Here we go. Tag 4 des Impeachments. Trumps Verteidigung.
Michael van der Veen begins Trump's defense: "The article of impeachment now before the Senate is an unjust and blatantly unconstitutional act of political vengeance" pic.twitter.com/xRaZHEPIaC
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 12, 2021
WATCH: Trump's defense plays nearly 10 minutes of clips showing Democrats using the word "fight," to defend Trump using the word "fight" about 20 times in his speech to supporters before the Capitol riot began https://t.co/YUg7sgxuDX pic.twitter.com/3eMNp7E2S2
— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 12, 2021
So close.
We are now getting some "very fine people" trutherism pic.twitter.com/rbaYMAHhkN
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 12, 2021
Es ist so unerträglich https://t.co/WvIAvhPNXY
watch this clip while reminding yourself that Trump's entire defense so far has been about whataboutism pic.twitter.com/39e6q1D1EE
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 12, 2021
Almost every leader calling for impeachment in Trump lawyers\u2019 video is Black, Jewish, Latinx or female.
— Michael Beschloss (@BeschlossDC) February 12, 2021
Of course Trump's impeachment team is still trying to white wash his Charlottesville comments, even after half of his own administration denounced what he said. These battles will never be over. They will never stop trying to rewrite history.
— Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) February 12, 2021
Raskin prebutted this Trump defense: "As a matter of law, as a matter of logic, President Trump's brazen attempt to invoke the First Amendment now won't hold up in any way."
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 12, 2021
Um ... why are we talking about "Negro block voting...?"
— Joy WE VOTED!! WEAR A MASK!! Reid \U0001f637) (@JoyAnnReid) February 12, 2021
Trump lawyer Michael T. van der Veen, speaking right now, once sued Trump, citing "an environment subject to repeated claims by President Donald J. Trump that voting by mail is ripe with fraud, despite having no evidence in support of these claims" https://t.co/2m9Nmb4TCn
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 12, 2021
Trump attorney van der Veen calls impeachment "constitutional cancel culture."
— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) February 12, 2021
CLAIM: Trump lawyer Michael T. van der Veen said a member of Antifa was among the first to be arrested following the Capitol riot.
— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) February 12, 2021
FACT: None of the criminal complaints yet filed accuse anyone with being with a follower of Antifa.
(via @PeteWilliamsNBC)
Well I can't say I saw this argument coming.
— Jack Jenkins (@jackmjenkins) February 12, 2021
Note: Invoking Christianity/God was absolutely NOT synonymous w/peaceful behavior on Jan 6. On the contrary, SO MANY insurrectionists invoked faith while attacking the Capitol.
Even the Proud Boys prayed \u2014> https://t.co/5OUBkBPpCI pic.twitter.com/cymGJPcLSJ
Blessed be the religion scholars for they are about to spontaneously combust.
— Peter Manseau (@plmanseau) February 12, 2021
Daher habe es keine Insurrection stattgefunden.
Tolles Schlussargument
Daraus folgt nach Castor: Insurrection nie strafbar. Cool.
Trump sei heimlich aufgenommen worden und deswegen hätte er im Raffensperger Anruf nicht zu Gewalt aufrufen können am 6. Januar.
Nein, ich bin nicht betrunken, das hat Castor wirklich so gesagt. Mit Absicht.
Lindsey Graham submits a question for Trump's defense just minutes after meeting with Trump's defense team in their conference room.
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 12, 2021
More from Politics
You May Also Like
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?