Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Zorro

(15,740 posts)
Wed Feb 3, 2021, 01:36 PM Feb 2021

Trump's pathetic defense reminds us why conviction is needed

Opinion by Jennifer Rubin

Joyce White Vance, a former federal prosecutor, persuasively makes the case that “Republicans have never delivered on holding [former President Donald] Trump accountable. … And if Senate Republicans do fail to hold him accountable, it will be up to the American people to do it at the ballot box.” In other words, if Republicans cannot bring themselves to convict on a fact scenario as appalling as this, then the “trial” moves to the 2022 elections, when voters have the opportunity to render a final verdict on the insurrection and Republican lawmakers’ role in it.

The utter failure of Republicans to uphold their constitutional responsibilities would be made all the more obvious by the weakness of the former president’s response to the impeachment — or, more accurately, the lack thereof. His lawyers’ argument, that Trump’s lies about the election were protected by the First Amendment, is utterly misplaced. In the context of an impeachment, Trump’s conduct must be held to a standard appropriate to his oath. (He has a legal right to root for international foes to defeat the United States, but it is nevertheless impeachable conduct for the commander in chief to do so.) Furthermore, the First Amendment is inapplicable when it comes to inciting violence.

As for the factual argument, the president’s brief itself is another galling attempt at gaslighting. His lawyers claim Trump never sought to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to change the vote count when we have a tape proving exactly that. His lawyers insist the ex-president never “intended to interfere with the counting of Electoral votes,” when we know that for weeks he sought to do just that — in court, in tweets, in phone calls, in calls for Vice President Mike Pence to change the electoral count, in a meeting with Michigan state lawmakers and ultimately at the rally to incite the crowd. Trump is daring the Republicans in the Senate — as he has all along — to condone his patently false narrative in which he is the victim, his actions are perfect and he is responsible for nothing.

The absence of a plausible legal or factual defense will make it all the more embarrassing for Senate Republicans, at least those still capable of being shamed, to ride to his defense. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is on record saying, "The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people.” Now Trump is demanding that Republicans buy into the lies again and give the mob more reason to feel aggrieved. If Republicans once more double down on the Big Lie and refuse to hold Trump accountable for his own conduct, they will, according to McConnell’s own analysis, be feeding more lies and provoking further insurrections.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/03/trumps-pathetic-defense-reminds-us-why-conviction-is-needed/

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump's pathetic defense reminds us why conviction is needed (Original Post) Zorro Feb 2021 OP
Trump's defense could be, gab13by13 Feb 2021 #1
Trump doubles down on false election claim in impeachment response Gothmog Feb 2021 #2
So if the Dipwad is still President, does that mean the conviction trial is indeed "constitutional"? DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #3
Yeah, "at least those still capable of being shamed." LuckyLib Feb 2021 #4
"reminds us why conviction is needed" No reminder needed. Nitram Feb 2021 #5

gab13by13

(21,304 posts)
1. Trump's defense could be,
Wed Feb 3, 2021, 01:38 PM
Feb 2021

yeah I planned it all, yeah I incited it all, so what? Republiqanons would vote not guilty.

Gothmog

(145,130 posts)
2. Trump doubles down on false election claim in impeachment response
Wed Feb 3, 2021, 01:48 PM
Feb 2021

trump is going to relitigate voter fraud and whether he is still POTUS https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/02/house-impeachment-brief-trump-responsible-capitol-attack-464930

Trump’s legal team filed its first official response to the House’s impeachment charge later Tuesday, denying that the former president sought to subvert the election results and incited the violence at the Capitol. The submission foreshadowed Trump’s legal strategy for the trial, which begins next Tuesday but is not expected to last as long as last year’s three-week trial.

Trump’s lawyers, Bruce Castor and David Schoen, also advanced the former president’s false claims that the election results were “suspect,” asserting that Trump has a First Amendment right to express that view.

“Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th president’s statements were accurate or not, and he therefore denies they were false,” Castor and Schoen wrote, adding that Trump “denies” it is false to say he won the election “in a landslide.”

Castor and Schoen only joined Trump’s legal team in the last few days, after the initial defense attorneys pulled out over disagreements about whether to buttress Trump’s false claims about the election. Even some of Trump’s allies are warning the legal team against leaning into Trump’s unsubstantiated allegations as part of the defense strategy.

DonaldsRump

(7,715 posts)
3. So if the Dipwad is still President, does that mean the conviction trial is indeed "constitutional"?
Wed Feb 3, 2021, 01:52 PM
Feb 2021

I think Rachel M. pointed out this fun inconsistency, among many others.

I had to read these sentence numerous times before I had a sense of what Trump and his lawyers were trying to say:

“Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th president’s statements were accurate or not, and he therefore denies they were false,” Castor and Schoen wrote, adding that Trump “denies” it is false to say he won the election “in a landslide.”
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Trump's pathetic defense ...