What New Revelations Will Emerge Before Feb Impeachment Trial | Talking Points Memo

The impeachment trial of former president Donald Trump will begin Feb. 9 under a deal reached Friday by top Senate leaders over the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol earlier this month  — but the GOP could end up regretting its efforts to delay the trial.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1356319
1 Like

We are already finding out about how Trump financed the rally through shell companies and former campaign staff. I expect we will also find out a lot more about how the National Guard was prevented from helping out.

We should also have a clearer picture of which members of Congress (or their staff) were complicit.

So, take all the time you want. Hang that albatross around Mitch, Cruz and Hawley for a while.


McConnell who castigated Trump for feeding his mob “lies,” previously pushed on Thursday for a three-week delay to give the former president ample time to prepare.

McConnell is evil, but he’s a long, long way from stupid. Maybe the three week delay request was not really about giving Trump’s lawyers time to get up to speed. Maybe McConnell fully realizes that time isn’t on his caucus’ side and that more criminality was bound to be revealed. Could be that McConnell is hoping that enough will come out to put pressure on his caucus to vote to convict.


That would suit Mitch just fine—and would relieve him of any responsibility regarding the Senate trial, which is, I suspect, his real motivation here.

As you know only too well, Mitch is loyal to Mitch, and to no one else.


Never apply hope to moscow mitch.


It’s not hope, it’s enlightened self interest. It’s for his own agenda, not for any cause of good. As said above so well…


“Never apply hope to Moscow Mitch”

Only “diminished expectations”.


I’m not. I’m counting on McConnell doing what he always, always, always does which is whatever he thinks is best for McConnell. See @thunderclapnewman’s post above yours.


Exactly. There’s little hope McConnell will be Majority Leader again before 2025. If he has any hope of recapturing the majority in 2024 and winning the presidency he has to start the de-Trumping now, and that begins with removing Trump from contention for 2024. Otherwise, Trump will continue to be the de facto leader of the party. I’m pretty sure that’s just about the last thing McConnell wants.


I agree that Turtle absolving himself of responsibility seems the more likely motivator here.
And with all of Donnie’s sloppy criming, it’s neither long odds nor a hard bet for him to make.




I think you are applying hope, because what is in MM’s best interest is for this to all go away. The means for that happening is the (false) rationale “it’s unconstitutional for the senate to try an ex-president”, and two-thirds of the GOP senate will happily run down that off ramp. Doesn’t matter that the rationale is false, what matters is how it plays politically.


The one thing that seems to scramble the equations of the pundits I’ve read is the near-certainty that Mitch doesn’t want Trump stomping all over the landscape as a potential candidate for the next four years. Maybe debt and legal problems will hobble him. Maybe dementia will. But if McConnell wants to incur the political damage for putting him on the no-fly list, better sooner than later.

Then of course, we all regress to the mean—the fact that Trump remains popular. As always, the dilemma has two horns.

Then there’s the question at hand: What more comes out? Because it will. He’s not around, he can’t hurt anyone, for the moment he can’t even run his mouth, and that dam is going to burst. He did every goddamn thing he could think of to steal that election. If you don’t reject him, you can expect a blizzard of ads with the riot in them when you run next. As a political calculation, it’s as devilishly one-hand-other-hand as a law school essay question.


Yup, and I seem to recall McConnell supported Trump using any and all “legal” remedies to challenge the election results. Indulging Trump always ends in disaster. Much more will be revealed in the next couple of weeks and McConnell knows it. McConnell used Trump for judges and is done with him. Let the purge begin.


Seeing McConnell getting his ass handed to him daily lately is worth the wait.

A repost. I hope now is payback time.


I’m applying 30 some years of having watched Mitch McConnell up close and personal. I’ve never once seen him break with his party or a Republican president the way he’s broken with Trump over the last couple of weeks. He appears to be providing zero cover for the “it’s unconstitutional for the Senate to try an ex-president” excuse. If he wanted that off ramp he’d take it, but he’s not. I’m not saying he’ll get the votes. That’s not the argument I’m making. I’m only saying that I believe he wants to convict him. Those are two different things.


Most importantly, he’s lost most if not all of his power to intimidate. People will start talking once they lose fear. And all the ick will ooze out.


Honestly one way to think of it is the picture in each state. How much support do you lose among normies if you give Trump a pass? How much do you lose from the base if you vote to convict? What if you vote to acquit, loudly declaring that Trump was naughty but you don’t think you can convict someone after the term expires? How much respect do you lose in your kids’ eyes if you try to explain why you won’t convict? What about your own inner sense that Trump deserves conviction? How do you weigh all that?


It is hard to imagine there are 17 GOP senators who would vote to convict regardless of timing. Can Trump rebuild his social media following and the support momentum it generates by Feb 8? Will Facebook or Twitter lift their bans? Will Parler and the Russians provide a robust enough alternative to drive GOP senate opinion? Also what does corporate America do from here?


Honestly, living in Sheriff Sheep Snaza territory, none of what you post means anything to them. They skip right past your ethical quandaries and straight to coo coo ville. Have you ever talked to someone who had zero interest in what you’re saying and is only interested in making you hear them? That almost blank look of being impatient, while you explain, NASA really did land men on the moon?