Trump ‘getting angrier’ as trial continues amid questions over his legal team, reports say

  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
Alex Woodward
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
(U.S. Senate TV via REUTERS)
(U.S. Senate TV via REUTERS)

Donald Trump has grown “angrier” as his second impeachment trial for inciting an insurrection at the Capitol has continued into a fifth day, as his attorneys sought to secure a verdict, according to reports.

New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman reported that the former president “has been getting angrier as the trial played out” following two days of arguments from House impeachment managers acting as prosecutors in the trial, followed by a brief defence mounted by his legal team, which repeatedly refused to say when the former president knew about the violence in the halls of Congress, and whether he knew his vice president Mike Pence was close to danger.

On Saturday, senators – acting as jurors in the trial – voted 55-45 to allow impeachment managers and Mr Trump’ s counsel to call witnesses, although they later decided not to and moved on to closing arguments.

Democratic impeachment managers had requested testimony from Republican Congresswoman Jaime Herrera-Beutler, among 10 House Republicans who broke from the party to impeach then-president Trump in the House, following her description of a phone conversation between House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Mr Trump on 6 January as his supporters mounted an assault inside the Capitol building.

Read more: Follow live updates from Trump’s impeachment trial

Five Republicans – Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina – voted to support witnesses in the trial.

In a statement on Friday night, Congresswoman Herrera-Beutler said: “To the patriots who were standing next to the former president as these conversations were happening, or even to the former Vice President: if you have something to add here, now would be the time.”

Impeachment manager Jamie Raskin said the team believes “we’ve proven our case,” adding that the late-breaking statement from Ms Herrera Beutler introduced “an additional critical piece of corroborating evidence, further confirming the charges before you.”

Mr Trump, who was playing golf in Florida this week while the trial was underway, has effectively rejected any call to appear.

CNN has previously reported that Mr Trump was “basically screaming” during his legal team’s meandering opening statements.

The defence has reportedly struggled to continue through the week, as attorneys faced chaotic internal deliberations after damning evidence and criticism from their client, with growing legal costs that could extend into the following days and weeks.

On Saturday, Mr Trump’s lawyer Michael van der Veen threatened to call dozens of witnesses in order to delay the proceedings and drag Democratic lawmakers into the process.

“Now is the time to hear closing arguments,” he said, as the threatened to depose as many as 100 witnesses.

The former president’s attorney Jason Miller, who is at the Capitol, has drawn up a document that says “witness list 301 (so far)”.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz told reporters on Saturday that “if we do call witnesses, it’s not going to be one-sided.”

“The reason you’re seeing this Hail Mary is everybody knows the outcome of this proceeding,” he said. “If we go down the road of witnesses, this impeachment trial could last all of February, all of March, all of April.”

Read More

Senate to hear witnesses in Trump impeachment trial after Capitol riot call between Trump and McCarthy resurfaces

Mitch McConnell says he will vote to acquit Trump while calling decision a ‘close call’

The 6 Republican senators who could vote to convict Donald Trump

David Schoen and Bruce Castor: Who are Donald Trump’s defense team?

Latest Stories

  • Live updates: Senate votes to acquit Trump at impeachment trial

    Former President Donald Trump was acquitted of the charge that he incited the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

  • Magnitude 7.3 earthquake strikes near site of Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster

    At least 14 aftershocks had been recorded and almost 850,000 households left without power, authorities said.

  • Russia says it would be ready to cut EU ties if hit with painful sanctions

    Russia said on Friday it would be ready to sever ties with the European Union if the bloc hit it with painful economic sanctions, a statement that Germany described as disconcerting and incomprehensible. Ties between Russia and the West, already at post-Cold War lows, have come under renewed pressure over the arrest and jailing of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny. Three European diplomats told Reuters on Thursday the EU was likely to impose travel bans and asset freezes on allies of Russian President Vladimir Putin, possibly as soon as this month.

  • Biden administration has “deep concerns” about WHO’s COVID-19 probe

    President Biden's National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said in a statement on Saturday that the administration is concerned by the World Health Organization's (WHO) probe into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. Why it matters: Sullivan said the administration fears the Chinese government may have intervened or altered the findings of the investigation.Get market news worthy of your time with Axios Markets. Subscribe for free.Context: On the first day of his administration, Biden acted to return the U.S. to the WHO. The Trump administration had started a withdrawal from the organization in July 2020.WHO teams last month conducted the investigation in Wuhan, China, where the virus first emerged. The investigation had been agreed to last May, but it was delayed after Chinese officials withheld authorization to allow the international team's scheduled visit. The delay drew a rare rebuke from WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.The WHO team concluded that it's "extremely unlikely" the virus came from a laboratory accident, and that it most likely jumped to humans via an intermediate species.“Our initial findings suggest that the introduction through an intermediary host species is the most likely pathway and one that will require more studies and more specific, targeted research,” said WHO scientist Peter Ben Embarek.What they're saying: "The mission of the World Health Organization (WHO) has never been more important, and we have deep respect for its experts and the work they are doing every day to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and advance global health and health security," Sullivan said in a statement."But re-engaging the WHO also means holding it to the highest standards. And at this critical moment, protecting the WHO’s credibility is a paramount priority." "We have deep concerns about the way in which the early findings of the COVID-19 investigation were communicated and questions about the process used to reach them.""It is imperative that this report be independent, with expert findings free from intervention or alteration by the Chinese government. To better understand this pandemic and prepare for the next one, China must make available its data from the earliest days of the outbreak."The big picture: Going forward, Sullivan said all countries, including China, should be more transparent in order to prevent health emergencies like the coronavirus pandemic and allow other countries to respond to them faster.Like this article? Get more from Axios and subscribe to Axios Markets for free.

  • BBC director general warns of 'global threat' to media freedom after China bans British broadcaster

    The BBC’s director general has warned of the “growing global threat to the free media” after the corporation was banned from broadcasting in China and Hong Kong. In his first intervention since Beijing announced the ban, Tim Davie said that countries such as China were now trying to expand their “control of information”. Mr Davie, who took up the post of director general in the autumn, said it was of “deep concern” that China was preventing the BBC from doing its job. But he stressed the wider concern that China - and by implication other countries such as Russia - were trying to peddle their own state-controlled news operations abroad while attacking the free press within their borders. Mr Davie last night told The Telegraph: “Media freedom matters. The latest developments in China, including the banning of the World Service in Hong Kong, are deeply worrying developments. The BBC should be able to do its reporting without fear or favour. “It is of deep concern when our journalists are restricted and their work curtailed. Importantly, in these difficult times when misinformation is rife, we have seen growing audiences for trusted news sources - including hundreds of millions coming to the BBC. “This is not just about stopping the BBC from broadcasting news in China, there are significant and growing global threats to the free media as some seek to increase their control of information. Now, more than ever, it is important that we speak out to defend free and fair journalism.” Senior BBC sources said there was now three-fold threat from states such as China and Russia, through manipulation of social media, funding their own biased news operations and shutting down trusted international broadcasters. “These states are actively manipulating social media to undermine legal democracies while at the same time flexing their muscles by pumping millions of rubles or whatever currency into global news services that distort the truth. And now they are preventing the likes of the BBC from broadcasting.” China banned the BBC World News Channel on Thursday in apparent retaliation for Ofcom's decision to revoke the UK broadcasting license of Chinese state broadcaster CGTN after finding the organisation is “ultimately controlled by the Chinese Communist Party”

  • Acquittal, but Not Vindication

    The impeachment trial is hurtling toward a conclusion, after brief drama over potentially calling witnesses. Former President Trump is almost certain to get acquitted, but it won’t be much of a vindication. His conduct in the post-election period and on January 6 will blight his reputation forevermore. He waged a dishonest and poisonous campaign to overturn the election that culminated in a mob disrupting the counting of electoral votes at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. The new videos played by the House managers at the trial brought home again the national embarrassment of that day, with top elected officials scurrying for safety as the rabble descended. The House managers were at their strongest describing Trump’s conspiracy-laden effort to reverse the election result, his long catalogue of inflammatory comments, and his dereliction of duty in failing to urge the rioters to cease and desist as early and forcefully as possible. All of this is damnable, inarguably so. The weakness in their case stems from the defects of the article of impeachment itself, which both goes too far and not far enough. At the core of the article is the contention that Trump incited the crowd to attack the Capitol, that he “willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged — and foreseeably resulted in — lawless action at the Capitol.” This suggests an element of intent that the managers couldn’t prove. On the other hand, incredibly enough, the article doesn’t even mention Trump’s conduct during the riot, when he continued to criticize Mike Pence as he was being targeted by the mob, and that he went AWOL as allies begged him to tell the rioters to stand down. Trump’s defense team didn’t have good answers — or really any answers — when queried in the Q&A about what Trump was doing in these hours. If House Democrats hadn’t rushed to impeach Trump in an afternoon, they might have written a more airtight article. As it is, a number of Republicans will conclude, reasonably enough, that Trump is still guilty. If he hadn’t falsely insisted that he’d really won the election in the most incendiary terms and promoted a protest on January 6, there would have been no rabble to run out of control in the first place. On top of this, his pressure campaign to get Republican officials to throw the election to him in key states was intolerable in its own right. We hope Republicans voting to acquit largely on process grounds — a post-presidency trial is unconstitutional, it’s time to move on, etc. — will at least speak forthrightly about the president’s misconduct. This has been a quickie impeachment, running about a month from beginning to end. But the underlying events, and Trump’s unforgivably reckless behavior, will long reverberate.

  • Bidens view Valentine's Day decorations on White House lawn

    First lady Jill Biden has a valentine for the American people: giant pink, white and red hearts bearing calls for “unity,” “hope” and “love” installed early Friday on the North Lawn of the White House. “I just wanted some joy,” the first lady told reporters during a surprise visit to the lawn with President Joe Biden and their two German shepherds, Champ and Major.

  • Fake rallies in made-for-Putin videos tell Russia's leader how popular he is

    They came from all walks of life - paramedics, footballers, steelworkers and students - to march in a huge column for their leader, Vladimir Putin. At least that's how it seemed. A slick new video showing young and old congregating under the name of the Russian leader has been exposed as one of a number of fake rallies concocted by the Kremlin. Rattled by protests in support of opposition leader Alexei Navalny that have swept across the country, Mr Putin's government appears desperate to prove his popularity is unscathed in a series of dubious demonstrations. In Volgograd, formerly Stalingrad, where one of the videos was filmed, the crowd joins together after leaving their workplaces and football pitches to flash the torches on their phones at the site of one of the bloodiest battles of the Second World War. The clip, shared by local MPs from Mr Putin's United Russia, wrapped up with a strapline across the screen: “We stand with you, Vladimir Vladimirovich!”.

  • Louise Linton complains she’s been ‘villainised’ because of association with Trump administration

    ‘I’ve faced a lot of criticism over the years...by being so closely tied to such a controversial administration’

  • Dozens hurt by huge blaze close to Iran-Afghanistan border

    At least 60 people were injured as hundreds of fuel vehicles exploded in a massive blaze that tore through a customs post in Afghanistan close to the Iranian border, disrupting power supplies and causing millions of dollars of damage. Iranian authorities sent fire engines and ambulances across the border, while scores of locals fought the blaze in the border town of Islam Qala before it was brought under control. Waheed Qatali, governor of the western province of Herat, said Iranian authorities and NATO-led personnel in Afghanistan were asked for assistance to help contain the fire, which damaged electricity infrastructure, leaving much of Herat's capital city without power.

  • 2 brothers from Kansas, Idaho arrested in Capitol riots

    Two brothers from Kansas and Idaho were arrested Friday on federal charges stemming from the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, the FBI said. William Pope, of Topeka, Kansas, and Michael Pope, of Sandpoint, Idaho, were arrested on federal charges of obstruction or impeding any official proceeding, causing civil disorder and other counts.

  • 12 Best Bedding Sets for Kids

    Sweet dreams are made of theseOriginally Appeared on Architectural Digest

  • Six pirate skeletons discovered in 1717 shipwreck off coast of Cape Cod

    A team of investigators has discovered the remains of at least six pirates from a 1717 shipwreck off Cape Cod, Massachusetts that could lead to them to the infamous buccaneer Captain “Black Sam” Bellamy. The remains, entombed in several large concretions – hard, compact mineral masses – were found in the wreck of the Whydah, the world’s only confirmed pirate shipwreck, by a team from the Whydah Pirate Museum in Yarmouth, Massachusetts. The skeletons are currently being examined by underwater explorer Barry Clifford and his team, the museum said in a statement. Mr Clifford discovered the Whydah in 1984. "We hope that modern, cutting-edge technology will help us identify these pirates and reunite them with any descendants who could be out there,” Mr Clifford said in the statement. The Whydah was originally commissioned in London as a cargo and slave-trading ship by Sir Humphrey Morice, an MP and figurehead of Britain’s slave trade, and was named after the Kingdom of Whydah in modern-day Benin.

  • Hours after new CDC guidance for schools released, teachers give nod of approval

    The guidelines released Friday don't require Covid-19 vaccinations for all educators before returning to classrooms.

  • Ivanka brought Trump and Pence together for ‘uncomfortable’ meeting after Capitol riot

    The president didn’t call to check on the vice-president during the attack

  • Can you go back to living your pre-lockdown life after being vaccinated?

    Vaccinations in the U.S. continue to accelerate. More than 1 million Americans are getting vaccinated per day, which is helping us get one step closer to herd immunity. But with a large portion of the population still ineligible for vaccination, and uncertainty around whether vaccinated people can spread the disease, many immunized Americans are wondering: Is it safe to gather with friends and family? Yahoo News Medical Contributor Dr. Kavita Patel explains.

  • 'Snow apocalypse' blankets frozen Moscow

    Heavy snowfalls have buried Moscow in massive snow piles, disrupting transport, delaying flights and making it tough to get around for pedestrians braving strong winds and temperatures of minus 15 Celsius (5 Fahrenheit). The snowfall started late on Thursday and was expected to end on Sunday. Russia's emergency service advised people to stay away from trees, warning of winds gusts of 18 metres per second (40 mph).

  • 2 killed, 2 injured when car plunges off Chicago expressway

    Two people were killed and two more were seriously injured early Friday when their vehicle hit a concrete wall and plunged off a Chicago expressway onto a street about 43 feet (13 meters) below, police said. The vehicle “was traveling too fast for road conditions” on Interstate 55 — also known as the Stevenson Expressway — when the accident happened at around 4 a.m., Illinois State Police said. The vehicle tumbled off the highway, struck a light pole and landed on the street in the McKinley Park neighborhood on Chicago’s Southwest Side, Illinois State Police Trooper Omoayena Williams said.

  • Andrew Yang’s Baseless Call to Retire the New York City Flag

    On February 1, Andrew Yang — the New York author, entrepreneur, nonprofiteer, and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate now running for New York City mayor — tweeted that the official flag of his adopted city, a flag that has iconically flown over the New York skyline since 1915, should be offhandedly retired and replaced with a less “old” design. “The colors are based on the Dutch Prince’s flag. . . . The seal is old,” Yang asserted, referring to the official NYC seal borne by the flag. “Corey Johnson [speaker of the NYC Council] proposed having a new flag designed by artists in New York as a symbol of civic pride,” Yang declared — and Yang apparently agrees with him: “I like the idea of a more modern flag for NYC.” In Mr. Yang’s philosophy, longevity is evidently no sign of success. Forget the flag design for a moment. Why the worry about the flag’s age? New York City itself was first settled in 1624 and is, therefore, centuries older than the flag Yang thinks is too geriatric to represent it. Should New York City, or New York State itself, therefore be abolished? Surely not. Oldness qua oldness is not an argument against the NYC banner. Yang needs a better argument to convince New York to abolish the iconic flag designed by the 1915 mayor’s committee. So enough with mere age as an argument. What of the flag itself? Should New York City’s banner be cast into the dustbin of history? Before June 1915, New York City had no official flag, and used, on an ad hoc basis, an unofficial white banner bearing the city seal. “Up to the present time,” as reported in Seal and Flag of the City of New York (published in 1915), “the City of New York has never possessed an official flag in any true sense of the term.” Mayor John Purroy Mitchel appointed a citizen-led committee to produce an official flag and to introduce a historically informed, standardized version of the city seal. The occasion was the 250th anniversary of the installation of the first mayor and board of aldermen of the City of New York in 1665, marking the beginning of “New York City” under the English and the end of Dutch rule over New Amsterdam — aside from a period in 1673–74 when the Netherlands regained control. The blue-white-orange tricolor produced by the mayor’s committee and approved by the city aldermen in 1915 was a smashing victory of design, and has flown proudly and distinctively over New York’s skyline for the last 105 years. The city flag and the seal that it bears combine the colors of the Dutch Republic’s flag with a “distinctively American” eagle crest on the city’s English-style arms, creating a bold emblem that unmistakably represents New York and its past. The flag was intended to showcase the identity and genesis of a fiercely proud American city. It was consciously created to evoke the heritage and history of New York and of New Amsterdam before it. The apparent “oldness” of the emblem is intentional, not accidental. But it appears that all this history is lost on today’s anti-flag crowd. Flag of New York City The design coup of the New York City flag is that it succeeds as a bold and energetic-looking symbol in a way that is in fact fostered, not obscured, by its roots in the past. It also has the official bearing necessary for a city such as New York. While modern flag designers often criticize the practice of putting seals on flags, if any design were an exception to this rule, the NYC flag would be it. The design works, and has for 105 years. Why punish this flag for its success? The same can be said of the design of the seal itself. When introducing their version of the city seal to the board of aldermen for approval, the 1915 Art Committee answered an expected criticism of the design. The committee’s response anticipated the complaints made by Yang over a century later: “It is in no sense a new design,” John B. Pine of the official Art Committee said, “and any criticism that it is not beautiful or that it does not meet heraldic requirements is irrelevant.” He added, No doubt, a more beautiful seal could be designed, but we regard it as of far more importance to perpetuate the seal which was adopted by the Common Council in 1686 and which ever since that date has been used by the City but with slight modification as the symbol of its corporate entity. (These words are found in the above-mentioned book, Seal and Flag of the City of New York. As it happens, John B. Pine himself edited the handsomely bound volume, which was officially authorized by the mayor’s seal and flag committee. It is a great read for anyone interested in the history of Gotham’s civic symbols. One can find it both at the NYC Public Library and online. It gives an in-depth background of the city’s emblems and brand-new official flag. Fittingly, it is bound in the blue and orange tinctures of the city flag. Evidently, the publisher did not share Yang’s qualms about the “Dutch Prince’s” colors.) Anyone concerned that the seal on the city flag is “old” has missed the boat with his concern by a good hundred years. The seal was already of venerable age in 1915, when the art committee and aldermen enthusiastically affixed it to the new Gotham tricolor. Far from deficient in civic pride, the flag was meant from the start to be a grand, civic-minded project that would foster pride in a great American city. Citizen-artists already designed the current flag, so retiring it would achieve nothing but to obscure their work. It would create the same wrong that a “new flag” would supposedly remedy. This suggests that those opposed to the flag do not understand its history, and view it as fair game to create excitement and novelty for a civic pet project. Finally, New York City is far from the only city or county that features the old Dutch, New Amsterdam colors. I am a lifelong resident of Dutchess County, New York, which draws from this aesthetic as well. But at least the NYC flag incorporates the Dutch colors in upright bars. With its orange-white-blue horizontal tricolor, the Dutchess County flag is an exact reproduction of the Dutch Prinsenvlag, distinguished only by the county seal. Ulster County is in the same predicament, as is Albany, the capital of New York State. Yang’s home county of Westchester, fittingly enough, also conspicuously bears the Dutch kleuren on its flag. Americans have stubbornly showcased their heritage through civic symbols throughout the nation’s history. Before sounding another flat-noted judgment on a classic American emblem like the NYC flag, Mr. Yang and his anti-flag allies should recognize that fact. After all, the American flag itself bears the title “Old Glory” — and not as an insult. Editor’s note: This article has been updated since its original publication.

  • More Inside the Light-Filled Los Feliz Home of Two Art-World Wonders

    Between the collection of gallery owner Nino Mier and his wife and Barbara Gladstone Gallery partner Caroline Luce, there are over 300 works of art.Originally Appeared on Architectural Digest