Donald John Trump, former U.S. president, is on trial in the U.S. Senate for incitement of insurrection. Among other absurdities his defense team argued on Friday was that Trump had been denied due process. He had certainly denied himself competent lawyers. They concluded his defense case after only 2½ hours.
Trump’s attorneys used up the first hour-plus arguing that the House managers had deliberately omitted from their presentations information Team Trump considered exculpatory. In essesnce, Trump’s lawyers complained that the prosecution had not used its time to make the defense’s case for them.
Much of it was whataboutism and distraction. At one point, Trump’s own lawyers spotlighted his calls into Georgia for which he is under criminal investigation. They argued that since his hour-long call to pressure Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger into falsifying state election results was never meant to be public (Raffensperger released a recording), Trump could not have intended to incite the Jan. 6 insurrection. They mischaracaterized Georgia’s elections results, of course.
The Washington Post team summarized:
Yet their presentation was rife with the sort of falsehoods that marked Trump’s campaign and his unsuccessful effort to overturn the election results. Lawyers spread Trump’s contention that President Biden did not actually win the state of Georgia, implied that antifa and other leftists were involved in planning of the attack of the Capitol and accused Democratic House managers of withholding key evidence.
As those arguments unfolded, Trump’s lawyers declined to be specific on questions about Trump’s own behavior while rioters broke into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 to block the final certification of Biden’s victory over Trump, such as precisely when he found out about the violence, what he knew about Vice President Mike Pence’s safety and whether he took any action to limit the insurrection.
On that last matter, Trump’s attorneys bobbed, weaved and evaded. For good reason. There is mounting evidence Trump sided with the insurrectionist mob, including this statement issued Friday night from a Washington state Republican House member:
Otherwise, Bruce Castor, David Schoen and Michael van der Veen deployed the “whatabout defense” taught in the nation’s top law schools. Or they argued that rules that apply in a court case were being violated in what attorneys in Trump’s first impeachment reminded the Senate ad nauseam is a political trial. Or they accused House managers of trying to disqualify Trump from ever again holding office — the express purpose of impeachment stated in Article I, section 3, clause 7.
It was a travesty. Digby posted a detailed takedown from The Daily Beast’s Matt Lewis last night.
The Bulwark’s Benjamin Parker had additional observations:
(3) Multiple members of “the 45th president’s” legal team decried “hatred” in politics.
By which they meant the hatred Democrats have for Trump, which they claim was the motivation for this second impeachment.
Trump’s lawyers did not see “hatred” as the motivation that led people to destroy public property, disrupt congressional proceedings, erect gallows, and attack and murder police officers on January 6.
This insane view didn’t even rise to the level of false equivalence.
(4) At one point, van der Veen looked directly toward the House impeachment managers and claimed, “Either words matter or they don’t.” He should take his own advice.
Van der Veen also suggested to the Senate that convicting Trump because of his speech would be a violation of the former—sorry, 45th president’s free speech rights. He even read the First Amendment aloud: “Congress shall make no law…”
But of course impeachment isn’t a law. Either words matter or they don’t.
(5) Van der Veen went on to suggest that to violate Trump’s rights in such a brazen manner (bear with me here) would somehow be a violation of the senators’ oaths.
Yes, you read that right.
A lawyer defending Donald Trump thought it was a good idea to bring up violation of oaths of office as a reason to acquit the former president who incited an insurrection against the U.S. government.
“When you’re making these kinds of made-for-Fox News arguments, you know you don’t really have a good defense,” Lewis wrote.
It promises to be no better when proceedings resume today at 10 a.m. Eastern.
Now, if only House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy could be called to tesify.
Let your U.S. senators know what you think about Rep. Herrera Beutler’s statement RIGHT NOW! And if their office won’t pick up (it’s Saturday), free e-fax them.