Thread by @PantsuitPolitic

Hi. I'm watching the Senate trial. For those of you who are not, the strategy today from Trump's defense team is "I know you are but what am I?"

The House managers seemed to carefully, deliberately avoid partisanship. The strategy today from the defense is all partisanship. "Democrats have said 'fight.' Democrats have objected to elections. Democrats encouraged riots this summer."

In this framing, Donald J. Trump was no more powerful than a member of the House of Representatives. His responsibilities were no different.

Now we have "the House Democrats hate Donald Trump." That's a direct quote. There are accusations that the House Managers have manipulated video footage.

Michael Van Der Veen is criticizing the House managers for not engaging with the First Amendment argument. He's laughing "what we've heard is devoid of any constitutional analysis" and saying the House managers have not done the work of a first year law student.

"Hatred is a dangerous thing."

Editorial comment: so is pretending that accountability = hatred.

Now Van Der Veen has the audacity to lament heated political rhetoric.

Van Der Veen says this is not "what aboutism" before showing a "what about" video.

And let me say, I do not like comments about fighting, punching, beating, bullets from anyone at any time. I would like all of our elected officials to think differently about their speech. I also think it is nonsensical to equate this stuff (especially from...Ellen? Madonna?).

Van Der Veen is confirming, I think, my suspicion that the argument here is that the First Amendment is unlimited in any way.

As we talk about in today's podcast, I think the 1A argument here misses that the House Manager's case isn't speech alone. It's speech + conduct (both what Trump did and what he did not do).

Van Der Veen says the House managers are engaged in "illogic" and "double-talk" as he says "the Constitution does apply to this constitutional impeachment process."

Now Van Der Veen says that Mr. Trump has enhanced free speech rights as an elected official.

So...we should consider that he was an elected official in evaluating his words but ignore that he was president in evaluating what the effect of his words. I think that's the pitch.

Really stunning to watch a lawyer argue that the framers were dedicated to allowing the president of the United States to falsely tell Americans that the democratic republic has been stolen from them.

Van Der Veen is now saying that House Manager Raskin is as culpable as Trump for "trying to overturn the 2016 election."

They are now showing a clip of Trump that I think is supposed to be helpful but it's unclear to me how it is.

Ah...he's talking about all of his "Great achievements" and including a focus on election security among them.

Although...I guess by his own assessment he failed at that? I don't know. I'm trying not to be too snarky but this is really infuriating.

I am gobsmacked that the legal team decided to bring up Charlottesville as part of Trump's defense. They're arguing that Trump's words are always misconstrued. It's unreal.

But I should not be gobsmacked because the entire philosophy here is to say to Republican voters: "have you ever said anything that's no so PC and gotten an overreaction from someone? yeah, that's right! that's all this is."

Bruce Castor says that there was no insurrection, but that what happened on January 6 was horrific and that everyone from Trump to his defense denounce the violence.

Castor just referred to Trump's "real supporters," as though the people who stormed the Capitol were something else.