasioned by it.

But being right doesn't matter.  And neither did being wrong matter- no consequences whatsoever.  Not for Bush, who won a second term in 2004 with his Darth Vader, Cheney.  Not for then Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who voted in the Senate in 2002- just before the midterm elections where Democrats lost control of the Senate- to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq.  He got the 2004 Democratic nomination (but he lost the election anyway, never once mentioning during his campaign the fact that Bush was president before the 9-11 attacks and did nothing to prevent them).    Democratic Senator John Edwards of North Carolina voted for it, too.  And he got the Vice Presidential nomination in 2004.   Now he's in the dustbin of history, disgraced for a sex scandal that would not even have been a minor bump in a day's scandals for Donald T***p.   So did then New York Senator Hillary Clinton. She had coldly  calculated  (she's never admitted this, but I know it's true) that as a woman she had to look tough if she wanted to be president.   Instead, in 2016, she had to apologize later, after the awful consequences of her vote were apparent, when she was still being pilloried by progressives for that awful mistake.  However, she claimed, deviously, that she had been "misled by the intelligence" before she cast her vote.   Wrong.  Wrong.  Wrong.  That was a bald faced lie.  She knew that Iraq was no threat.  just as Glenn and I, sitting in my living room, knew.

Hah.  Glenn and I figured it out.  Just sitting in my living room.  With no access to any intelligence briefing by the dumbest fucking person on the planet.   Clinton knew it, too.   And she showed a complete lack of character with that vote.  But she got the 2016 Democratic nomination for president anyway, and there you go.  Being wrong- not even spectacularly wrong- apparently really doesn't carry fatal consequences in politics.

*  BARACK OBAMA:  THE "CHANGE" PRESIDENT WHO BLEW HIS CHANCE

Six years later, after the 2002 debacle of a vote for force in Iraq,   Barack Obama was elected president.  He set a record for raising grass roots money through this new fangled internet thing.  And he had 59 Democratic senators and a huge majority in the House.   He was in a position to do something historic.  To effect a sea change in American politics and American government.   All he had to do was take my advice.  Little old me.   In my converted dining room, in front of my computer, where I wrote down and sent my suggestions to change our government and country for the better.  By doing  two things: 

(1)  Get a law passed banning all private contributions and solicitations for contributions to any candidate for federal office, including both houses of Congress and the presidency.   Call those contributions and the "ask" for them what they are:  bribes.  Instead, publicly finance all federal elections.  Do that and save officials from the interminable fund raising phone calls, meetings, and dinners, starting the day after they are sworn in until the next election.    And thus we can also end the vise like grip fund raisers and huge corporations have on our government. 

(2)   And two, make a simple FCC requirement that before any attack ad is aired on television or the radio (that air is owned by the Federal government- it is only licensed temporarily to television and radio stations, and those licenses come with conditions), it has to be previewed by the opponent.  And that opponent who was attacked can film a rebuttal to run, free of charge, after every airing of the attack ad.  Such a rule or law will cause harm to the first amendment.  The attack ads can still run, uncensored (unless they show Janet Jackson's breast, of course (!)).    Citizens United (which actually happened later), would have had no impact on campaigns, as all of the PAC money, all of the dark money (about a half a billion dollars poured into two Senate run-off races in Georgia this cycle), would be neutered, rendered utterly useless.

Here's what I wrote in January of 2009, when his first term was just underway and the awful, horribly designed, Rube Goldbergesque Affordable Care Act was months away:

"Change" won't come to American until we first change our system for bribing policitians- the only money going to them should be public money, and the only "special interest" to which they should respond is Americans'."

https://buildabettermousetrap.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-wont-be-change-president-unless.html

Right again, sorry to say.  He didn't listen (I'm sure he never got the message).  And no one around him was smart enough to figure this out.  I thought it was obvious.  And it still is obvious today. The current Biden administration absolutely should make this their number one political priority if they want to hold either house in Congress after the 2022 mid-terms and hold the White House in 2024.

*  2019:  IMPEACHMENT NUMBER 1:

So, the day after Trump was inaugurated- actually, the day of- he demonstrated his unfitness for office.   Awful things happened in the ensuing months and years.   It came out that he and his campaign had colluded with the Russian government to accept and use e-mails stolen from the Clinton campaign during the 2016 election.  And he obstructed justice during the investigation of this by special prosecutor Robert Mueller.   He shut down the government in December of 2018 and January of 2019 in a fit of pique because Congress- one controlled by his party for two years, in 2017 and 2018- would not give him billions of dollars to build that "big, beautiful wall" on the border with Mexico- that he promised Mexico would pay for.    His administration concocted a deliberate policy of separating children from the parents of persons legally seeking asylum at the southern border, then imprisoning the children in cages, sleeping on the floor under tin foil for blankets.   He encouraged violence towards the press- calling them "the enemy of the people."  One of his supporters then mailed pipe bombs to all of T***p's "enemies, including CNN.

Another supporter took up his call to deal with the Hispanics coming to the southern border by getting his guns and ammunition, driving several hours to an El Paso Wal-Mart, and massacring 22 human beings who looked Hispanic to him.

Another supporter went to the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh and slaughtered 13 Jewish members of a congregation that very publicly supported immigrants.

T***p was accused of sexually assaulting numerous women.

T***p University was sued for fraud, then had to dissolve and pay a $25 million settlement.

T***p Charities, run by Donald and his kids, was also found to be a fraudulent enterprise by New York State's government, had to disband, and he and his awful progeny are banned from serving on the board of any charity.

Illegal contributions to T***p's 2017 Inauguration Committee, including from foreign governments and personages.

Clear and continuous violations of The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits the President from cashing in on his power and his position.

Money laundering for the Russian mob.

Tax fraud.  Deflating the value of his assets to reduce his taxes.

Defrauding banks to get loans.  Inflating the value of his assets to get loans (all testified to, under oath, by the president's former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen).

(this is all off the top of my head, by the way.  The scandals were literally so fast and furious, no one other than an idiot savant could possibly remember them all).

And then.... and then... the Mueller report dropped in 2019.  No more indictments, other than his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, convicted of tangential crimes, his assistant campaign manager, his National Security Adviser of about 10 days, Michael Flynn, forced to resign- not for the charge on which he was later indicted, lying to the FBI, which is a crime, but for lying to the Vice President, which is not a crime.  And various and sundry other persons.  Sadly, Mueller really dropped the ball.  Although he concluded- without actually saying so- that the Donald had committed crimes (this is how he put it:  "If we had found that he had NOT committed any crimes, we would have said so."   Well, they didn't say so:  you do the math.).

But Mueller  did not indict anybody in the campaign for the very obvious felony of receiving stolen property- the e-mails hacked out of Clinton's campaign.  Nor for obstruction of justice.  And so on.   And all the while the story was put out, and Mueller's one time testimony before Congress validated it, that the proper remedy for all of his misdeeds was...

IMPEACHMENT.

But the House, led by Nancy Pelosi, didn't.

Until that is, the day after the Mueller testimony and T**p's bogus claim of "Total Exoneration!" and the "Russia hoax!"  (Which was nonsensical on its face.  Russia is, in fact a country. It really exists.  It's not a hoax, by any stretch.)

And the "perfect phone call."  In which T***p managed to perform a legally difficult, pretzel like feat:  in one phone call he managed to commit the felonies of both  extortion and bribery against the same person using the same valuable asset:  American arms slated to go to the Ukraine, as authorized by Congress.   Bribery in that T***p promised that if the Ukraine delivered what he wanted- a public announcement of an investigation into corruption by T***p's perceived strongest opponent on the Democratic side in the presidential primaries, Joseph R. Biden (who had not yet even made a decision to run, let alone announced it), then T***p would allow his defense department to ship the arms to the Ukraine that they so desperately needed to stave off the Russians in the Crimea.   And extortion, but threatening to withhold those same arms unless the Ukraine president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, delivered what he wanted while the Russian bear was attempting to take eastern portions of the Ukraine. 

Whipsawed, the Zelenskyy eventually relented, and he had even done exactly what T**p demanded:  arranged an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakariah to announce the investigation of the (non-existent) corruption by Biden.   

Thus, T***p used  the power of the United States government to  attempt to destroy a perceived political rival by smearing him.   The same dirty trick that worked in 2016 when he loudly proclaimed that  Hillary Clinton was a crook and that the authorities should "lock her up" as his rally goers chanted. Also for a non-existent crime for which she was never prosecuted- having a separate e-mail server when she was serving as Secretary of State for President Obama.

That "perfect phone call"  blew up, of course, when the famed "whistleblower" let the cat out of the bag (and he  really should  get the Presidential Medal of Freedom, along with our former Ambassador to the Ukraine, Marie Yvonovich, and Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindmann, fired from the National Security Counsel- along with his twin brother (!)- for testifying truthfully under oath to the House Intelligence Committee).  

Well, that was too much, even for Nancy Pelosi.  And they impeached, after extensive hearings- but only on "the perfect phone call."  Not on the plethora of crimes and abuses of power that were available.

And it was doomed to failure.  As I pointed out in a letter to the New York Times on December 11, 2019.   Sadly, I was right.  Again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/opinion/letters/impeachment-trump.html?searchResultPosition=1&fbclid=IwAR1FcjCOFJO6eWrsHBB5_yuD-s9C_gIuWt-DUBJPqsfpWkhSDssbp5tx-4w

The New York Times

Opinion

LETTERS

Advice for Both Parties on Impeachment Strategies

Democrats should prolong the impeachment hearings, says one reader; others view the Senate vote as a chance for Republicans to convict or redeem themselves.

Dec. 11, 2019

To the Editor:

Re “Impeachment Articles Say Trump Abused Power, Damaging Nation” (front page, Dec. 11):

The House Democrats are, as usual, likely to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by wrapping up a narrow impeachment inquiry, impeaching President Trump on only a scintilla of his crimes and omitting others for which there is ample evidence — emoluments violations, campaign finance felonies, ties to the Russian mafia and money laundering, fraud by Trump University and the Trump Foundation charity, and sex crimes.

The Senate trial will end quickly and be long forgotten by November. Instead, Democrats in the House should take advantage of the spotlight and hold evidentiary hearings lasting months, understanding full well that it will be the allegations, not the conviction, that will do Mr. Trump in.

If there was a monthlong hearing about just the emoluments violations, followed by another month of woman after woman who say they were sexually assaulted by Mr. Trump, including those who were paid off with hush money in violation of federal campaign finance laws, Mr. Trump would continue to lose his grip, and his re-election campaign would be stymied by his inability to focus on anything other than the impeachment hearings.

There is not a chance in hell of getting a conviction in the Senate. But that doesn’t mean that Democrats can’t get every one of his crimes in the public spotlight during the campaign.

James Finkelstein

Albany, Ga.

*   IMPEACHMENT NUMBER 2:  2021:

Which brings us to today.   HERE IS THE PREDICTION.  This hasn't happened yet.  But it will (not my idea, which  they will fail to do.)

There is no doubt in my mind that the impeachment managers from the House will never hear my proposal that they do the nation a service.  A little while ago the Senate just held a vote on Rand Paul's motion to dismiss the entire impeachment charge- and 45 Republicans voted to dismiss the entire case.   That means only 5 even want to have a trial. 

Since there is no reasonable hope of gettng 17 Republican votes for conviction (assuming we get all 50 Democrats), then House impeachment managers should  turn this moment into the opportunity to render a true public service to the nation.     

Tell the T***p team in advance that he will be the first witness they call.  That they will give him every opportunity to bring with him the evidence that he won in a landslide in the 2020 presidential election but that Democrats engaged in massive, nationwide voter fraud (in four states at least) and "stole" the election from him.

Get this message out on every network.  Show up on Fox.   Every day, tell the nation that T***p will get his day in the  court of the United States Senate- under oath-  to prove that his lies are in fact true.     

Now only two things are likely to happen.  And either is good for this republic:   

(1)  Trump takes the Fifth Amendment, which is widely perceived as an admission of criminal guilt, and also shows that he is a cowardly weasel who refuses to take the one opportunity to publicly bring forward his "evidence" that the election was stolen.  Not innuendo.  Not rumor.  No hearsay.  Not wild conspiracy theories.  Actual evidence that is admissible in a court of law.

(2)  Trump testifies.  And if he does, get out the popcorn.  Because he will be subject to a piercing cross examination.   He will trip up.  He will contradict himself.   He will contradict other witnesses (like Mark Meadows, his chief of staff who was in the room with him) who will also be testifying under oath.  He will be unable to produce one piece of evidence of actual fraud.  (By the way- Rand Paul doesn't even know what that word means, as he angrily told George Stephanopolous that county or state registrars who allowed votes to be counted that didn't include all of the information allegedly required on an absentee ballot was the same as "fraud."  It has nothing to do with fraud.)    T***p  will absolutely fall into what his own lawyers said during the Mueller investigation is a "perjury trap."

And Trump should be mercilessly grilled about his spending hours watching on tv as his mob, the terrorists he incited, stormed the Capitol, driving his Vice President and members of Congress, including his own party, including his own enablers willing to overthrow democracy and install him as king, into hiding, fearing for their safety and their lives.   And they called him for help.  And he did nothing.   

A good trial lawyer would win a conviction in the Senate and in the  court of public opinion- the only one that counts at the moment- by roasting him over the coals for his complete indifference to the fate of Congress.  As long as the vote counting had stopped, he was happy.  And he sent no troops.  He didn't so much as put out a Tweet asking his supporters to peacefully walk out.   

That's a picture that should be painted not just with T***p, but with other witnesses.  Mark Meadows.  Every other person in the room with T***p.   The members of the House who called the White House and got no help.   Especially the Republicans who were his most vocal supporters. 

By the end of that trial, the public will revile him.  As much or more for sitting there happily watching the mob take the Capitol- the mob he had promised to walk down to the Capitol alongside- and he absolutely should be grilled about that lie, because it will reveal to his MAGA people what a true cowardly weasel the rest of us have always known he was.

If only..... (writes the frustrated trial lawyer).

AND HERE IS MY CROSS EXAMINATION:  COOKBOOK FOR THE IMPEACHMENT MANAGERS OR THEIR LAWYER:

https://buildabettermousetrap.blogspot.com/2021/01/how-to-convict-ex-president-in-senate.html

HOW TO CONVICT AN EX-PRESIDENT IN A SENATE TRIAL, OR BARRING THAT, IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION

An all time classic movie- Inherit the Wind, with Spencer Tracy as the Clarence Darrow character (Matthew Brady)  who has the unique opportunity to win the war of creationism versus evolution in a Tennessee courtroom (the famous Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 100 years ago) by cross examining his flummoxed opposing counsel, actor Fredric March as William Jennings Bryan's character (Henry Drummond) who makes the fatal mistake of agreeing to testify as an expert witness:  on the Bible.

   In real life- and in the play, then movie-  Darrow eviscerated his opponent who thought that he was smarter than Darrow.    

A primer in how a trial lawyer hired by the House impeachment managers would try Donald John Trump before the United States Senate, after first announcing loudly and prominently in advance that Trump will be called as the first witness-   and that Trump will get what he has proclaimed he always wanted:  his opportunity to introduce evidence of the "massive voter fraud" that stole the election from him.   The lie that he used to incite violent cult followers to assault the Capitol and murder a Capitol Police officer, injure dozens, send Congressmen and Senators and the Vice President scurrying for cover under shouts of "Hang Mike Pence"- and stopping the ceremonial counting of the votes for president and vice president cast by the Electoral Collge.   The huge lie  that he proclaimed over and over.

The trick to a good cross examination is that it's the question that matters, no matter how the witness answers.

And you always start out with questions that no smart and reasonable person- or someone pretending to be, like egocentric narcissist Trump, would say no to, and walk him down the garden path.

Off the top of my head, here's what I've got. 

Q.  Mr. Trump, the president's job is to execute the law, isn't that correct?  That's why he's called "The Chief Executive, " right?

A.  Yes. 

Q.  And of course, you can't execute the laws unless you know them- or if you don't know, you have White House counsel or people in the Justice Department you can ask, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And that would include the law about what constitutes fraud, isn't that true?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And one example of fraud is when a person makes a material misrepresentation of fact- like a car dealer claiming that the car he is trying to sell has never been in a wreck, when it actually was wrecked twice already- and a buyer relies on that misrepresentation of fact to his detriment and suffers harm by paying for a wrecked car he thought was never in a car wreck, isn't that true?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And another example of fraud can also be when a person gives someone else a forged document and tells that person it's a legitimate, real document- like a check, or a deed- and the person receiving it pays for it and is harmed by relying  on that misrepresentation, isn't that correct?

A.  Yes. [REMEMBER:  HE'S GOING TO KEEP SAYING YES BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT IT SOUNDS TRUE AND HE KNOWS THAT EVERY ONE ELSE KNOWS IT'S TRUE AND HE DOESN'T WANT TO REVEAL HOW IGNORANT HE IS.]

Q.  And you have heard of another kind of fraud called "election fraud," haven't you?

A.  Yes.

Q.  In fact, you have referred to election fraud after the 2020 Presidential election, haven't you?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So it would be fair to assume that you know what election fraud is, am I correct?  Because it wouldn't make sense to claim that election fraud had occurred if you didn't even know what that phrase meant, am I correct?

A.  Yes. 

Q.  And committing fraud in a federal election- that's a crime under federal law, isn't that true?

A.   Yes.

Q.  And committing fraud in a federal election which is conducted by state election officials, that may very well be a crime under that state's laws as well, isn't that true?

A.  Yes.

Q. And  you are aware that election fraud in a federal election, is a felony, right?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And if one or more persons commits that felony of election fraud, you would agree that they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, correct?

A.   Yes.

Q.  And you are aware, I am sure, that even an attempt to commit a felony is a crime, even if the person fails in the attempt isn't that true?  

A.  Yes.  

Q.  And if somebody were to attempt to commit election fraud, you would agree that they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, correct?  Because the integrity of our elections is very important to this country, to our democracy, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q. And you would agree that if that person were convicted of election fraud, or convicted of the  attempt to commit election fraud, he or she should go to prison, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.   Now, going back a moment,  you have very publicly claimed, over and over, that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from you because of massive election fraud, isn't that true?

A.  Yes.

Q.  You claimed very publicly, over and over, that you won the 2020 Presidental election- that you got more votes that President Biden in states that were actually certified for him, whose electoral votes went to President Biden, isn't that true?

A.   Yes.

Q.  And there were four states in particular whose vote totals you challenged, where you claimed that you had won except that the election was stolen from you, and those four states were Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, isn't that true?  You claimed that you actually won the popular vote in those four states, that you received more votes that President Biden in each of those states, isn't that true?

Q.  And as I asked a moment ago,  of course you wouldn't have publicly- and repeatedly- claimed that the election was stolen from you by massive election fraud in those states unless you knew exactly what election fraud was, isn't that true?  Because if you didn't even know what election fraud was, it wouldn't make any sense that you would publicly claim that it happened, right?

A. Yes.

Q.  And you wouldn't publicly- and repeatedly- claim that there was massive election fraud, unless you had evidence that fraud had occurred, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And of course, you are aware that by evidence, we don't mean rumor, do we?

A.  No.

Q.  We don't mean speculation, do we?

A.  No.

Q. We don't mean hearsay- as in, I heard that someone else saw something or heard somebody else say something, do we?

A.  No.

Q.  When we say evidence, we don't mean wild conspiracy theories with no basis, do we?

A.  No.

Q.  When we say evidence, we mean evidence like the kind that is produced in a court, in front of a judge, correct?

A. Yes.

Q.  We don't mean an affidavit- what someone wrote on a piece of paper, which can't be cross examined,  by evidence we mean a live witness, who can be put under oath, whose veracity and ability and opportunity to have seen whatever he or she claims to have seen can be tested, correct?

A.  Yes,

Q.   Becaise if a sitting President of the United States is going to publicly, on television, in tweets on Twitter, at live rallies, tell the American people that an election was stolen from him, that he actually won the election, he wouldn't do that or say that unless he had actual hard evidence, evidence that would stand up in a court where that election was challenged, am I correct?

A.  No.

Q.   And of course, fraud can't just happen by itself- somebody, some person or persons, have to actually do some actions that create the fraud, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.   Now lets get down to some details on the  presidential election you claim was stolen from you.

  You said that the election was stolen from you in Pennyslvania, and that you should have received Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  You also said that the election was stolen from you in Arizona, that you should have received Arizona's 11 electoral votes, correct?

A.  Yes.  

Q.   You also said the election was stolen from you in Michigan,  that you should have received Michigan's 16 electoral votes, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.   You also said that the election ws stolen from you in Georgia, that you should have received Georgia's 16 electoral votes, correct?

A.  Yes.  

Q.   And if you had been awarded the electoral votes in those states, if those 63 electoral votes had gone to you and not to President Biden, you would have been inaugurated on January 20, 2021, and not President Biden, and you would be sitting here, impeached for the second time in just over a year, as the current President of the United States, correct?

A.   Yes.

Q.  And the Secretaries of State in each of those four states- the people whose job it is to receive election totals from each county, make sure that they got all of the votes cast in the election, then certify those totals to their governors and to Congress so that the winner's electors get to cast their votes on December 14th in each state's capitol building- those Secretaries of State reported that you got fewer votes than Joseph R. Biden in each of those four states.

A.  Yes.

Q.  And when you said that those elections in each state were stolen, you meant election fraud was committed deliberately  by somebody affecting the vote totals in each of those states, correct?

A. Yes.

Q.  You didn't say that the vote totals were just wrong by accident or by mistake, did you? 

A.   No.

A.   You said "stolen."  You said that some person or persons actually acted or conspired take votes from you, or add them to President Biden, or change the vote totals, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And you have said publicly- told your followers who attended your rallies or who watched you on television or read your Twitter posts- before Twitter cut you off after your mob attacked the Capitol and murdered a policeman- that you won in a landslide.  A landslide.  Correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.   Now according to the Secretaries of State in each of those four states that you lost- Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, you lost the popular vote in each state by more than 10,000 votes, isn't that true?

A.  Yes.  

[PUT UP A GRAPH WHICH SHOWS EVERY STATE'S TOTALS AND THE DIFFERENCE IN EVERY STATE AND D.C., with highlights on those four states.]

Q.  Do you see this graph here which lists the popular votes totals and electoral college totals for each separate state and the District of Columbia?

A.  Yes. 

Q.  I imagine you must have looked at these numbers and reviewed these vote totals a lot after the November 3, 2020 election was called by all of the major news networks- including Fox (!) for President Biden on Saturday November 7, 2020, correct?

A.  Yes.  

Q.  And do you have any reason to doubt that these are the correct totals of the popular votes that were certified by the Secretaries of State- apart from your contentions of fraud- but that these were the totals that each State claimed were cast in the election?

A.  No 

Q.  Now, according to the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, President Biden won Pennsylvania by over 80,000 votes- 3,458,229 for President Biden to 3,377,674 for you,  as certified by the Secretary of State, correct?  Exactly 80,555 votes, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And according to Michigan's certified vote totals, he won Michigan by over 154,000 votes:   2,804,040 for President Biden to 2,649,852 for you, exactly 154,188 correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Now Arizona was much closer.  That state was certified by its Secretary of State that President Biden only won by just over 10,000 votes:   1,672,143 for President Biden to 1,661,686 for you, exactly 10,457 votes according to Arizona's Secretary of State, correct?

A. Yes.

Q.  And Georgia was certified by its Secretary of State, Brad Raffensberger, for President Biden to have won by over 11,000 votes, 2,473,633 to 2,461,854:    11,779 votes exactly.   

A.  Yes.

Q.  And you claimed, over and over, that there was election fraud in Georgia, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And who is the governor of Georgia?   

A.  Brian Kemp (first open question of the entire cross!)

Q.  And who is Georgia's Secretary of State?

A.  Brad Raffensberger (if he forgets, then "refresh his memory.")

Q. What political party does Brian Kemp belong to?

A.  Republican.

Q.  In fact, Governor Kemp very prominently and publicly supported you in the 2020 election, didn't he?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And what political party does Brad Raffensberger belong to? 

A.   Republican.

Q.  And Secretary of State Raffensberger publicly said that he voted for you, and that he wanted you to win the election, didn't he?

A.  Yes (if he says no, play the video of Raffensberger saying exactly that, and ask if that refreshes his memory)

Q.  But in spite of the fact that both the Governor and the Secretary of State who administers the elections in Georgia were members of your own party, who both publicly supported you and voted for you,  you still claimed that there was election fraud in Georgia- enough fraud that you actually won that state, isn't that true?

A.  Yes.

Q. And how many votes would you have needed- how many additional votes would you have needed on top of your vote total- to have won the state?   

A.  11,780.   (if he balks- just ask him if he remembers that was the correct number.  If he still balks, tell him we'll get back to that in a minute.)

Q.  Now, Mr. Trump, you would agree that election fraud could include many things:  stuffing ballot boxes right?

A. Yes.

Q.  It could include persons not legally entitled to vote knowingly voting anyway, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  It could include people forging ballots and mailing them in, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  It could also involve finding a corrupt election official and persuading him or her to change the vote totals, isn't that also true?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So if a person who lost an election were to telephone an election official, and demand that the election official change the vote totals to add votes to his total to give him enough votes to win the election, and if the election official changed that total, even though those votes didn't actually exist, that would be election fraud, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And I'm sure you are aware, since you were the president, and you were in charge of executing the laws, that a person who tries to get a public official to change a vote total to help that person win a federal election he had actually lost- that's not only election fraud, it's actually a felony under federal law, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  In fact, you know that you lost Georgia by 11,779 votes because you called Georgia's Secretary of State on January 2, 2021, and you asked him to "find" you 11,780 votes- one more than you needed to win the election, to change the results, correct?

A.  Yes.  [if he denies it, get back to him in a moment]

Q.  If you did do that, if you called a Secretary of State to ask him to change the vote totals to declare you the winner, but those votes didn't actually exist, you would be guilty of a felony, correct?  

A.  [doesn't matter what he answers)

Q. Would you recognize your own voice if you heard a recording of it?

A.  Yes.

Q.  I'm going to play a portion of a recording and ask you if that is your voice  [play enough of the call to Raffensberger so that he can identify his own voice.]

A.  that's my voice.

Q.  And the person you were talking to was Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And how many votes did you ask Secretary Raffensberger to find for you?

A.  (doesn't matter- if he says he doesn't know, or gets it wrong, play that portion of the recording where he asks him to find exactly 11,780 votes.)

Q.  So you asked him to find you 11,780 votes.  Exactly the number you needed to flip the state.

A.  Yes.

Q.   And of course, you did not tell him where to find those 11,780 votes, did you?

A.  No.  (if doesn't recall- play the whole 59 minute call and ask him:  did you hear yourself tell him where to find those votes?)

Q.   And you even told him he could get in trouble- that he and his lawyer, Ryan Germany, were taking a big risk- criminally- if they didn't do what you asked, didn't you?

A.  yes (or no,- then play that portion of the recording)

Q.   And during that phone call, you asked Secretary of State Raffensberger to "give me a break," didn't you?

A.  yes (or play recording).

Q.  You told him, and I quote, "I just need 11,000 votes" didn't you?

A.  yes (or play recording)

Q.  And will you finally admit, - and you are under oath, and the laws of perjury apply- that when you called Secretary of State Raffensburger, you didn't have any evidence that there were 11,780 votes for Donald John Trump just lying around somewhere where he could "find" them (make air quote), did you?

A.  (doesn't matter if denies it, then ask him where on that call he told him that he had evidence of fraud and offered to produce it- and if he does have that evidence- why didn't he bring it with him to this trial when he knew in advance that this was his chance to put that evidence before the Senate, before the country, before all of his voters and supporters, before the world)

Q. And when you called Secretary Raffensberger, you didn't offer to provide him evidence- hard evidence, no rumor, not speculation, not hearsay, not a wild conspiracy theory- you didn't offer to provide him any evidence of fraud during that entire 59 minute phone call, did you?   

A.  No (or play recording)

Q.  Because if you had evidence of fraud, you would be incompent.  You'd be a fool.  An idiot.  If you had that evidence but didn't produce it, isn't that true?

A.   (doesn't matter- it's the question that matters).

Q.  And you knew in advance that if you had evidence of fraud in the election in Georgia, that you should bring that evidence with you today, isn't that true?  Because we told you that in advance.  We told your lawyers.  We went on television shows that you watch- even on Fox- and told you that you should bring your evidence of election fraud here and put it before this impeachment court of 100 senators, before your followers watching on television, before the entire country, isn't that true?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And  when you said that an election that you won in a landslide was stolen from by election fraud, that had to mean that there was fraud great enough,  in large enough numbers, to overcome the tens of thousands of votes by which the Secretaries of State in those four states certified that you had been outpolled by President Joseph R. Biden, isn't that true? 

A.  Yes.

Q.   Because if it was only one or two votes, or only ten, or only a hundred, or even only ten thousand votes- that wasn't enough to change the winner in any of those four states?  Because President Biden won every one of those four states by more than 10,000 votes, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  In fact, in your court challenges in Pennsylvania, your lawyers did not present any legally admissible evidence in any courtroom of fraud- deliberate actions by persons which were large enough in scope  to change the outcome of the election- in Pennsylvania, where you lost by over 80,000 votes, did you?

A  (doesn't matter)

Q.  And you didn't bring any such legally admissible evidence here, to present to this Senate, to your followers watching on television, to the whole country, to the world, did you?

A.  (doesn't matter).

Q.  In fact, your lawyers did not present in any courtroom legally admissible evidence  of fraud- deliberate actions by persons which were large enough in scope  to change the outcome of the election- in Michigan, where you lost by over 154,000 votes, did you?

A.  (doesn't matter)

Q.  And you didn't bring any such legally admissible evidence here with you- to prove that you actually won an election in Michigan that you lost by over 154,000 votes, did you?

A.  (doesn't matter).

Q.  Mr. Trump, do you realize that you have now achieved your intended goal- you have finally managed to find election fraud in the State of Georgia?  Well, not actually election fraud- but a criminal attempt to commit election fraud?

A.  (doesn't matter)

Q.  And the person who attempted to commit election fraud in Georgia, who tried to coerce or persuade an election official, the Secretary of State of Georgia, to change the vote totals, to "find" enough votes- 11,780-  for you to have won by just one vote, was Donald John Trump, corrrect?

A.  (doesn't matter)

Q.  And you already agreed that any person who committed that election fraud- or even the criminal attempt at election fraud- if they are found out, should be tried, convicted, and go to prison, correct?   

A.  Yes (or doesn't matter- have the court reporter read back his answer)

Q.   And are you willing to plead guilty, and save the State of Georgia and Fulton County the expense of having to try your sorry excuse for a human being?  And are you prepared to go to prison?   

A.  (doesn't matter)

Q.   I'll give you one last chance to redeem a small part of yourself Mr. Trump:  in front of this Senate, on television to the millions of people who believed in you, who believed you when you claimed this election was stolen, that there was massive fraud, will you finally admit, now that you are under oath and subject to the penalties of perjury- that you did not produce here evidence of fraud sufficient to overturn the election in any of those four states- Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Georgia, let alone all four of them, did you?  

A.  (doesn't matter).

Q.  No evidence.  None here, correct?   

A. (doesn't matter).

Q.  Perhaps by the time you get out of prison in Georgia, or in New York, or Federal prison, whereever the authorities decide you are to serve your well deserved prison sentence, you may have found evidence of fraud by then, eh Mr. Trump?

A.  (Really doesn't matter.)

NOW, let's talk about January 6, 2021, four days after your telephone call to Secretary Raffensberger asking him to "find" (air quotes) exactly 11,780 votes to change the result of the election in Georgia.

Q.   You addressed a rally in a partk, Lafayette Park, across from the White House that day, didn' you?

A.  Yes.

Q.  In fact, you had tweeted out to your followers that they should show up for a "stop the steal" rally that day, didn't you?

A.  Yes [show tweets on screen]

Q.  And you told them that it would "be wild" didn't you?

A.  Yes.

Q. And you knew that a lot of your followers are what you would term, what you referred to them in your rallies as "Second Amendment" people, meaning that they own guns and like to carry them, didn't you?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And you weren't the only speaker at your rally, were you?

A.  No.

Q. Your personal lawyer, Rudy Guliani, also spoke on that same stage where you later addressed the same audience, didn't he?

A.  Yes.

Q.   And he exhorted the crowd that "Let's have trial by combat!"  (play the video)

A  Yes.

Q.  And your son, Don, Junior, was on the same stage before you were, and he exhorted the crowd to "fight" to stop the steal (play the video)

"This should be a message to all the Republicans who have not been willing to actually fight. The people who did nothing to stop the steal," Trump Jr said. "This gathering should send a message to them: This isn't their Republican Party anymore. This is Donald Trump's Republican Party. This is the Republican Party that will put America first."

A.  Yes.

Q.  And when you got up there, when you addressed the crowd, you told them to march down Pennsylvania Avenue, to the Capitol, didn't you?

A.  Yes. 

Q.  You told them to do so "peacefully and patriotically," correct?  (play video)

We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period. 

A.  Yes.

Q.  But you also told them to "demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated," didn't you?

Q.  Yes.

Q.  And at the moment you had the rally, Congress was already assembled inside the House chamber to count the votes that the electoral college had already cast, isn't that true?  Every senator, every representative, was inside the building- in a room with no windows, in a building that had Capitol Police surrounding it preventing the public from entering, isn't that true?

A.  Yes.

Q.  So can you explain exactly how that crowd, that mob that you,  your son, your lawyer, had gotten wound up, and that you specifcally sent down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, to a building where the House chamber has no windows to the outside, a building closed off to the public, ringed by barricades and Capitol police- can you explain exactly how they could follow your direction to them to deliver your message to Congress- how to deliver it without pushing past the barricades, bowling over the police, bashing in doors, breaking windows, killing one police officer, injuring dozens of others?

A. (doesn't matter)

Q.  And you also told them that you would march down with them, you said "we" will go down Pennyslvania Avenue:  (play tape)

"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."

A. (doesn't matter).

Q. But you lied to them, didn't you?

A. (doesn't matter).

Q.  You promised to walk down there with them.  To to to the Capitol with them.  But you didn't, did you?

A.  (doesn't matter).

Q.  Instead, you went back to the White House across from the park, didn't you?

A  (doesn't matter)

Q.  And you watched on television as the mob, your followers, carrying banners with your name on them, wearing your red MAGA hats, marched down to the Capitol, overwhelmed the Capitol police, knocked over barricades, bashed in doors, broke windows, scaled walls with climbing equipment, took over the Capitol- you watched that on television,didn't you.

A  (doesn't matter- the other witnesses will confirm it).

Q.  And your office got frantic phone calls from members of Congress, asking you to stop your mob, didn't you?   

A.  (doesn't matter, other witnesses in White House and in House will confirm it).

Q.  But you didn't send a message to your mob to immediately leave, did you?

A.  (doesn't matter).

Q.  Not even a tweet?

A.  (doesn't matter).

Q.  You saw them disrupt the ceremonial counting of the votes, sending everyone scattering, the counting of the votes that would finally confirm that you had lost the election, that you were the LOSER, didn't you?

A.  (doesn't matter).

Q.  The counting of the votes that you wanted them to stop, that you specifically told them to stop- to "stop the steal", isn't that true?

A.  (doesn't matter).

Q.  And you were asked to send help.  To call in the National Guard as the mob was chanting "Hang Mike Pence," as they put up a gallows with a noose.  As they went looking for the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, to tear her to pieces.  As they occupied her office.  As they trashed her office.   As your mob was posting live on Facebook and Instagram even from inside the Capitol.  And you did nothing.  

A.  (doesn't matter).

Q.   You had gotten what you wanted- Congress had been driven to cover, from their own chamber, from the sacred grounds of the Capitol- and the vote counting had stopped.  And you  did nothing.

A.  (Doesn't matter.)

Q.   One of the mob was killed- shot as she tried to bash in the doors to the House chamber.  One of your followers.   But you did nothing.

A.  (doesn't matter.)

Q.  A Capitol Police Officer was murdered by your mob.  But you did nothing.

A .  (doesn't matter)

Q.   And the Capitol Police who remained, who tried to do their jobs, were overwhelmed (show the video of the screaming officer being crushed in the doorway).

And you did nothing.

A.  (doesn't matter).

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE.

INSURRECTION: WHEN LYING AND DUMBING DOWN BY T***P AND REPUBLICAN LEADERS HAVE FATAL CONSEQUENCES

 

The last two times our Capitol building in Washington D. C. was taken by force of arms: 1814 by the British, 2021 by a mob incited by the President of the United States.

As a Democrat, I'm happy that the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair, Tom Perez, has been replaced by Jamie Harrison, who ran (and lost) against Lindsey Graham in the South Carolina senate race in 2020.

Because here's our problem. These elections should not be close. We should have gained a net of 6 Senate seats last cycle and gained- not lost 12 seats- in the House. But we didn't, because there has been a complete failure of both imagination and coordination on the part of the DNC and every single candidate who ran for an office in Federal government, including Joe Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/27/why-did-democrats-bleed-house-seats-top-analyst-offers-surprising-answers/?fbclid=IwAR1M7TN6kdeaAb4I1sUKixkLlGUZRmiCYTjCxJNZJewqBFYbwDnSXm3P7IY

The Republican Party is now the party of voter suppression and wild absurd lies during campaigns. Just look at the ads they ran in 2020 and the Georgia senate races runoff. If any of the crazy accusations had even a kernal of truth, I don't remember it.

They attacked our candidates as being controlled by Chinese communists. They said that electing us would end up closing hospitals and taking away their doctors.

They ran ads claiming that once Democrats got the power we would defund the police- and they ran a fake 911 call with an automated response telling the caller with a dire emergency there would be no one coming to help. Their ads clearly implied that Democrats support criminal illegal immigrants and urban black thugs and are sending them to your suburbs to kill you. And you will die waiting for a non-existent police force to respond because Democrats closed all of the police stations and fired all of the police officers.

Crazy? Yes. But millions of Republican voters think that is the gospel truth.

They didn't imply- they outright said that we hate America.

They claimed that socialism brought to you by Democrats would destroy American and curtail freedom.

They said Democrats are for opening the borders to a floodgate of illegal immigrant criminals. That Democrats have recruited illegal immigrants to vote. That we are the causes of election fraud and we'll fight any valiant Republican effort to stop the millions of imposters who show up at the polls with fake ID's in the names of legally registered (but, unfathomably, not voting) voters to put Democrats in office.

That Democrats would pass the awful job killing Green New Deal and raise your taxes $65,000 a year to pay for it. (The print ad I got in the mail from the Perdue campaign didn't explain where they got the $65,000 number from.)

And in the face of all of those pernicious, blatant, ubiquitous lies, the DNC and our candidates had..... nothing. Other than Raphael Warnock's great "Puppies" ad, which ran before the first attack ad by scary Stepford wife Kelly Loeffler, I can't remember a single coordinated campaign to debunk the lies and unmask the liars.

And not a single Democratic ad- ever- included a portion of a Republican attack ad, then unraveled it for the absurd bushel of poppycock it was. That would have been effective, but apparently the imagination of the DNC and candidates for Federal office didn't reach that far.

We should have had a coordinated national campaign to rip those lies to shreds.

I'm glad we have a new DNC Chair, Jamie Harrison. I just hope he isn't the lackluster incompetent Tom Perez was at failing to realize the next campaign starts NOW. And it should involve national ads that destroy the caricature of Democrats that Republican voters sincerely believe. Our ads should include snippets of their ads- like a vaccine against their toxic disease. At least Harrison, to his credit, intends to run a 50 state campaign. And hopefully, we'll run competitive races in every Congressional district and in every state's legislative race no matter how "red" the state or the district was in the last election.

Because those voters aren't animatronic robots. They are humans with the same bodily functions, needs, family concerns, and aspirational goals as the rest of us- get a decent job, pay their bills, provide for their family, have a fulfilling recreational life. And for the most part, they aren't evil- just gullible. And susceptible to authoritarian demagogues and those who appeal to their worst fears and impulses. But they are not irretrievable as human beings. I have lived in the deep South for over 47 years, and there is no doubt in my mind that even the worst racist or the worst bigot I have encountered would stop and help pull a car load of black or Hispanic human beings out of the ditch. And offer them water and use of a phone. But they lack the capacity- so far- to relate their personal experiences to their national prejudices and understand that they don't jibe.

Our ads should include both regular actual human beings- like the Lincoln Project's ads with former Republicans who saw the light- and celebrities beloved by Republicans (Dolly Parton would be a good one, as would Garth Brooks). Former Republican elected officials or people connected to them- like John McCain's widow Cindy McCain- with stature- locally and nationally- should be involved, speaking out loud to their Republican friends, telling them they have been lied to. Telling them the truth. Making it ok to not be a bigot. Making it ok to see a "Democrat" as a human being with the same goals as they have, and just possibly a more efficacious means of accomplishing them.

And those ads have to run at least once every week from now until election day 2022. During football games. Jeopardy. Daytime soap operas. NCIS. News shows. On Fox (yes, Fox). Not all of the time. Just often enough to slowly but surely erode the confidence that Republican voters have that the caricature is true.

We need to unmask and defang the lying liars. Or, as Ezra Klein pointed out in the New York Times last week, we will lose in 2022, and we will deserve to lose.