He’s covering the hole so more brains don’t fall out?
I believe that is why he is doing that. There is a rule about hats on the floor. That may be why he doesn’t have it on. Muscle memory.
So… now he’s arguing about precedent set by prior impeachments. Um… aside from the pair trump has racked up there have been only two other impeachments. Wow, that’s a lot of precedent.
Oh, wait - he said “modern impeachments”. That would be Clinton’s. Which was constitutional and went through a Senate trial followed by acquittal.
Not enough 
Can’t wait to see what mr Ruskin says after this.
Did he just wave the red book?!
He’s now arguing that due process isn’t being followed.
Um… there has been a LOT of process just to this point.
Now he’s arguing case law. Um… criminal law due process doesn’t apply to impeachment.
I guess Trump’s team is going for the Baffle Them With Bullshit strategy.
Ah, wait, there is a prayer, and his hand is the head covering.
I cannot help but wonder what would have happened in this trial had the terrorists found Pence (and/or Pelosi) and done as they threatened. Because common sense suggests that there must be a limit to everything, but if (if…) it is indeed so: where would that limit be?
Thanks. I’m Jewish but I’ve never seen anyone doing that. But I’m not much of a Jew and don’t think I’ve ever been anywhere that restricts people wearing a religious head covering.
If you’d asked me two months ago I would have said an armed insurrection culminating in multiple deaths would be the limit. A dead elected official also seems pretty bad, but I doubt anything would be materially different than it is now.
My bold. (BTW, I’m not watching, only reading here, so I don’t know what this looked like.)
Nitpick: kippah, but I gotta say that it ran through my head that it was a kippER on his head. 
Note from the Slate article:I had concluded in my article that, on balance, the evidence solidly favored late impeachability. But late impeachment is a complicated issue, with a lot of evidence and arguments on both sides—and my article tried to present all of it (it ended up being 124 pages long).
So, I said Most experts say it is Constitutional, but some disagree
Former President Trump’s lead impeachment attorney, Bruce Castor, argued on the Senate floor that if Trump actually committed a “high crime or misdemeanor,” then he would have been criminally charged.
So once again they trot out the old:
A president can’t be criminally charged, and when he leaves office he can’t face consequences for inciting a seditious riot by a mob, because you should have criminally charged him when he was president.
Don’t bother to see if Trump actually is guilty of inciting a crowd to attack legislators in an attempt to overthrow government. No, no, that’s not what’s important here. What’s important is that the Democrats should have done what the Republicans told them was impossible to do.
It makes no fucking sense whatsoever. And it doesn’t matter. Because the Senate Clowns (R) have already said their minds are fully made up and to hell with the facts.
One side of mouth: “A president can’t be criminally charged. That is what impeachment is for”
Other side of mouth: “He can’t be impeached, because you should have criminally charged him”
See my post #97 about “ass.”
Oh dear. And I even own, and occasionally have to wear, a few these (caps not fish).
It appears that the primary goal here is to keep Trump eligible to run in '24. Because if that is taken away, the grifting train is derailed.
He’s making it sound like barring Trump from running for office ever again is a bad thing. I am okay with reserving this for all the Presidents who commit sedition.
Looks like the ayes will have it. Got some republican ayes.
56-44
Done ‘til tomorrow.
Yeah, 56-44 on whether it’s even legal to try him. If that 14 minute video wasn’t enough evidence from the get go, I’m worried that this is a huge waste of time.
Brian Williams just answered your question, and you were close.
It is a Jewish thing, and it has to do with the fact that he wasn’t wearing a yarmulke. Apparently, it has to do with the rule that your head has to be covered when you eat or drink. So every time he took a sip of water ( and he took a lot of sips), he was required to cover his head with his hand.