Thread by @JakeSherman

☀️ 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.