☀️ 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

OK, #Squidigation fans, I think we need to talk about the new Wisconsin suit Donald Trump filed - personally - in Federal Court last night. The suit is (as usual) meritless. But it's meritless in new and disturbing ways. This thread will be


Not, I hope, Seth Abramson long. But will see.

I apologize in advance to my wife, who would very much prefer I be billing time (today's a light day, though) and to my assistant, to whom I owe some administrative stuff this will likely keep me from 😃

First, some background. Trump's suit essentially tries to Federalize the Wisconsin Supreme Court complaint his campaign filed, which we discussed here.


If you haven't already, go read that thread. I'm not going to be re-doing the same analysis, and I'm not going to be cross-linking to that discussion as we go. (Sorry, I like you guys, and I see this as public service, but there are limits)

Also, @5DollarFeminist has a good stand-alone thread analyzing the new Federal complaint - it's worth reading as well, though some of the analysis will overlap.

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x