☀️ This morning’s newsy @PunchbowlNews AM

"Trump's role in the riot"

Here’s a challenge: Make the argument that Donald Trump had nothing to do with the riot at the Capitol after the first few days of the impeachment trial.

@PunchbowlNews It’s damn tough.
The Democratic impeachment managers did something Wednesday that desperately needed to be done: They laid out in a thorough, comprehensive and digestible manner what Trump said and did in the months and days leading up to the bloody Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
@PunchbowlNews They covered all aspects of Trump’s shocking behavior -- his provocative tweets, TV interviews and speeches claiming the election was being stolen; his months-long campaign to undermine the American public’s faith in the election results;
@PunchbowlNews his efforts, both public and private, to overturn those results once it was clear he lost, especially his attempts to pressure former Vice President Mike Pence;
@PunchbowlNews his repeated appeals to his supporters to come to Washington on Jan. 6, the same day Congress was set to certify Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory;
@PunchbowlNews his inflammatory speech that day on the Ellipse, including his exhortation to thousands of angry followers to “fight like hell” and march on the Capitol; his unwillingness to act once it was clear that a violent insurrection had broken out on Capitol Hill
@PunchbowlNews ; and the physical and mental damage left in the wake of the attack, including dead and wounded police officers who threw themselves in harm’s way to protect members, senators, and American democracy itself.
@PunchbowlNews It was a riveting, utterly damning indictment of the 45th POTUS. No 1 who watched the presentation can come away believing Trump didn’t have a direct role in inciting the cataclysm of violence that erupted that day. Whether he should be convicted and sanctioned is another issue.
@PunchbowlNews You can argue that the House’s lightning-fast impeachment process denied Trump his due process rights, and you’d have a case. You can argue that Congress can’t impeach a former president, and that’s fine, it’s a legitimate point.
@PunchbowlNews You can say that the House should’ve held hearings and taken their time instead of rushing to impeach; that’s a debate worth having. You can argue his speech is protected by the Constitution -- and you might be able to score legal points there.
@PunchbowlNews You can argue that his behavior doesn’t meet the standards for incitement.

Of course, the Sen is not an impartial jury, and this isn’t a legal trial but rather a political process.
@PunchbowlNews But you simply cannot say that Trump had nothing to do with the insurrection at the Capitol. That’s not an argument anyone can make with a straight face.

More from Jake Sherman

More from Trump

It’s not clear how Dr. Sean Conley has determined Trump will no longer need to isolate only 10 days after symptom onset.

Looks like the CDC Guidelines say Trump should be in the category that needs to isolate for 20 days after symptom onset.👇

Plus ...



2. Fauci on Thursday used a (test-based) approach, in which case, per Fauci:

Trump needs to isolate for 10 days after symptoms RESOLVE (not symptoms onset) and then two negative tests.

Note: based on his coughing on Hannity last night, Trump’s symptoms haven’t resolved yet.


3. Here’s a longer quote from Fauci (via @MarionRenault):

https://t.co/oRdrtxQe80


4. Also noteworthy: on Hannity last night, Trump wouldn’t say he’s tested negative.👇

Thus failing one of the conditions required by Fauci for Trump to be considered no longer contagious.


5/5. This resource on coronavirus (UpToDate) has been specially made available to the public. It describes the test-based and non-test-based approaches.
1. Yes, Trump will claim to intend to target GOP senators up for reelection in '22 (like he did to Thune with Kristi Noem) if they don't join in @HawleyMO's sedition on Jan. 6, but the fact is, it's not clear whether Trump will be successful in ANY of those efforts & voting yes


2. to hedge off these threats will also create fissures & fractures for these incumbents among other elements of their party that could complicate their renominations. Indeed, what worries me the most about the potential for the country to slip into @anneapplebaum territory is

3. that what should be robust and intense push back from the party establishment against actually ending democracy- bc that's what Trump's request would do, if it was granted, is fairly muted. What we SHOULD be seeing from the mainstream of the party is threats to strip committee

4. assignments, chairs, privileges, even reelection funds, if anyone gets involved in this bullshit- in the House & the Senate, and the fact that you don't see it is more than a story of McConnell & McCarthy being afraid of Trump & his base. Its a story of receptivity, of the

5. level of receptivity the congressional and party leadership is dealing with both within the rank and file membership of the party and within its donor class, and THAT, my friends, is why you find me so concerned. That, and my decision to finally pull @anneapplebaum's book

You May Also Like