Hello and welcome to the 538 Politics Podcast. I'm Galen Druke. Today House impeachment

managers finished laying out their argument for why former President Trump should be convicted

by the Senate for inciting an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. They presented evidence

spanning months from before the election when then President Trump refused to commit

to a peaceful transfer of power, to his attempts to overturn election results in individual

states, and then to footage inside the Capitol on January 6th that the public had not previously

seen. We've talked about the political dynamics within the Senate previously on this podcast.

It appears unlikely that 17 Republicans will ultimately join Democrats to convict Trump,

although we'll have to see how the vote comes down. But these proceedings are still a meaningful

record that could shake public opinion and the historical record. So today we're going

to dig into the evidence and the law. And here with me to do that is our colleague at ABC

News, Kate Shaw, Kate is a legal contributor at ABC law professor at Cardozo School of

Law and co-host of the podcast strict scrutiny. Welcome Kate.

Hey, thanks for having me back. And listeners may remember Kate from this podcast previously

during the last impeachment. So thank you for coming again. Let's get to it. What was

the crux of the argument that House impeachment managers made for why former President Trump

should be convicted for inciting an insurrection?

The case that they made this week tracked pretty closely the single article of impeachment

for incitement of insurrection. And it focused, of course, on the events of January 6th.

But just as you said, it took a pretty broad view of sort of January 6th as the culmination

of a sustained campaign that started on November 3rd in some ways. But even earlier than that

in many ways, sort of the President Trump seeking to discredit the outcome of the election

...