144 Constitutional Lawyers Call Trump's First Amendment Defense 'Legally Frivolous'

[riversedge]

Source: nytimes





Taking aim at a key plank of the former president’s impeachment defense, the lawyers argued that the constitutional protections did not apply to an impeachment proceeding.

Former President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment trial opens on Tuesday.


By Nicholas Fandos, Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman

Feb. 5, 2021, 4:50 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — Claims by former President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers that his conduct around the Jan. 6 Capitol riot is shielded by the First Amendment are “legally frivolous” and should do nothing to stop the Senate from convicting him in his impeachment trial, 144 leading First Amendment lawyers and constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum wrote in a letter circulated on Friday.

Taking aim at one of the key planks of Mr. Trump’s defense, the lawyers argued that the constitutional protections do not apply to an impeachment proceeding, were never meant to protect conduct like Mr. Trump’s anyway and would most likely fail to shield him even in a criminal court.

“Although we differ from one another in our politics, disagree on many questions of constitutional law, and take different approaches to understanding the Constitution’s text, history, and context, we all agree that any First Amendment defense raised by President Trump’s attorneys would be legally frivolous,” the group wrote. “In other words, we all agree that the First Amendment does not prevent the Senate from convicting President Trump and disqualifying him from holding future office.”

Among the lawyers, scholars and litigants who signed the letter, a copy of which was shared with The New York Times, were Floyd Abrams, who has fought marquee First Amendment cases in court; Steven G. Calabresi, a founder of the conservative Federalist Society; Charles Fried, a solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan; and pre-eminent constitutional law scholars like Laurence Tribe, Richard Primus and Martha L. Minow.............................

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/us/politics/trump-impeachment-defense.html

---

House Managers will do just fine.




“I’m in shock we’re starting Tuesday and have no agreement for how any resolutions will be put forward,” Mr. Schoen said in a telephone interview. @npfandos
@nytmike

Link to tweet

?s=20

Former President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment trial opens on Tuesday.Credit...Oliver Contreras for The New York Times
Nicholas FandosMichael S. SchmidtMaggie Haberman





Lawyers Call Trump’s Defense ‘Legally Frivolous’

Taking aim at a key plank of the former president’s impeachment defense, the lawyers argued that the constitutional protections do not apply to an impeachment proceeding.

[PoliticAverse]

1. I would call it "legally irrelevant". n/t

[Hoyt]

2. Any defense he uses is frivolous, he did it. But even in unlikely event

he’s convicted in Senate, there are really no consequences for trump. He’s not likely to run in 2024, assuming he’s even alive then.

[keithbvadu2]

3. 144? That's nothing! Donald has Rudy, Sydney, and Lin.

144? That's nothing! Donald has Rudy, Sydney, and Lin.

(Sarcasm thingie goes here.)

[maxsolomon]

4. Go cry to McConnell, Schoen.

[mysteryowl]

5. I like these team actions by the pros in our society.

It is very telling to hear this!

[TomSlick]

6. I'm hardly a First Amendment expert.

However, I am as close to a First Amendment absolutist as logic will allow.

It is clear to me that there is no First Amendment privilege to incite riot or insurrection.

[Bayard]

7. I don't think trump's current attorneys have much else to offer

They probably think this is already in the bag for non-conviction. Also probably just in it for publicity and money (a little iffy there).

[Gothmog]

8. This First Amendment claim is bogus