Dawn of The Dead-On-Arrival Impeachment Trial – Defense Case LIVE
Trump’s lawyers will likely argue the Democrats also “used combative rhetoric” in the past.
President Donald Trump’s defense team starts its defense at 12 p.m. ET.
Fox News reports what the lawyers will probably include in their arguments:
The legal team for former President Donald Trump makes their opening arguments in his second impeachment trial on Friday — and they are expected to allege that Democrats are being hypocritical by saying that Trump incited the Capitol mob by telling his followers they have to “fight” against a “stolen election.”
They’re likely to point out past instances when Democrats have used combative rhetoric, playing videos similar to how the House impeachment managers used video of Trump speaking to make their case against him.
Trump’s attorneys are also expected to argue, as they previewed in briefs submitted to the Senate, that the House impeachment managers are taking Trump’s words out of context as they aim to get 67 senators to vote to convict him of inciting an insurrection.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
God, help President Trump because these baffoons won’t.
And all this will go into the historical record for future generations to contemplate… wait, future generations will be illiterate slaves. Never mind.
Watch the video.
The proof of voter fraud is there. Physically recounted votes showed that the machines flipped thousands of votes from Trump to Biden in the counties audited.
A valid election didn’t happen and it won’t until the censorship ends and ithe details of the fraud are exposed by nationwide audits bringing ALL the guilty to justice.
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/absolute-proof-exposing-election-fraud-and-theft-america-enemies-foreign-and-domestic
Benedict Arnold team not happy to see their hopes dashed?
The “everybody does it” excuse is not the way to go! That’s admitting that he did it and somehow it’s justified because someone else did similar. That line of reasoning didn’t work very well with mother when I was a youngster.
Play the tape of him saying to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” and then STFU
I don’t think that’s the frame. Regardless, it works as an argument for the Republican side. It won’t convince any Dems, but that’s not necessary.
Excellent performance by van der Veen and Schoen.
Exposing the deceitfulness and hatred of the House managers and Democrats in the Senate. And sparing the RINOs in danger of flipping the indignity of being exposed as well. It is entirely sufficient that they know that are equally as guilty as the Democrat haters. And can be just as easily exposed as they.
It should be easy to point out that Trump’s words were taken out of context, AND the video the House managers showed was edited more than if it had been fed into a blender. Timecodes will show most of the assault occurred before or during the first half of his speech, while the managers jammed his words against actions that had already taken place. If you’re trying to prove a cause-effect relationship, the effect doesn’t take place before the cause unless you have a time machine.
Also interesting how the House managers managed to get the internal surveillance tapes of the Capitol while I’m betting the defense was refused any of them. What an amazing coincidence (/snark)
I’d like to see the Trump defense team simply say “this is an illegitimate trial and we will not dignify it by participating. Vote.” followed by every single Republican senator moving, one at a time if necessary, to end the trial and move straight to a vote.
The sham that an impeachment is some kind of legal trial needs to end.
You mean every single Republican senator, EXCEPT ROMNEY!!
And paste eating Cassidy.
This Philadelphia lawyer is kicking butt.
What audience are they playing to? The outcome of the vote is certain so the Senators aren’t the target audience. I don’t think they are doing a bad job from what I’ve seen. And if you are one of the 75 million Trump voters, you’re eating this stuff up–if you bother to watch.
As for the Democrat performance, Jonathan Turley suggests that they re tanking. They woulda, coulda, shoulda done a better job. Their lead manager challenged the electoral college results in January 2017; they put Swalwell on the team.
Biden is staying far away from this kerfuffle as is Chief Justice Roberts. The apparent Democrat strategy is to throw some dirt and hope it sticks, then get out of Dodge as soon as you can.
Excellent performance by van der Veen and Schoen.
Exposing the deceitfulness and hatred of the House managers and Democrats in the Senate. And sparing the RINOs in danger of flipping the indignity of being exposed as well. It is entirely sufficient that they know that are equally as guilty as the Democrat haters. And can be just as easily exposed as they.
A convincing argument to the facts, to the law, and to the emotions.
(Sorry for the double post, this was supposed to be its own comment.)
Maybe the rightful chastisement today was more impactful for the heavy, heavy schmoozing in the opening. One can hope.
In any case, and without a question, Mr. Castor’s closing was much better than his opening.
Actually I don’t think the defence has done very well, the montage video was totally devoid of context. It looked like the defence was playing to Trump’s preferences not creating a coherent argument. In fact Politico is suggesting that between 5 and 10 senators are thinking of convicting now. How it plays out in the end remains to be seen.
Do you think there is a context that justifies Maxine Waters calling for physical intimidation (at the very least) aimed at her political opponents?
The Trump defense showed that the use of fight terminology is political boilerplate language. They also demonstrated that the real standard the prosecution wants the Senate to embrace is that Republicans must be impeached for political speech that is apparently not impeachable when used by leftists.
They did fail to meet any burden at all. That is why they try to override Senator’s reason by emotion and have been devoting almost all of their time to showing that criminals attacked the Capitol building, a fact not in dispute. What they did not do is provide any evidence that could prove their contention that the attack was caused by Trump’s speech on the same day.
What their argument comes down to is “Orange Man Bad”, which in their mind translates to “all bad things are his fault, therefore we have proven conclusively that he incited an insurrection.”
The defense did a good job exposing the most glaring faults in the House managers’ case, including their fabrication of evidence and they did not let themselves be lured into the trap of debating the merits of the mythical big lie the Dems kept harping on about. Again, without any evidence to justify their contention.
should read
Once again, apologies for the substandard editing.
Impartiality, any chance?
Leaky Leahy presiding. I tuned into ABC Network and say Stephanopoulos talking with Rahm Emanuel. No bias much!?!
GOP Impeachment To Do list for 2023.
1. Impeach Biden
2. Impeach Obama
3. Begin prepping to impeach Harris
Better start with Harris.
On what charge?
Seriously? Use your imagination. Have they ever said something about fighting? Isn’t that incitement as per the Raskin doctrine?
This is political show trial. The Senate has decided to allow it to continue. So, the Trump defense will play to the same audience as the Dem “prosecution” the American public. It will be designed to bolster public opinion, in Trump’s favor. This will be done by impeaching the doctored evidence presented and undermining the characterization that Trump’s words were out of the ordinary, by presenting the Congress Critters spouting the same words.
It does not matter if Trump is convicted or not. The Senate can not constitutionally impose any penalty upon him. If it does, this will get kicked into the SCOTUS and could well be ruled unconstitutional.
The Senate can not constitutionally impose any penalty upon him. If it does, this will get kicked into the SCOTUS and could well be ruled unconstitutional.
I don’t think either of those things are true. He can’t be removed from office, but the other penalty is that he can be barred from ever holding political office again. That’s what they want to stick.
Also, I believe by precedent the impeachment process is not justiciable, which means there’s no appeal to the SCOTUS.
According to the language of Art II Sec 4, the conviction SHALL result in removal from office. Art I Sec 3 states: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:”. When read together, it appears that the disqualification clause requires the removal clause to be invoked BEFORE it can be imposed. Now, Trump CAN NOT be removed from office. Therefor, he can not be disqualified from holding future office. So, this could set up a constitutional challenge to the imposition of any impeachment trial penalty upon Trump, at this time. It is unknown territory.
As to precedent, there is NO precedent with regard to the impeachment and subsequent trial procedure. That is one of the problems. Now, if a charge is made that a Congressional action is not authorized by the Constitution, that dispute has to be settled. And, the adjudicating body would be the
SCOTUS, per Art III Sec 2: “The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,”.
It appears, from the language of the Constitution, that Impeachment is primarily provided for the removal of the offending official from office and that the disqualification clause was an afterthought, which assumes that removal from office is required for disqualification.
The framers never intended that to be the case. From the federalist papers and English law of the time that clearly isn’t the intention. Just because the the removal of office is moot that doesn’t make the disqualification from office some how inoperable. I don’t think that’s how it works.
I’m curious. I can only remember debate centered around the question of removal from office, and how to temper certain dangers of a remedy against an overreach of the executive so that the cure might not be worse than the illness.
But apparently, I haven’t read the extensive discussion on how it is vital for the republic to impeach people out of office. Can you point me to the relevant passages?
Trump’s team recruited some good video people
By the way. Why is everyone tiptoeing around the alleged reason for the Jan 06 rally, in the first place; election fraud? It is the 100 TON elephant in the room and everyone is ignoring it. I mean, if widespread, systematic fraud did not occur, why not just investigate it and put the conspiracy theory to rest? Why deplatform and ostracize anyone who questions the accuracy of the election?
This “impeachment” BS is a distraction. The current COVID “revelations” and potential restrictions are a distraction. The current immigration policies are a distraction. All are designed to thrown shiny objects in front of the 75 million+ people so that they will not push the election fraud question. And, the evidence for fraud just keeps getting bigger.
Someday, people are going to wake up and things will get ugly in a hurry. If only the authorities would do their jobs and conduct a comprehensive investigation. Of course, if they did, then they might be forced to seat Trump, in the Oval Office. Of course, being impeached and convicted might slow that down, for a while. Remember, Trump never conceded the election.
Mac45 the 100 ton elephant in the room is that the election fraud line was and is a lie. You keep claiming evidence but can never bring anything credible up. The witnesses, the videos, the expert reports all were a crock of shit. Remember the kraken, what a joke that turned out to be.
up vote by mistake….it should have been a down vote.
Leftist troll, the canard that allegations of election fraud is a “lie” is laughable. But that is the script, as published by Time, so as I’ve said several times you’ll stick with it no matter how absurd the script becomes.
There has never been an election in the U.S. in modern times where there was no election fraud. And the GA election board just referred 35 cases of voter fraud to the state AG for prosecution. In other words there is probable cause to believe there was fraud committed in those cases. And in far more cases. Trump and/or a GOP plaintiff brought 81 cases against states for voting irregularities. The vast majority were dismissed on technicalities. Only in 22 cases were the plaintiffs even allowed to address the substance of the allegations. When these plaintiffs were allowed to address the merits of their case, they won 15 of 21 cases, with one decision still pending.
The narrative that Trump “lied” about voter fraud is in itself a lie. The left knew they only had a limited window of time to push the “Trump lied” fraud. Just like Harry Reid had a limited time to push the “Romney didn’t pay taxes for ten years” fraud. After the 2012 election even leftist outlets like the Huffpo had to admit Reid was just brazenly lying. He was unrepentant. His stated attitude was, so what it was a lie? It worked, Obama won and Romney lost.
As Jonathon Swift said, some lies only need to be believed for an hour. If they are believed for that short window of time they’ve done their job, and then there is no further occasion for them.
The idea that Trump “lied” about election rigging is one such lie. It only needed to be believed for a short while. Then the truth will come out, as it is now, and the scale of the voter fraud will become undeniable. It already is, really; no experienced fraud investigator believes with all these red flags (widespread violations of even the relaxed election laws, easily manipulated/hacked Direct Recording Electronic voting systems, counting stopped in Democrat-controlled counties simultaneously nationwide followed by massive inflows of Biden votes, etc.) that there was no fraud.
When it comes out that there was massive voter fraud as it is emerging in GA we already know what the leftist reaction will be. So what? It worked. Biden won and Trump lost.
Just wait for the people who were robbed to react, though.
Here’s how ridiculous the “Trump lied about election fraud” false narrative is:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/11/02/computer-experts-sound-warnings-safety-americas-voting-machines/6087174002/
Note the date of the article. The day before the 2020 election the USA Today published an article with the title, “Will your ballot be safe? Computer experts sound warnings on America’s voting machines.”
The vulnerability of these DRE voting systems were well known for years. They sometimes appear to record votes when they haven’t. Or they record votes when they appear they haven’t. They switch votes. And as one Princeton computer science professor demonstrated, with a screwdriver and a few minutes they can be hacked with vote-stealing malware and the hack would be invisible without a thorough, in-depth investigation.
In fact in 2018 it was Dem pols like Warren and Klobuchar who were demanding investigations into these vulnerabilities. The vulnerabilities remained; it was “legal” to talk about them on 2 November 2020. Yet after 3 November 2020 the usual suspects such as mark311 declared any such discussion to be sedition. Treason really.
So it’s up to us to dial it up. Then point and laugh when the likes of mark311 call talking about glaringly obvious facts a “lie.” It’s only a “lie” in the Stalinist sense. It destroys the false narrative the left is pushing.
For the defense that would be a horrible strategy.
That may be an elephant in a room, but it is not the elephant in this particular room.
The House has brought one article of impeachment that alleges Trump incited an insurrection by giving a speech on Jan 06.
The House managers failed to prove that point. That probably will not lead Dems to honor their oath and acquit, so the question is whether some anti-Trump Republicans will follow their Dem peers or do their duty.
To bring up the question of election fraud that the Romney types insist did not happen can only help to nudge them toward also violating their oaths and vote to convict.
Now, even if the Senate should be so derelict as to instead of acquitting 100:0 to convict not all is lost, as there still is the chance that at least the Supreme Court would do its duty and uphold the Constitution. While I’d be very happy as a legal nerd to see the Supreme Court deal with these questions it would be horrible for the republic.
The election fraud must be dealt with. In other forums.
Speaking of rino sh*t, Nikki Haley is right on cue:
Nikki Haley breaks with Trump: ‘We shouldn’t have followed him’:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/538573-haley-breaks-with-trump-we-shouldnt-have-followed-him
Fortunately, we all believed she was swamp b.s. all along. Now we know for sure.
How often did Niki call for people to send us your moneyz during that interview, what do you think?
The Q&A was laughable.
Legal Eagles how is this for an opening, leading, and unprovable question to themselves aka their team (from Schumer and Feinstein to their counterparts on the left)….
“Isn’t it true that the violence at the Capitol would never have happened without Trump’s behavior?”
I think I’m seeing a plan…..
The Dems had to know that Impeachment would die when it hit the Senate. That there was no way to get enough GOP Senators to convict.
Rand Paul proved that by boxing in the GOP on the constitutional question. There is nothing that Trump did that was illegal and since all 100 Senators know that the GOP Senators would never go for a conviction.
You had five GOP out of the gate say hold the trial. One sorta flipped on a later vote to dismiss but I think he was just irritated with the Trump teams presentation at that point. I’d like to see what he thinks now since Trump’s team slapped the House Managers silly.
So I think the Dems are going to use the excuse that the GOP is anti-American by voting to acquit Trump and they are going to play the 14th Amendment card to bar Trump but even bar a couple GOP Senators (Cruz, Hawley) from holding office.
It’s already being worked on by the Democrats. We’ve seen a couple news stories about it.
The relevant part of the 14th Amendment:
“Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
They won’t be successful but it will be another huge tear in the fabric of the country.
That would effective rule out the entire Democratic party.