Trump's Second Impeachment Trial (Day 5)
Donald Trump's second impeachment trial came to an end today. This was fully expected, however the beginning of the day contained some serious uncertainties about how long the trial would go on for. Once that was settled, however, things moved towards the inevitable conclusion.
Can I get a witness?
The trial kicked off earlier today, since the Senate had no other business to conduct in the morning (all week the Senate has been doing its normal legislative work in the mornings and then reconvening for the impeachment trial in the afternoon).
So at ten o'clock Eastern, things got underway, and then quickly devolved into chaos. The reason for this was that the first thing on the schedule was the question of whether there would be witnesses or not. The House managers surprised just about everyone in the chamber by requesting at least one witness -- Republican Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler. This was kind of a chaotic story all around, because while Herrera Beutler had been talking (both in public and to local media) for weeks about what Republican House leader Kevin McCarthy told her about a phone call with Trump during the insurrection, it didn't make a splash in the national news until last night.
Herrera Beutler was one of the 10 Republican House members who voted to impeach Donald Trump for the second time. She did so in large part because of this reported phone conversation, when (as told to her) McCarthy talked to Trump while the mob was assaulting the Capitol. Trump apparently told McCarthy a deluded conspiracy theory he believed -- that the people attacking the building were "Antifa" -- and McCarthy pushed back on this insane notion, by telling Trump that, no, he was wrong, and the mob was made up of Trump people instead. Trump's reaction to this was reportedly to tell McCarthy: "I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are." This is, of course, incredibly callous and self-centered. So, seeing as how this is Donald Trump we are talking about, it is most likely true.
The House managers apparently considered this a bombshell, and stated that they intended to call her as a witness. However, this would have delayed the trial for days, perhaps even weeks. In the first place, impeachments aren't like normal trials, in that witnesses do not actually appear in person. Instead, they are deposed by both sides, and then video of their deposition is entered into evidence in the Senate. So this would have required time to put together.
The real chaos stemmed from the fact that this move was entirely unexpected by both sides. Chuck Schumer reportedly didn't know whether they were going to call witnesses or not until the rest of us found out as well. The Republicans, predictably, hit the roof. Trump's lawyer had a meltdown, in fact, for the ages. Michael van der Veen channelled his inner Brett Kavanaugh (for some reason, the two sound awfully alike to my ears...) and had a full-on hissy fit. He complained, he ranted, he yelled, he exploded, he whined, and at one point he literally stomped his foot. In short, he melted down like an out-of-control uncooled nuclear pile. Part of this spectacle was self-induced, because he got a very audible round of laughter after mispronouncing his home town as "Philly-delphia." He had no idea why so many senators were openly laughing at him, and this set him off even further: "I don't know why you're laughing... I haven't laughed at any of you!"
In midst of all this sound and fury was the GOP's threat -- if you call witnesses, we will call lots of witnesses for our side, and we will grind the Senate to a halt for as long as we can get away with it. This would imperil both the confirmation of President Joe Biden's nominees as well as the emergency COVID-19 aid package, both of which are high priorities for both Biden and the rest of the Democrats.
A procedural vote was then held on the question of witnesses, and at first the total was 54 for witnesses and 46 against, but at the last minute Lindsey Graham changed his vote to "aye" for obscure procedural reasons, making it 55-45 in the end. Since this vote (like all the others except the final "guilty/not guilty" vote) only needed a simple majority, witnesses would be allowed. A quorum call immediately followed (for those unfamiliar with the practice, a quorum call is the equivalent of an endless "time out" where all action stops while both sides regroup and figure out what to do next).
For over two hours -- from approximately 10:30 to 12:45 -- all action stopped. And a deal was cut. Trump's team agreed to allow a statement by Herrera Beutler (describing her story of the phone call) to be entered into the evidentiary record, and the House managers agreed that that would be good enough for them to make their case without actually calling her as a witness. Both sides would later claim this as some sort of victory, but from the outside looking in it just seemed chaotic.
Closing Arguments
With this preliminary segment of the trial out of the way, we then moved on to closing arguments. Both sides were allotted two hours, and the House managers got to both go first and go last (as long as they kept within their time limit). Manager Jamie Raskin led off for the House, and used an extended arson metaphor to show how Trump, after the rioting started, did not lift a finger to put out the fire he had lit, but instead poured more fuel on it. Both sides' closing arguments were filled with scorn for the other side's, and Raskin kicked this off by calling the defense videos "various propaganda reels" (which, to be fair, is a pretty accurate description).
Raskin also taunted Trump directly, for not showing up and testifying himself. At one point, Raskin had to correct himself: "the president... I'm sorry, not the president, but the former president...." All around, he did a good job of making the prosecution's argument, leaning heavily on what Trump did after the rioting started (including mentioning the new evidence of the phone call to Kevin McCarthy).
David Cicilline went next, and went through his own summation of the House's case, which also leaned heavily on the outrageous nature of the newly-introduced phone call. Trump plainly just did not care that the Capitol was under attack, and actually saw it as a good thing for him, even after being informed in no uncertain terms the seriousness of the situation. More to the point, he refused to make the slightest attempt to call off his mob.
Several objections were made throughout the House's case, as Trump's lawyers objected to certain videos and other visual evidence being used, claiming they had never been seen before. This gummed up the works a little, but in the end the House was able to eventually finish making its case.
Madeleine Dean went next, and directly attacked the defense's case. She pointed out that the defense seemed to think all that mattered was Trump's speech on the day of the insurrection, but that what Trump did both before and after were directly relevant -- even though the defense had no excuse for any of it. Several more videos were played. Madeleine then made the case that the prosecution had proven the three points they had set out to prove: The Big Lie, Stop The Steal, and Fight Like Hell.
Joe Neguse took the podium next, and delivered his own wrap-up. Neguse has a great oratory voice, and he put it to good use. Neguse also castigated Trump for not appearing at his own trial, and pointed out to Trump's lawyers: "You can't claim there's no due process when you won't participate in the process."
Raskin returned at the end, and got a little choked up telling a story about what his daughter had said to him. He then quoted Tom Paine and wished: "Godspeed to the Senate of the United States," and sat down. Also quoted at various other times during the House's closing were Henry Clay and Ben Franklin (just for good measure). All in all, the House had used up just a little over three-fourths of their allotted time, leaving 28 minutes in case they needed it at the end.
The defense then got their innings. Plenty of snide language was used by them to describe the prosecution's case ("a mess" being the mildest of the lot). Mostly it was an extended pity party because the trial didn't go exactly according to the rules that Trump's lawyers would have preferred. At one point, Michael van der Veer slipped up and stipulated: "The question before us is not whether there was a violent insurrection of the Capitol -- on that point, everyone agrees." The previous day, Bruce Castor had said: "Clearly, there was no insurrection." Whoops! Shows what happens when such an important trial is put in the hands of D-list lawyers (since all the A- B-, and C-list constitutional lawyers refused to take Trump's case, this time around).
The rest of their presentation was pure whataboutism (rehashed). As South Park's Mr. Mackey might have put it: "Democrats are bad... mmm-kay?" At one point he even did come out with "all rioting is bad," but unfortunately there was no "mmm-kay" at the end of it. (OK, I fully admit I didn't bother to take detailed notes throughout this period, because it was so mind-numbingly repetitive and inane.)
At the end of this presentation, there was a segment specifically designed to please their audience of one, Trump himself. The phrase "phony impeachment trial" was deployed, and I'd have to check the transcript to see whether the words "hoax" and/or "fraud" were also used.
The defense sanctimoniously (and quite laughably) ended with a call to "allow America's healing to begin," which is just a sick joke, considering everything that happened.
The House managers took five or ten minutes to rebut a few things (and point out the defense's mixup over whether it was a "violent insurrection" or not), and then the closing statements were over, at around 3:30.
The final vote and conclusion
The single article of impeachment was then read in full, and the roll was called. At 3:51, the result of the vote were announced: 57 voted "guilty," and 43 voted "not guilty." Since 67 senators (two-thirds of the full 100 present) were required, Trump was pronounced not guilty and the trial was over.
This meant this was the most bipartisan impeachment trial in American history. The previous record for politicians crossing the aisle and voting against their own party was one. This time, there were seven. Now, it is somewhat of a stretch to call the result of a vote with only one aisle-crosser "bipartisan," but the label is fully justified here.
I have to admit, this was two more than I had expected. But with Mitch McConnell announcing last night that he'd be voting not to convict, there was just no way the Democrats were going to pick up the necessary 17 votes.
Immediately after the trial concluded, both Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell got to make speeches. Schumer lit into the Republicans who voted to exonerate Trump and darkly warned them of the many ugly precedents they were setting by doing so, and also what history was going to say about their cowardice. Schumer correctly pointed out that this wasn't even a case of putting "party before country," it was instead a case of them putting one man before the interests of their country.
McConnell's speech was total moose poop. Just as he had done on the day of the insurrection, he strongly laid the lion's share of the blame for the insurrection, the violence, and the sacking of the Capitol directly at Trump's feet. Taken completely out of all context, it was, for the most part, a pretty good speech that adequately condemned Trump for his obvious guilt. But this was all belied by two key facts. The first was that McConnell voted "not guilty," and then tried to take some sort of moral high road by proclaiming Trump's guilt. McConnell attempted to explain his vote away as a technical matter, since (according to him) holding an impeachment trial after a president leaves office is unconstitutional.
But the other fact McConnell conveniently forgot to mention is that the only reason -- the sole reason -- that the trial was not held while Trump was still in office was because Mitch McConnell prevented that from happening. He could easily have called the Senate back into session and held the whole trial before Inauguration Day. He refused to do so. So McConnell's explanation as to why he had to vote "not guilty" was to essentially blame himself. I look forward to this being forcefully pointed out by Democrats, in the coming days.
The Democrats had it right -- the words and actions of Donald Trump for months (reaching into last summer and spring) were the most egregious abuse of presidential power in all of American history. At least in Watergate, nobody died. No federal officers were killed by "the plumbers." One branch of the government did not (in a very de facto way) declare war on a second branch. If this somehow wasn't an impeachable offense, then impeachment itself would be completely meaningless, to put this another way.
This is precisely why so many Republicans did cross the aisle and vote their conscience. Trump was guilty. Of the worst crime against the Constitution itself that can be imagined. He needed to pay a price for it, and it is a shame (and a disgrace) that 10 more Republican senators didn't realize this, in the end.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
McConnell attempted to explain his vote away as a technical matter, since (according to him) holding an impeachment trial after a president leaves office is unconstitutional.
But, the senate had already voted that the trial was indeed constitutional on that basis. So this is a case of McConnell disrespecting the senate and its rules.
So, he disrespects the United States Senate and refuses to consider any of the evidence just to roll over at Trump's feet and vote to acquit. What a piece of work.
Hopefully, he is done as political operative along with the rest of his Big Lie colleagues.
Of course, I fully expect the Dems to waste the opportunity to use this against Republicans in a way that will actually gain them votes in 2022.
Thanks - I was checking the headlines every couple of hours, and then suddenly the ex-pres was acquitted.
I tend to doubt that the hold-out senators who sprung the guy will be held up to history's harsh light, etc. etc. as so many righteous House Managers and media commentators like you are ominously predicting or scolding. In fact, I'm not even sure Trump is destined to enter the history books as the arch-villain of early 21st century politics and statecraft.
For four years we saw the media and opinion-makers bend over backwards to normalize his every abnormal crime and misdemeanor, for fear of somehow coming across as partisan or prejudiced. After all, they nervously allowed, he's the president! how could that be a crime? How could that be a lie? How could that be an obvious self-serving case of outright monetary corruption? How could that be a betrayal of the national interest in favor of our geopolitical and ideological adversaries?? And so these dozens upon dozens of unpresidential actions were, if not hushed up, at least minimized with euphemisms and hedged tut-tuts.
Why won't the general history books do the same? Sure, there will be a large political science literature on his criminality and what it said about our general political process. But the texts that every budding citizen is fed in high school? I have a hard time seeing them treat Trump worse than they treat Nixon or Reagan, both of whom appear in the texts as hard-working presidents with many accomplishments, balanced by inexplicable and unexplored scandals that cast a shadow on their legacy, and so on.
Well, maybe not. After all, nothing is over at this point. Trump is free to claim exoneration, to the delight of his loyal base. Violence in his name and in his cause has been approved at the highest level of government. Maybe all of this will only look like the early phase of ... well, that's too morbid to consider.
Thanks again for the extended coverage, Chris.
@JMCT,
you wouldn't say it, so i will. the question (by analogy of course) is whether january 6 was donald's reichstag fire or his beer hall putsch.
JL
[1] Elizabeth Miller wrote:
"Of course, I fully expect the Dems to waste the opportunity to use this against Republicans in a way that will actually gain them votes in 2022."
It doesn't matter Elizabeth. There are no more votes to gain. The Republican voters DON'T care. That's the whole point. Those who were going to vote for Biden and the Democrats already did so. If everything that happened up until the election on Nov. 4th was not enough to convince everyone, then what additionally happened on Jan. 6 is certainly not going to do so. Those who voted for the Republicans did so because they like and agree with what happened on Jan. 6 and want MORE of the same, not in spite of or regardless of it. Just be thankful that there is more of us than there are of them. This 51 percent to 47 percent, 81 million to 74 million split is going to be with us for at least the next 4 years, and is the best that it is going to get for now.
[1] Elizabeth Miller wrote:
"Of course, I fully expect the Dems to waste the opportunity to use this against Republicans in a way that will actually gain them votes in 2022."
In 2022, you may see a Pat Toomey lose in Pennsylvania, or a Ron Johnson lose in Wisconsin, in a Democratic state that Biden carried, but you are definitely not going to see a Lindsey Graham lose in South Carolina, (I am just using those as examples.) Jaime Harrison already proved that. In fact, you are more likely to see a Liz Cheney in Wyoming lose to an even more radical Republican in her primary rather than lose to a Democrat in a general election, just as another example, no matter what Democrats say or do in the general election.
There are just not that many swing districts left where actual persuasion can make a difference one way or another, except in ONE area. It is all about TURN OUT, TURN OUT, TURN OUT, NOT CROSSING THE AISLE. That is the lesson to draw from the Georgia Senate races. Not persuading undecided voters or voters from the other side, but turning out your own supporters who have not been voting. That's why Trump won the first time in 2016!
So, John, you think the Dems will be in good shape in 2022, no matter what they do?
Good luck with that.
Chris,
Are we now done with Trump? And, by we, I mean you. Heh.
John M,
Maybe I mispoke in [1] ...
I probably should have said that I fully expect Dems to waste this opportunity such that they will LOSE votes in 2022.
There, fixed it for myself. :)
Of course, I'm always open to being pleasantly surprised.
John M,
What do you think Democrats need to do to turn out the vote?
Can I answer that? Stop acting like partisan hacks. Start talking about the issues and how to move forward on them.
#SeditionCaucus
Yes, that will be one way to lose votes.
No, Seditionists in the Congress isn't partisan hackery. It's a clear and present danger that Democrats can and must address alongside cleaning up on "Aisle Trump."
You never want to waste a perfectly good crisis. For example, Elizabeth, the crisis we're still in motivated 80 million votes for Joe Biden. The Leftists, the Centrists and the never voted before -ists!
I know you're a yuge fan but it wasn't about Joe as much as "not Trump." Why shouldn't the Dems thrash every last Repug Seditionist while solving America's problems?
Trump almost won. He would have won big if it wasn't a bout Biden.
No, Bernie would have beat Trump. A tuna sandwich would have beaten Trump not to mention most of the unsuccessful Dem Presidential Candidates.
Biden was the best of the best and he almost lost.
Dream on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbKvBT9F0Vo
Almost lost? Won Vanity Vote by 7 million, 2 million if you cut out California. Won a "landslide" 306-232 Electoral Vote victory.
Only "Socialism" and "Defund the Police" made it that close.
Elizabeth re: [17]
Could you indulge me, and give a quick summary of any link you might post here, rather than just the bare link itself? For a video on YouTube, also a time count - how long is this going to take?
It's a self-preservation practice I've developed on social media - never click on an unintroduced link.
@liz/caddy,
you're actually both right, after a fashion. a tuna sandwich WOULD have beaten trump, but most of the democratic candidates would NOT have. biden won precisely BECAUSE he ran his campaign like a tuna sandwich.
everybody likes a tuna sandwich.
https://youtu.be/F7NNCdN1y-4
JL
i introduced that link :)
Tuna fish? Pie?
You swing both ways, eh?
no, pie would have won in a true landslide - FDR levels, if not the full washington sweep.
...and just for reference, out of 59 presidential elections since the US Constitution was ratified, joe biden's electoral majority in 2020 and donald trump's electoral majority in 2016 come in 46th and 47th respectively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_Electoral_College_margin#Table_of_election_results
9] Elizabeth Miller wrote:
"What do you think Democrats need to do to turn out the vote?
Can I answer that? Stop acting like partisan hacks. Start talking about the issues and how to move forward on them."
What they NEED to DO is PERFORM, DELIVER on their PROMISES between now and 2022. ACT like partisan HACKS (Because Republicans will CONTINUE to be HACKS at every turn. You fight FIRE with FIRE.) and STOP TALKING and START DOING!!! Enough talk that doesn't do any good for god sakes already!
You are still thinking OLD SCHOOL Elizabeth. That just DOESN'T work anymore. No amount of persuading or messaging is going to do anything. What counts now is RESULTS.
To do that, Democrats NEED to be HYPER PARTISAN in Congress. Except for less than a handful of Republicans, Republicans like Lindsey Graham and the rest are now going to BLOCK every proposal from Biden, no matter whether it is good for the country or not, because it is good for them POLITICALLY in Republican PRIMARIES.
Voters are going to say in 2022, why should I vote for this Democrat again when, when I do, nothing ever gets done or nothing ever changes anyway??? Voters care about RESULTS, NOT the PROCESS of getting there.
Democrats need to play hardball, plain and simple, and shove as much as their agenda through between now and 2022 by any means necessary. THAT is the ONLY thing that will get them RE-ELECTED.
When Bill Clinton was in his first term as President, a whopping 21 states split their Senate delegations between one Democratic Senator and one Republican Senator. That number is now down to a grand total of SIX, if that tells you anything. in at least 44 states now, BOTH Senators are from the same party.
Republicans are in a bind. They can't win primaries unless they move to the right and more in a Trumpy direction. But when they do, they can't win general elections. Only in more rural, fly over states, not in more urban states. The more to the right and Trumpy they have gone, the more they have lost states like Virginia, Arizona and Georgia. In places like California where they once dominated, they are now irrelevant.
Let's not help them by constantly talking about what we are going to do, and just do it and actually govern like we have the power instead.
John M [26]
Re Republican relevancy in CA, What you're avoiding saying is that non-Hispanic people are now irrelevant in CA, right? That's obviously true, but in the age of PC, you can't come right out and say it.
[28]
Not to pile on, Elizabeth, but you give the impression that Joe's famous "bipartisanship" is going to make a whit of difference with these Repug obstructionists. It will not.
No matter how persuasive Joe is Repugs have to run as Trumpanzies in their GQP primaries to win. Those that cooperate with the Dems are anathema. So some old school Kumbaya moment isn't in the cards. Repugs have fucked things up royally and are stuck in their racist, anti-science and anti-democracy narratives. They've handed Dems the gift of being the #SeditionCaucus. To not keep a boot on their throats would be Political Malpractice! Furthermore it would prove to me (and Brother Don) that the Dems are just as owned by the rich as are the Repugs, and the two parties let us rubes fight over God, gays and guns. And...DSA, here I come!
John M.,
What counts now is RESULTS.
Precisely. Let's hope we see some and soon!
[27] C. R. Stucki wrote:
"Re Republican relevancy in CA, What you're avoiding saying is that non-Hispanic people are now irrelevant in CA, right? That's obviously true, but in the age of PC, you can't come right out and say it."
No, because that assumes white people vote exclusively for Republicans and Hispanics vote exclusively for Democrats.
Interesting that that is your perception of it though.
Republicans did hurt themselves in California though when they make the choice to demonize immigrants with discriminatory legislation and openly side with white identity tribalism politics, instead of reaching out to make a big tent.
White people who are part of the Democratic coalition in California are obviously by contrast, still VERY relevant. Only the white racists who are part of the Republican coalition are not. And that's on both sides, the Republican party officials who chose to indulge the white racist voters, and the white racist voters who chose to make the Republican party their home, and were accepted instead of spurned and rejected like they should have been.
MtnCaddy,
Not to pile on, Elizabeth, but you give the impression that Joe's famous "bipartisanship" is going to make a whit of difference with these Repug obstructionists. It will not.
Oh, pile on! I love it. Heh.
Actually, I may have left a mistaken impression. I will work hard to remedy that in future.
I think people mistake "Joe's famous bipartisanship" and his penchant for unity for something it is not.
As John M said, this is about the Democrats achieving results for the American people - the kind of results that will leave them expecting even more from Democrats along with the realization that the Republian way, in general, and the Republican cult of economic failure, in particular, will get them nowhere, fast.
John M from Ct.,
Could you indulge me, and give a quick summary of any link you might post here, rather than just the bare link itself? For a video on YouTube, also a time count - how long is this going to take?
You're making me cry. If you can't trust a link from me, you can't trust a link from anyone and never should. Geez Louise!
But, it is of no matter, it was just a link referring to the previous comment I made when I hit submit too soon.
It's just a link to Dream On by my favourite rock band. That last bit is a little joke and a lot of sarcasm. Ahem. No disrespect to Areosmith, of course.
29] Elizabeth Miller wrote:
"John M.,
What counts now is RESULTS.
Precisely. Let's hope we see some and soon!"
Absolutely AGREED Elizabeth. If Biden and the Democrats deliver by 2022/2024, they will dominate for years to come.
[31] Elizabeth Miller wrote:
"Actually, I may have left a mistaken impression. I will work hard to remedy that in future.
I think people mistake "Joe's famous bipartisanship" and his penchant for unity for something it is not.
As John M said, this is about the Democrats achieving results for the American people - the kind of results that will leave them expecting even more from Democrats along with the realization that the Republian way, in general, and the Republican cult of economic failure, in particular, will get them nowhere, fast."
I think I finally get where you are coming from now Elizabeth, and I think both you and I might finally be on the same page.
Biden's unity and bipartisanship is regarding the American people, and NOT Republicans in Congress.
John M [30]
OK, you seem to be implying that the mere acknowledgement of the fact that the concept of race is recognized is itself "racist", and I realize that you are free to define it thusly though I'm not obligated to concur.
MtnCaddy,
Almost lost? Won Vanity Vote by 7 million, 2 million if you cut out California. Won a "landslide" 306-232 Electoral Vote victory.
Well, "landslide" is Trump's analysis. Ahem.
Trump lost by roughly 75,000 votes, collectivley in four battleground states ... by less than 21,000 votes in three of those states. Which, if Trump had won, would have made the electoral college vote 275-763, for him! That's very, very close. Indeed, too close for any comfort.
Only "Socialism" and "Defund the Police" made it that close.
Actually, Senator Biden made it that close.
John M,
Biden's unity and bipartisanship is regarding the American people, and NOT Republicans in Congress.
Indeed.
And, I think we've always been on the same page. I just haven't always been able to make that clear enough. :)
John M,
Absolutely AGREED Elizabeth. If Biden and the Democrats deliver by 2022/2024, they will dominate for years to come.
That is my hope. Well, that and a second term for Biden!
No disrespect to Areosmith, of course.
See, I can't even spell their name right.
Oh, I kid, Aerosmith ... at every opportunity!
[35] C. R. Stucki wrote:
"OK, you seem to be implying that the mere acknowledgement of the fact that the concept of race is recognized is itself "racist", and I realize that you are free to define it thusly though I'm not obligated to concur."
Not really. But the concept of "race" is totally man made, and has no basis in science. So you can take that however you want.
It might also interest you to know that in the 2020 election, all the states moved several percentage points to the left and towards the Democrats, even Kansas.
The only state that moved further to the right, in terms of popular vote or percentage, was Florida.
And that, was because of Hispanic voters in Florida voting more Republican because of the anti-socialist message. And that's also unique to Florida because of immigrants from Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua etc.
It doesn't play in other states like California with Mexicans or New York with Puerto Ricans.
MtnCaddy,
Here is astute analysis by a fellow Californian, William Bradley, on the closeness of the 2020 presidential election results:
"But because of how our only quasi-democratic system works, people understand that it was an alarmingly close call. It wasn’t till Nevada released updated results on the Friday morning after the election that I wrote that Biden was the next president. And it wasn’t till the next day, the Saturday after the election, that the official media “decision desks” called the election for Biden. Perhaps the big networks and newspapers were finally wary after having so frequently reported Trump’s supposedly impending doom.
"So, a close call.
"Yet the close call was even closer than that.
"Consider.
"Take away just 78,000 votes from Biden in Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin, his collective margin of victory in those states, and Trump is re-elected president.
"To be even more melodramatic, yet no less realistic, take away just 45,000 votes from Biden in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin, his collective margin of victory in those states, and we have an electoral college tie.
"Trump then wins in the vote of state delegations in the U.S. House of Representatives, where individual Representatives are subsumed in state delegations, and Wyoming’s barely more than half a million people are just as powerful as California’s 40 million.
Real politics in America."
That's persuasive. But we'll never know if anyone besides Joe would have beaten Trump.
I know.
My [36] ... Yikes!
That should have read,
Trump lost by roughly 75,000 votes, collectivley in four battleground states ... by less than 21,000 votes in three of those states. Which, if Trump had won, would have made the electoral college vote 275-263, for him! That's very, very close. Indeed, too close for any comfort.
From a Politico article Democrats wrestle with how to quit an acquitted Trump
I don’t think it’s an either/or," said Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Democrats’ campaign arm. “I don’t think it makes any sense for us to be consumed with Donald Trump. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t demand accountability from both President Trump and his enablers, because the truth matters.
Accountability won't be coming from politicians, as we have clearly seen.
So, time for pols to give him up and focus on what counts.
John M [40]
Re "All the states moved to the left". I can relate to that, I myself "moved to the left", but it was far less a case of voting FOR Biden than it was of voting AGAINST the world-class asshole that my stupid fellow righties nominated.
Today's **Moment of Snark** comes from the politics site Electoral votes.com.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, writes: I am surprised no one is discussing the indictment of Stormy Daniels by a Nevada federal grand jury in the wake of her podcast with Michael Cohen, in which she discussed her affair with Donald Trump at his Lake Tahoe property.
The charge is inciting an inch erection.