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 presidents response to the impeachment or, more accurately, the lack thereof. His lawyers argument, that Trumps lies about the election were protected by the First Amendment, is utterly misplaced. In the context of an impeachment, Trumps 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 presidents 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 McConnells 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/
gab13by13
(21,304 posts)yeah I planned it all, yeah I incited it all, so what? Republiqanons would vote not guilty.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)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
Trumps lawyers, Bruce Castor and David Schoen, also advanced the former presidents 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 presidents 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 Trumps legal team in the last few days, after the initial defense attorneys pulled out over disagreements about whether to buttress Trumps false claims about the election. Even some of Trumps allies are warning the legal team against leaning into Trumps unsubstantiated allegations as part of the defense strategy.
DonaldsRump
(7,715 posts)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 presidents 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.
LuckyLib
(6,819 posts)That is zero to none.