Top 9 Absurdities, Distortions, and Fails in Trump’s Impeachment Trial Brief

You may have heard the saying, “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” The unfettered advocates on Team Trump have raised a fourth course of action in their defense brief on behalf of the former president: lie about everything . The Donald Trump defense team released their brief Monday, and it’s seventy-eight pages of falsehoods, fantasy, and fiction. It brings the reader on a magical journey through typos (we are once again in the “Unites” States of America) to the “real truth” (as ascertained by those banned from Twitter), and finally to a world in which the First Amendment is an invisibility cloak, shielding its user from all consequences. Here are some of the more outrageous moments from the brief authored by Bruce L. Castor , Jr. , David Schoen , and Michael T. van der Veen , on behalf of former President Trump. 1. They illogically argue that House Dems supported  violence at the Capitol, while Republicans looked on in horror. See if you can follow along with this logic: according to Trump, the House Managers are “glorifying violence” by detailing the specific events of Jan. 6 in their impeachment memo. In a brazen attempt to further glorify violence, the House Managers took several pages of their Memorandum to restate over 50 sensationalized media reports detailing the horrific incidents and shocking violence of those hours. Counsel for the 45th President hereby stipulate that what happened at the Capitol by those criminals was horrible and horrific in every sense of those words. Maybe the first rule of Capitol Insurrection is that you don’t talk about Capitol Insurrection? The suggestion that laying out facts in the legal documents underlying  a prosecutorial action amounts to “glorifying” the acts charged is a special kind of lunacy. By that logic, everything  from grand jury indictments to traffic tickets should be thrown out as supporting the behavior they purport to condemn. 2. They insist Trump only used the word “fight” a few times, and he didn’t really mean “fight.” Trump’s lawyers argue that Trump’s Jan. 6 speech at the Ellipse couldn’t possibly have sparked the insurrection as alleged because he never specifically told anyone to storm the Capitol, and only used the word “fight” a few times. Of the over 10,000 words spoken, Mr. Trump used the word “fight” a little more than a handful of times and each time in the figurative sense that has long been accepted in public discourse when urging people to stand and use their voices to be heard on matters important to them; it was not and could not be construed to encourage acts of violence Notably absent from his speech was any reference to or encouragement of an insurrection, a riot, criminal action, or any acts of physical violence whatsoever. This is some Grade-A, platinum-level gaslighting. Trump’s lawyers argue in favor of a wholesale denial of Trump’s message on grounds that it had been too general. Never mind the context, the lead-up, or the rhetoric; Trump’s speech was just a happy celebration of democracy in action. The frenzied crowd may have repeatedly chanted, “Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!” but neither they nor he had meant “fight” in the literal sense. Rather, “The only reference to force was in taking pride in his administration’s creation of the Space Force,” says the brief. This argument makes my head hurt. The says-what-he-means-and-means-what-he-says president who was elected for his dazzling powers of plainspokenness didn’t mean the words he clearly uttered. No one could have expected that Americans would actually fight, even though Trump told them they needed to fight and they yelled that they were about to fight. Okay. Sure. *Makes notes to check how similar arguments fared against BLM protesters.* Certainly, if we’re going to make someone stand trial because of a speech he gave, words matter. But so does context. The mere use of a single word doesn’t constitute per se incitement. Conversely, the absence of a single word isn’t a per se defense. Here are a few direct quotes from Trump’s speech to the crowd (a speech that was delivered on the heels of two months of unsubstantiated claims of election fraud and massive hyping of the non-existent importance of the Jan. 6 electoral vote count): “We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy.” “We don’t have a free and fair press.” “After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.” “The Constitution says you have to protect our country.” “And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country any more.” “So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give … The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.” Trump’s people won’t be the first defense lawyers to say we should ignore what we heard with our ears or saw with our eyes. Nor will this be the first time we’ve heard that argument emanating from Trump himself. Like abusers so often do, Trump will continue to deny his singular role in the event until the repeated tale of his own victimization is too loud to ignore. 3. They baselessly say Trump can’t be convicted, because House Dems moved way too fast in impeaching him. Here’s a legal theory that would get you laughed out of 1L Criminal Law: a defense to wrongdoing is that the charging document was drafted too soon after you committed a crime. The impeachment defense brief casts the timeline as some sort of smoking gun: “Democrat members of the House Judiciary Committee publically [sic ] admitted that they began drafting the Article of Impeachment moments after angry extremists breached the doors of the Capitol.” I see. So although members of Congress personally witnessed a violent attack on the Capitol, and personally heard the president’s speech leading up to that attack, they aren’t allowed to have opinions about those events unless they first wait a few weeks. If a prosecutor were mugged in the subway, could they bring immediate charges against the mugger? Or must all government officials let crimes against them simmer for a bit first? Asking for a friend. It’s worth noting that Trump lawyers are not only arguing that the case was brought too quickly, but also that it’s too late for trial. Trump’s argument here smacks of desperation. Congress’ impeachment power is explicit in the Constitution. Neither the Framers nor anyone since has seriously suggested that there is only one possible road to impeachment. Some wrongdoing is complex and occurs over time; others are immediate and done entirely in public. “High crimes and misdemeanors” can take many forms, as can Congress’ decision to impeach. There is no basis, either in the text of the Constitution or the history of impeachment to support the assertion that Congress cannot exercise swift judgment. 4.  They make the bizarre claim Trump didn’t cause the riot, because some people made plans to attack the Capitol before Jan. 6. This argument would be amusing if it weren’t so deadly dangerous. According to Trump’s team, the former president couldn’t be responsible for the riot unless the whole thing was an entirely impromptu event. This logic, of course, leaves out the issue of why the rioters were present in the first place . Trump spent two months whipping his supporters into a frenzy over the need to recapture a stolen America from the clutches of election fraudsters and lunatic liberals. He and his supporters cast Jan. 6 as a day
Top 9 Absurdities, Distortions, and Fails in Trump’s Impeachment Trial Brief posted first on http://realempcol.tumblr.com/rss