Good afternoon and a very happy Friday to you all - taking a break from tracking Capitol insurrection defendants for a few hours to cover Day 4 of Trump's impeachment trial. Stay tuned for updates.
Trump lawyer Michael van der Veen is up first, and begins with an attack on the constitutionality of the impeachment trial itself, invoking Trump's oft-repeated use of the phrase "witch hunt," and then denying Trump incited anyone
Van der Veen argues litigating "questions of election integrity within the system" is not incitement — worth noting several judges openly expressed concern about what Trump and his allies were doing buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetil… 
Van der Veen says, "One of the first people arrested was the leader of antifa."
He doesn't name who he is referring to, but having tracked these cases from the start, it's safe to say this is false — no "leader of antifa" has been charged in the insurrection
He doesn't name who he is referring to, but having tracked these cases from the start, it's safe to say this is false — no "leader of antifa" has been charged in the insurrection
One defendant who was initially held up in right-wing corners of the internet as proof of antifa or BLM's involvement, John Earle Sullivan, has said he is *not* antifa or BLM, or politically affiliated (it's not clear what exactly his motivations are) buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetil…
Trump lawyer David Schoen says Trump's 1/6 statements about fighting were taken out of context, showing other times where he references peaceful demonstration and using the political process. On what Trump supporters understood him to mean: buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetil…
Schoen has shifted away from talking about what happened on Jan. 6, and has been showing lengthy video montages of Democrats saying the word "fight," clips of violence/property destruction at other protests, and instances when Dems previously objected to electoral votes
Michael van der Veen is back up to argue that Trump's speech on Jan. 6 "deserves full protection under the First Amendment." Here's the NYT on a letter signed by 144 lawyers/constitutional scholars calling that argument "legally frivolous" nytimes.com/2021/02/05/us/…
Van der Veen re-plays a montage of Dems referring to violence against Trump and in support of other protests. "All robust speech should be protected," he says. Trump's team hasn't cited an instance so far of these other speeches immediately preceding violence, a la Jan. 6
Van der Veen is calling out the law profs/scholars who signed the letter calling the First Amendment defense "legally frivolous," saying they "should be ashamed of themselves" and descrbing it as an attempt to intimidate Trump's lawyers
The overaching SCOTUS precedent that's been cited in Trump's impeachment trial is called Brandenburg v. Ohio, from 1969. It draws a line between advocacy, which is protected by the First Amendment, and "incitement to imminent lawless action." Summary here: oyez.org/cases/1968/492
Van der Veen shows another montage of Dems saying the word "fight," and argues when Trump said "fight on Jan. 6," he didn't mean it literally.
"The reality is, Mr. Trump was not in any way, shape or form instructing these people to fight or to use physical violence."
"The reality is, Mr. Trump was not in any way, shape or form instructing these people to fight or to use physical violence."
Van der Veen finishes his section and the Senate is now taking a short recess.
So far, Trump's lawyers have not engaged with the evidence presented in court to date of his supporters saying online and to the FBI that they were inspired by Trump and were following his direction
So far, Trump's lawyers have not engaged with the evidence presented in court to date of his supporters saying online and to the FBI that they were inspired by Trump and were following his direction
Van der Veen made one reference to Dems relying on "double hearsay statements of fringe right wing groups," but he didn't elaborate on that. Again, here is what has been quoted by federal prosecutors in court filings: buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetil…
There's also the evidence that prosecutors have presented of Trump suppporters posting online leading up to Jan. 6 embracing Trump's lies of widespread voter fraud and talking about coming to DC prepared for violence buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetil…
Impeachment trial resumes, Trump lawyer Bruce Castor is up. He criticizes Dems for focusing on reconstructing violence of Jan. 6 when Trump's lawyers have said Trump/they denounce the violence. Would note Michael van der Veen began today saying a "small group" hijacked the event
Castor argues the evid. of preplanning for violence exonerates Trump because that was before his 1/6 speech. Would note prosecutors have alleged preplanning involved Trump supporters embracing the lie of a stolen election that he promoted and responding to his call to come to DC
Castor's framing of this argument makes it seem like the preplanning alleged by prosecutors so far in the Capitol insurrection somehow happened in a vacuum and was unrelated to Trump/the election — that is not true
Just yesterday, prosecutors presented new evidence that a member of the alleged Oath Keepers conspiracy was "awaiting direction" from Trump after the election buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetil…
Castor explains that Trump's legal team is keeping their presentation relatively short so that Congress can instead use the time "to get delivery of COVID relief to the American people."
And that's a wrap of their arguments, coming in at around three hours.
And that's a wrap of their arguments, coming in at around three hours.
Follow @pdmcleod and @ryanbrooks for more on the next portion of the impeachment trial today, where senators can ask questions:
https://twitter.com/pdmcleod/status/1360340987529281536
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
