Good morning. 
Tuesday in Whitewater will be mostly cloudy with a high of twenty-seven. Sunrise is 7:19 AM and sunset 4:52 PM, for 9h 32m 49s of daytime. The moon is a waxing crescent with 36.9% of its visible disk illuminated.
Today is both the one thousand five hundred thirty-third day and the seventy-fourth day.
Whitewater’s Alcohol Licensing Committee will meet via audiovisual conferencing at 6 PM, and the Whitewater Common Council via audiovisual conferencing at 6:30 PM.
On this day in 1983, Apple announces the Apple Lisa, the first commercial personal computer from Apple Inc. to have a graphical user interface and a computer mouse.
Recommended for reading in full —
Philip Rotner describes The Legal Case for the Senate to Convict Trump:
The specific ground for Trump’s second impeachment, “incitement of insurrection,” immediately takes off the table two of the core defenses Trump asserted last year when he was impeached for the first time:
1. The conduct alleged against him might have been inappropriate, but it wasn’t a crime; and
2. Crime or no crime, the alleged misconduct didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
Defense No. 2—that the alleged misconduct doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense—is plainly not available in Impeachment II. The very thought that inciting an insurrection against the United States doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense is laughable. If inciting an insurrection against the United States isn’t an impeachable offense, nothing is.
Defense No. 1—that a specific statutory crime must be alleged and proved to impeach and remove a president—isn’t really a defense at all. Rather, it’s a fringe theory rejected by the vast majority of constitutional scholars.
But even if proof of a statutory crime were required, it would not help Trump escape conviction this time around because Impeachment II does charge Trump with a crime.
Incitement of insurrection is a crime, full stop: 18 U.S.C §2383 states that any person who “incites” or “assists” an insurrection, or “gives aid or comfort thereto,” shall be fined or imprisoned for not more than ten years, “and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
Charlie Warzel asks Can Donald Trump Survive Without Twitter?:
To think of Mr. Trump as an influencer is to suggest that his message can be contained. That his ideas live and die with him and his ability to broadcast them. To suggest that Trumpism is something bigger — that it is a platform itself — is to argue that Mr. Trump and his followers have constructed a powerful, parallel information ecosystem that is as strong and powerful (one could argue even more powerful) than any system built to oppose it. But anyone plugged into the pro-Trump universe realizes that Trumpism is bigger than the figurehead.
So which is Mr. Trump: the influencer or the platform?
paul Waldman writes Twitter’s Trump ban is even more important than you thought:
Without Twitter, he won’t be able to speak to his people on an hourly basis, maintaining that affinity and crowding out the other Republicans who might compete for their affection.
He could go to some upstart conservative social media platform, like Gab or Parler (if it gets restored). But those don’t have the mainstream legitimacy he craves, and reporters aren’t on them, so their reach is much more limited.
That means that when new events occur, Trump won’t be able to make himself the core of the story. He won’t be able to constantly remind Republicans that they need to fear him. While many of his supporters will remain loyal, others will drift away, not turning against him but just no longer thinking about him every day.