"After hearing all of you talk about this, I'm even less sure of how this case will come out than I went in."

"I felt far more confident before I heard the oral arguments. I felt less confident, but still, you know, I was where I was going into this conversation and now I'm leaving, throwing my hands in the air. I do think, however, in that big picture part that when you think about Chevron doctrine... that the executive branch agencies are going to have less power to define their own scope of power.... And at the same time, I think they will give the President more power over his personnel that you don't want sort of complete vertical power in an executive branch that then also has a lot of horizontal power to get extra legislative power.... So, Mr. President, you have complete control of your executive branch and also we've taken away some of the powers of the executive branch — I think would be the best outcome of this term...."

Said Sarah Isgur at the end of the Advisory Opinions podcast yesterday, summing up after moderating a high-quality conversation about the oral argument in the tariffs case.

"Bipartisan Support Grows For 9/11-Style Commission To Probe Capitol Riot."

Headline at Forbes.

Trial first, investigation afterwards. Kind of risky, isn't it? Just to assert that now what we need is an investigation is to make the fanfare of the last week seem, retrospectively, sketchy. We were urged to believe that we saw everything, and we know what we saw and what it all meant. Are we just supposed to forget all that and imagine we're back at square one? How can this commission dare to find things that don't synch with the prosecution's case? Was Brian Sicknick beaten to death with a fire extinguisher?

From the Forbes article: 

“Of course” we need a 9/11-style commission, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) told ABC News’ This Week on Sunday, arguing it should be "impartial,” and “filled with people who would stand up to the courage of their conviction."

Who is impartial? And who are "people who would stand up to the courage of their conviction" who are also impartial? What does "their conviction" even mean if not that they are partial? 

"There's still more evidence that the American people need and deserve to hear,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos Sunday.

Note the implication that the evidence heard at the trial was all good evidence. Nothing amiss there. Just that there's "more evidence." I doubt if Coons is open to a commission that draws the evidence presented at trial into question. 

The House Managers' trial memo said "The insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher" — an overeager assertion that isn't holding up. How much more damage to the Insurrection Myth can American tolerate? Is the point of this commission — the one elected officials are getting bipartisan about — to shore up the legitimacy of the already-concluded proceedings? 

Defending himself as one of the few GOP lawmakers to vote to convict Trump in an interview with ABC News Sunday, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana called for “a complete investigation” including “what was known” and “who knew it” so “this never happens again in future.”

Notice how Cassidy doesn't open up the question of what "it" was, just what was known about "it" and by whom. And by the way, what did you know, Mr. Cassidy, when you chose to vote guilty when there hadn't been the investigation that you say is needed now? What I wanted to know, what I thought was the crucial question in the impeachment, was whether there was a plan to breach the Capitol and whether Trump knew about it when he gave his speech. That's the “what was known” and “who knew it” that matters to me. Why didn't it matter to you, Mr. Cassidy? 

Also I'd like to know whether whether there was a plan to breach the Capitol and whether those in charge of Capitol security knew about it and, if they knew, why did they not provide adequate security? And then if there was a plan and if Trump knew about it, did he have reason to rely on Capitol security to prevent any fulfillment of whatever plan there was and to focus his intention on the free-speech-protected rally of his supporters? Were they overwhelmingly peaceful?

Though Republicans and Democrats... disagree about what the committee should focus on. On Sunday, Graham said he wanted to know if there was a “pre-planned element to the attack” while Coons wanted the commission to focus on Trump’s role in the riot and “lay bare the record just how responsible and how objectfully violating of his constitutional oath” the former president was. 

You can't trust Republicans and Democrats to do this Commission properly, because they have such a strong stake in justifying what they have already done. The 9/11 Commission was given an appearance of impartiality by balancing 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats. That approach won't suffice this time. 

"The blowback against the seven Republican senators who supported former President Donald J. Trump’s conviction in his impeachment trial has begun."

"In Louisiana, the state Republican Party’s executive committee voted unanimously on Saturday to censure Senator Bill Cassidy, who was just re-elected in November and was among those who voted to find Mr. Trump guilty. The state’s Republican attorney general, Jeff Landry, said Mr. Cassidy had 'fallen into the trap laid by Democrats to have Republicans attack Republicans.' Two of the Republicans who voted for conviction, Senators Richard M. Burr of North Carolina and Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, are not seeking re-election next year.... Of the seven Republicans who voted to convict Mr. Trump, only one of them, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, will be on the ballot in 2022. But she is a uniquely formidable candidate in her state, having once won re-election as a write-in candidate after losing a primary."

The NYT reports.

They're voting on guilty/not guilty. UPDATE: 57 to 43. Trump is acquitted.

That happened fast!

"Yet, there was a glaring omission in the substance of the House arguments. The managers... only briefly touched on proving any 'state of mind' needed for such a conviction."

"That is why I have referred to their case as more emotive than probative. It lacked direct evidence to support the claim that Trump wanted to incite an actual insurrection or rebellion against the United States, as alleged in the article of impeachment. I do not believe that an acquittal was inevitable in this case, but it was all but assured by critical decisions made by the House in this impeachment. The unforced errors discussed below raise the question of whether the Democrats 'tanked' the trial.... The House is not alleging reckless or negligent conduct leading to a riot. It is alleging incitement to actually seek rebellion or overthrow of the country. The article specifically refers to section 3 of the 14th Amendment in its prohibition of anyone holding office if they 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion against' the United States. Even moderate senators who condemned Trump for his speech would be highly unlikely to convict on such an article. The House made it easy on those seeking acquittal.... The House brief in the Senate further highlighted the lack of direct evidence on Trump’s state of mind. It laid out an emotionally charged but legally incomplete case for the Senate. To convict, the House needs to show Trump was more than reckless. It crafted the article as inciting an actual rebellion or insurrection, not mere negligence."

Writes Jonathan Turley in "Did The Democrats “Tank” The Second Trump Trial?"

"While a close call, I am persuaded that impeachments are a tool primarily of removal and we therefore lack jurisdiction."

"The Constitution makes perfectly clear that presidential criminal misconduct while in office can be prosecuted after the president has left office, which in my view alleviates the otherwise troubling 'January exception' argument raised by the House."

Wrote Mitch McConnell, quoted in "Hours before the verdict, McConnell tells Republicans he plans to vote to acquit Trump, calling it ‘a close call’" (NYT).

To say "close call" is to hedge his political bet. To rely on the jurisdictional ground avoids the question on the merits. Who knows if he'd consider that a "close call" too?

The NYT seems to know, because it has this:

The leader had let it be known that he believed Mr. Trump committed impeachable offenses and told advisers and colleagues he was open to conviction as the best way of purging Mr. Trump from the Republican Party. He even said publicly that Mr. Trump had “provoked the attack.” 

"The defense lawyers contended that Democrats were pursuing Mr. Trump out of personal and partisan animosity, using the word 'hatred' 15 times during their formal presentation..."

"... and they cast the trial as an effort to suppress a political opponent and his supporters. 'It is about canceling 75 million Trump voters and criminalizing political viewpoints,' [Trump's lawyer Bruce] Castor said. 'That’s what this trial is really about. It is the only existential issue before us. It asks for constitutional cancel culture to take over in the United States Senate. Are we going to allow canceling and banning and silencing to be sanctioned in this body?'" 

Write Peter Baker and Nicholas Fandos in the NYT, in an article that begins, "Former President Donald J. Trump’s legal team mounted a combative defense on Friday focused more on assailing Democrats for 'hypocrisy' and 'hatred' than justifying Mr. Trump’s own monthslong effort to overturn a democratic election that culminated in last month’s deadly assault on the Capitol."

"Hatred" is a strong word. We're told Trump's lawyers used it 15 times. I would like to understand the usage, but this NYT article doesn't give us even one of the 15 "hatred" quotes. Was it just a hot-headed substitute for partisanship? Trump antagonists "hate" him — don't they say that themselves? How much power does it have anymore? 

And here, I found the transcript. Here are some of the hatreds: 

The Trump lawyers' "Fight" montage is devastating and — if you're not bent on getting Trump convicted — hilarious.

 

Maybe this cheerful, rousing song with cheer up Trump haters:

A pithy montage of incitement hypocrisy.

You're responsible enough, Donald.

I just wanted to elevate something I jotted out in the comments section to the previous post. The post is mostly about a spiked NYT column that criticized a NYT decision to fire a reporter who had said the n-word. 

The columnist's focus on the speaker's intent connected to what I said was "the question I think should be at the core of the impeachment trial but is not: Did Trump intend that the crowd break into the Capitol and terrorize the members of Congress?"

In the comments, David Begley said, "Ann is correct in focusing on Trump’s intent. Did the House Managers even talk about intent?" 

I responded:

I was not willing to sit through the hours and hours of presentation of other things that I already knew. I wanted them to focus on the decisive question: Trump's responsibility. Some people have a low standard and think that if Trump stirred up the crowd and made them feel energized to do what they independently decided to do, he's responsible enough. But they're choosing, I think, to offer nothing to those of us who think Trump needs to have specifically intended the breaking into the Capitol. Can anyone point me to the part of the trial where my concern is addressed? I'm not willing to stare at a smokescreen.

The post title is a play on an old Obama quote that I've always found highly amusing, but I'm quite serious in asking my question. Whether or not I am part of that You're-responsible-enough-Donald crowd, I want to be pointed to the part of the trial that addresses the question: Did Trump intend that the crowd break into the Capitol and terrorize the members of Congress?

ADDED: I'm reading "Takeaways From Day 3 of Trump’s Impeachment Trial/The House managers concluded their case by asserting that the Jan. 6 violence wouldn’t have happened without former President Donald Trump and that his supporters believed he had invited their help" in the NYT. 

It confirms my sense that my question was never focused on. 

The "takeaways" are, first: 

The angry, violent mob came to Washington at Trump’s invitation, the prosecution concludes.

But there is nothing wrong with drawing a big crowd of protesters. The huge crowd was overwhelmingly peaceful. Some portion of it became a mob and resorted to breaking into a building. But to say that isn't to say Trump caused the break in. And you don't need a "invitation" to go to Washington. We all have a right to travel to Washington and to protest whatever we want. Protests tend to take place at the site of the thing that is being protested. And speakers speak to crowds. We don't normally condemn that. I want to see consistency and clarity on these issues. Should Black Lives Matter speakers be denounced because they draw crowds and stir up emotions and later some of the crowd becomes a violent mob? 

The second "takeaway":

Even after the attack, managers say Mr. Trump showed a ‘lack of remorse.’

This is a makeweight argument. If you don't confess that you've done wrong, you're tarred as lacking remorse. Of course, if you do confess, you've confessed. That's even better for the prosecution. 

The third "takeaway:

Vice President Mike Pence’s presence looms large as a traitor, victim and hero.

So what? What relevance to Trump's guilt? 

The fourth "takeaway":

Trump still appears to have enough votes to be acquitted.

Not surprising and not anything that counts against Trump.

The New York Post publishes the Bret Stephens column that the New York Times spiked.

It's not that Stephens, a regular NYT columnist, can or would just give the rejected column to another newspaper to publish. The Post tells us the column — which defends the NYT reporter who got ousted for saying the n-word — "circulated among Times staffers and others" and the Post got hold of it "from one of them, not Stephens himself." Presumably, the Post publishes it because it is newsworthy — not as an opinion on the news but because the spiking of it is news, so we need to see what it is. 

Let's read it:

Every serious moral philosophy, every decent legal system and every ethical organization cares deeply about intention. 

It is the difference between murder and manslaughter. It is an aggravating or extenuating factor in judicial settings. It is a cardinal consideration in pardons (or at least it was until Donald Trump got in on the act).

Speaking of Donald Trump, it's the question I think should be at the core of the impeachment trial but is not: Did Trump intend that the crowd break into the Capitol and terrorize the members of Congress?  

It’s an elementary aspect of parenting, friendship, courtship and marriage. A hallmark of injustice is indifference to intention.

Yeah, why are the House Managers indifferent to this distinction? I am getting distracted! This Stephen's column reads like a criticism of the House Managers case against Trump. Trump said something, perhaps without any intention of causing the harm, but the harm did ensue. To care about the harm and not what the accused person intended is a "hallmark of injustice." Noted!

"TV coverage of the trial on Tuesday afternoon averaged 11 million viewers on broadcast networks ABC and CBS and the three main cable news outlets — CNN, Fox News and MSNBC."

"NBC also aired coverage but its audience figures weren't available at publication time. The first day of Trump's previous impeachment trial in January 2020 also drew 11 million viewers across six networks, including NBC. Tuesday's average will obviously climb above that mark when NBC's total is added. MSNBC grabbed the largest audience with 2.87 million viewers from 1-5:15 p.m. ET, a little ahead of the 2.66 million who watched the trial on CNN. Fox News averaged 1.95 million viewers, followed by ABC (1.8 million) and CBS (1.74 million), according to Nielsen fast national ratings."

Hollywood Reporter reports.

"If Donald Trump directly caused the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, then Democrats need to prove it...."

"Americans need to see all the evidence. And I’m worried that Democrats won’t supply enough of it. Citizens need testimony and documentation that painstakingly lays out the theory of the case: how Trump planned to claim fraud well before the election and how he followed through afterward, using false statements and frivolous lawsuits to deceive his followers into believing that he hadn’t really lost; how his political team helped bring the angriest and most extreme of those followers to D.C. on the day the results were being certified and whipped the crowd into a rage; how Trump himself then pointed that mob at Congress; and how the president both demonstrated and magnified his complicity by refusing to intervene for long hours as his supporters rampaged through the U.S. Capitol. Yet as I write, opening arguments have begun in Trump’s Senate trial, and Democrats aren’t even sure whether they’re going to call witnesses.... [E]ven the most meticulous case is unlikely to sway the 17 Republican senators that Democrats would need to convict Trump....  [But it is] important is to lay out the entire case before the large number of Americans who haven’t understood exactly how the events of Jan. 6 unfolded or how much Trump and his allies did to foment that insurrection....  And what America needs most right now is some politicians who demonstrate what it looks like to do the right thing for the nation even at some personal political cost."

Writes Megan McArdle (in WaPo).

I would add that we need to see a fair trial. It doesn't matter that the outcome is already obvious. The Democrats have brought us this far, and they need to follow through in a way that impresses us with its legitimacy. It's hard to do that when the judges are lined up by party and they're all self-interested in the outcome and were involved in the incident at the heart of the case. But to cut matters short will make things worse and leave Trump supporters aggrieved and believing that a great injustice was perpetrated.

ADDED: Rereading this post, I can see that a Trump antagonist might say: Since Trump is going to win, Trump supporters will have no occasion to cry injustice. That attitude could stoke confidence that the House Managers can conduct the trial in any manner that they find politically advantageous. I think that would be a terrible mistake. Once you take up the powerful weapons of government, you must demonstrate that you are circumspect and trustworthy. 

ALSO: I cut down the quote so I wouldn't copy too much, but one of the lines I left out is something that I thought would be too distracting. Now, I find, I'm still thinking about it, and it's nagging at me, so I need to include it. It's what comes right after the quote in my post title: 

To be clear, I believe Trump deserves to be convicted of grave crimes against the republic and barred from ever again running for office.

You see the problem! McArdle hasn't seen the evidence that is needed to convince the public, and yet she is already convinced. And there's something about that "To be clear, I believe..." that seems like she feels pressure to assure WaPo readers that she's on the right side — Don't worry, I know he's guilty, it's those other people that I, like you, am worried about. 

I do give McArdle credit for saying "I believe" and not "I know." And I notice she says "deserves to be convicted of grave crimes" not "is guilty of grave crimes." That's rather sneaky, because you could say "deserves to be convicted of grave crimes" even if you think he may not actually be guilty of the crime charged. You may simply think Trump is horrible and has done so many things that are wrong that he deserves to have something pinned on him. 

"Meandering Performance by Defense Lawyers Enrages Trump/The former president was particularly angry at Bruce L. Castor Jr., one of his lawyers, for acknowledging the effectiveness of the House Democrats’ presentation."

Maggie Haberman reports (at the NYT). 

Mr. Castor, the first to speak, delivered a rambling, almost somnambulant defense of the former president for nearly an hour. Mr. Trump, who often leaves the television on in the background even when he is holding meetings, was furious, people familiar with his reaction said. On a scale of one to 10, with 10 being the angriest, Mr. Trump “was an eight,” one person familiar with his reaction said.... 

None of the lawyers from the first impeachment trial who defended Mr. Trump returned for the second round. And most of the team he initially hired abruptly parted ways with him days before the trial began.... 

Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, castigated Mr. Trump’s defense lawyers in explaining why he voted “yes” on the question of whether the Senate has jurisdiction in the case even though Mr. Trump is out of office. Asked why he believed they did poorly, Mr. Cassidy replied to reporters, “Did you listen to it?” “It was disorganized, random — they talked about many things, but they didn’t talk about the issue at hand,” he said.

It is painful to watch a legal proceeding where one side has far, far better legal representation than the other. Castor is a former prosecutor, so perhaps he's used to being on the side that is much better represented and has skills honed through encounters with overworked, underprepared criminal defense lawyers. I don't know if I want to feel sorry for Trump for his lack of representation, when there are so many people struggling with insufficient legal assistance. It's easy to ignore such people. They're not in the spotlight. 

ADDED: Trump is a conspicuous victim of poor representation. But I do feel bad about it. I want to see a fair fight. Yet perhaps it is his fault for trying to dictate what his lawyers must argue and leaving them in the position where their only alternative was to walk away, leaving Trump to scramble for someone, anyone who will represent him, and those are the characters who are struggling to hold up Trump's end of the fight. It's a grisly spectacle, but Trump has responsibility for it. 

It was at precisely the 9-minute mark that I turned off the Bruce Castor opening statement, because I didn't need to watch someone else's nightmare.

 

He's revealed that he changed what he was going to say because the House Managers' presentation was so good and rambled about how we all feel emotional when we've witnessed violence and — seeming to want to discourse on the subject of the specialness of U.S. Senators — he takes us back to his childhood, when he used to listen to a record — an old-time LP on a record player, remember those things? — and his parents had a record of Senator Everett Dirksen, I bet some of you remember Everett Dirkson, oh, my, he had a deep, resonant, sonorous voice, he would intone, intone with such seriousness, about gallant men... that's what the record was called "Gallant Men," though of course, today, it would need to be "Gallant Men and Women" — chuckle, chuckle — because, you know, women, women are gallant too. Shall we talk about gallantry? Gallantry is important in this world, and Senators can be gallant! Some folks say ga-LANT, accent on the second syllable, but whether you say GAL-lant or ga-LANT, whether you be Democrat or Republican, male or female, Kansan or Nebraska — whoever, wherever, from whatever walk of life that may lead you here today to this great chamber, this chamber that was breached — breached! — on that horrible day, you know that violence is wrong, violence is terrible, and violence against the most gallant, most serious, resonant, sonorous-voiced chamber that has ever graced the face of this earth, from the great, gallant Everett Dirkson, through the ages, down to you, you most sonorous and gallant denizens of this sacred chamber, it was a most awful event that occurred that day, January 6th, and it made me think of that time when I was but a little boy, barely able to operate the record player, with its tone arm and its revolutions per minute setting, but I would work oh so hard to cue up that voice, that wonderful voice of Everett Dirkson, why that man, speaking of gallantness — gallantry — it reached me in the depth of my being — though I was but a little boy — and I thought someday, perhaps I too, could find my way to the Senate Chamber and I could stand before it and open my mouth and speak, speak in my voice, a voice that would perhaps have matured in the deep, warm, chilling depth of the deep voice of Everett Dirkson, and I would be standing there, speaking, and... oh, my God, please, let me wake from this nightmare!

It's -1° — feels like -12° — here in Madison, Wisconsin, so I'm pretty much stuck indoors today, but...

 ... I still can't picture myself turning on the television and watching the damned impeachment trial.

Page 7 of Trump's Trial Memorandum concedes the very fact upon which I've said his guilt hinges.

Here's a PDF of the document. From page 7: 

Law Enforcement Had Reports Of A Potential Attack On The Capitol Several Days Before President Trump's Speech.

Despite going to great lengths to include information regarding Mr. Trump's comments dating back to August 2020 and various postings on social media, the House Managers are silent on one very chilling fact. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has confirmed that the breach at the Capitol was planned several days in advance of the rally, and therefore had nothing to do with the President's speech on January 6th at the Ellipse. According to investigative reports all released after January 6, 2021, "The Capitol Police, the NYPD and the FBI all had prior warning that there was going to be an attack on the Capitol."

Obviously, Trump's lawyers think it's exculpatory that there was an advance plan. But I have been saying the opposite. Here's my January 10th post: 

If Trump knew there was a plan to storm the Capitol building, then his speech to the crowd was an incitement, even though he never told the crowd to commit any act of violence. 

2 days ago, I read Trump's [January 6th] speech looking for any language that could support the claim that he incited the crowd to storm the Capitol. I wrote a post listing the 7 most violence-inducing statements. They're about fighting and showing strength and never giving up, but they're all consistent with an idea of having a big, traditional street protest — with lots of people marching and displaying their passion for the cause through big numbers, determined-looking faces, and lots [of] words on signs and in chants and speeches. 

But what if Trump knew there was a plan to storm the Capitol? Then all those words are transformed! They become an incitement to the violence, especially if the people in the crowd know he knows. The avoidance of references to violence would be part of a shared understanding — like winking. We know what we're going to do. 

Now, at this point, I don't even know that there was a plan....

But now Trump's trial memo asserts that there was a plan.  

Was there a plan or wasn't there? If there was a plan, when did it develop and who knew about it? If it was talked about on social media, the record exists. Wouldn't the FBI have seen it in advance and communicated to the President about it?... ... I want to see... all the evidence of a plan, and what law enforcement knew about this plan, whether Trump was informed, and why there wasn't better protection of the Capitol. 

I have held off from believing that Trump incited the crowd to breach the Capitol. You can see that in my 7 statements post. But if he was informed of a plan, then I will read all of those statements as an incitement.... 

"What if They Held an Impeachment Trial and Nobody Came?/Maybe it’s a good thing that we’re more focused on Biden. Or maybe we’ve just given up.... Let’s not start with impeachment trial No. 2...."

"Interesting how little anybody’s been talking about Trump’s trial this week, including us. Maybe the Super Bowl got in the way, but I’m thinking the country is maybe just Done With Trump. Now there’s a good slogan for a T-shirt.... The simple fact is that Trump is very likely to get away with inciting an insurrection against Congress and American democracy, thanks to the complicity of spineless and unprincipled Republicans. And to go back to your earlier point for a second, is there anything more disgusting than Kevin McCarthy asking Cheney to apologize for her vote to impeach?"

2 NYT editors — Gail Collins & Bret Stephens — have a dialogue that shows... what? That the elite wish the impeachment would just please go away?

"I write to you today regarding the so-called Disciplinary Committee hearing aimed at revoking my union membership. Who cares!"

"While I’m not familiar with your work, I’m very proud of my work on movies such as Home Alone 2, Zoolander and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps; and television shows including The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Saturday Night Live, and of course, one of the most successful shows in television history, The Apprentice—to name just a few! I've also greatly helped the cable news television business (said to be a dying platform with not much time left until I got involved in politics), and created thousands of jobs at networks such as MSDNC and Fake News CNN, among many others. Which brings me to your blatant attempt at free media attention to distract from your dismal record as a union. Your organization has done little for its members, and nothing for me—besides collecting dues and promoting dangerous un-American policies and ideas—as evident by your massive unemployment rates and lawsuits from celebrated actors, who even recorded a video asking, ‘Why isn’t the union fighting for me?' These, however, are policy failures. Your disciplinary failures are even more egregious. I no longer wish to be associated with your union. As such, this letter is to inform you of my immediate resigning from SAG-AFTRA. You have done nothing for me." 

That's Donald Trump's wonderfully caustic letter to the Screen Actors Guild, reported at Fox News. 

It's so refreshing to get a new blast of Trump rhetoric. Therefore, I hope he says yes to the letter from the House Managers, reported at CNN: "Two days ago, you filed an Answer in which you denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment. You have thus attempted to put critical facts at issue notwithstanding the clear and overwhelming evidence of your constitutional offense. In light of your disputing these factual allegations, I write to invite you to provide testimony under oath, either before or during the Senate impeachment trial, concerning your conduct on January 6, 2021."

"President Trump was not the first Presidential candidate who declared himself cheated out of victory."

"Andrew Jackson, for instance, strongly believed that the 1824 election had been stolen from him because powerful forces refused to accept his candidacy on behalf of the common man. Richard Nixon believed in 1960 that he had been cheated out of the Presidency by widespread voter fraud in Illinois, which he thought secured John F. Kennedy’s victory. And in 2000, Vice President Al Gore and many of his political supporters thought he would have won the Presidency had all of Florida’s votes been properly counted. Yet despite their feelings of grievance, all of these Presidential candidates accepted the election results and acquiesced to the peaceful transfer of power required by the Constitution. President Trump, alone in our Nation’s history, did not." 

From the House Managers' trial memo. 

What is the significance of this historical record? That there's a tradition of accepting what you believe is abuse, of not speaking about it and rallying supporters? But after Trump won in 2016, there was vigorous speech about the illegitimacy of the election. Is it just that these other candidates "acquiesced to the peaceful transfer of power"? But Trump acquiesced. He left on schedule. He just talked belligerently and had lots of adherents who believed him.

What is the House Managers' point in recounting this history? This section of the memo (at page 44) just concludes that his belief that he won is "no defense at all for abuse of office." Fine, but even if his belief is not a defense against a charge of abuse, is his belief itself an abuse of office? Is his speech about his belief an abuse of office? 

The question is whether he intended to incite the crowd to commit acts of violence. We care about his state of mind. What does his belief that he won have to do with any of that? The memo just moves on to the next issue. I suppose one might say that Trump's assertion that he's the rightful winner was an essential part of the motivation to attack the Capitol, but that doesn't mean that the assertion alone is a call to attack the Capitol.