Thread by @neal_katyal

This defense of Trump is like the upside down world.

Good lawyers refrain from absurd statements, understanding this undermines one’s credibility. This person is refraining from any non-absurd statements.

Phew. I was worried we’d go 10 minutes before hearing #BothSides.

How this guy thinks the protestors last summer are anything like the President of the US inciting an insurrection against a coordinate branch of govt on a sacred day of their performing their most impt duties is beyond me.

This guy says "you can't incite what was already going to happen." What kind of defense is that? For 1 thing, House saying Trump gave instructions to make it happen. For another,if Trump thought it was inevitable, why didn’t he have Natl Guard in advance ready to stop it on 1/6?

By Trump standards, this guy is Clarence Darrow. In that he can put a sentence together.

By normal standards, this bizarre over the top speech is a terrible defense of Trump. So far it has made exactly zero rational points. It’s just a list of grievances and false equivalencies

Hmm why is it that the statement by trump lawyer that Trump has been the only one who is consistently against mob violence reminds me of ...

...Trump saying he is the least racist person in the world?

Oh good. I was worried we’d go 20 minutes without hearing “cancel culture.” He made it just under the limit.

Omg. This guy is now calling for unity. After what he just said. Is this an SNL parody?

Trump lawyer now asserting that the House managers doctored evidence. That’s a really serious, ugly accusation. He better be able to back it up.

Wait. His claim is there was doctored evidence that was ... not introduced?

Now the claim is they didn’t show the entire 1/6 Trump speech? Pleaassse. Let’s everyone watch the whole speech.

You’d have to be an ostrich to think that the Trump speech was an invitation to a “peaceful” “cheer” of House and Senate Rs.

This idea that by Trump saying once “peaceful” it means he’s off the hook is the time honored strategy of mob bosses everywhere. That’s the move.

This is a ludicrous defense. Not even Daniel Webster could make someone believe that @ewarren is calling for violence in the way Trump was. It’s patently absurd.

Here is the problem with every one of those clips of Warren and others. They didn’t take place AFTER a Georgia election official warned (as he did on Dec 1) that Trump had to stop w the rhetoric or someone will get shot and killed. These “fight” clips have none of that context.

So far the Trump lawyers have convinced me that ... they can search “fight” on google video.

This is such a bad argument, that Ds have used the word “fight.” If I say “let’s make a deal,” to sell illegal arms it’s no defense to say “well you made a ‘deal’ in Congress and Bezos made a “deal’ to build a headquarters).

Now their defense is so strong ...they are playing the same doctored video again?

This first amendment defense is ridiculous. They are saying Trump can say anything under the 1st Am &not be impeached. Really? He can wear a swastika? Say “kill blacks” (or use some other word)? Support Hitler? Or Putin?

If this is what they’ve got, they have nothing at all

Money is protected speech.

Exhorting insurrection is protected speech.

What’s next in this sequence? Actively shooting someone is protected speech?

This Trump lawyer just said Trump “is the most anti mob violence” leader the world has ever seen or some such nonsense.

Gimme a break. Any of his 44 predecessors would have stopped this right away. Not sat on his hands for hours and then said “we love you”.

Trump lawyer said everyone knows Trump has always stood against all violence. Let’s get Pence up on the stand and ask him what he thinks.

Raskin ended yest with 5 questions. Trump team claims to be done w their presentation and so far hasn’t answered a single one.

Excellent q from Sens Murkowkski and Collins. Exactly when did Trump learn of the breach on the Capitol, when did he take actions to stop them?

Woah. Trump lawyer can’t answer it. At all. He just rants about the lack of due process. Seems to me this would be the first thing I would ask if I were Trump’s lawyer while getting ready. Devastating silence.

Bizarre that Trump’s lawyer claiming purpose of impeachment was to embarrass the President. Um, there is literally no way to embarrass Trump.

Equally bizarre Trump lawyer is claiming impeachment being pursued to attack trump policies. Unless Trump policy is fomenting insurrection, Trump’s (evil) policies have not come up

Epic troll with asking the Murkowski/Collins question again, with exactly the same words.

Let’s hear it over and over until Trump lawyers answer it. The House Managers can’t answer what only Trump knows. But all the available public ev is that Trump sat on his hands doing nada

Phenomenal answer from @StaceyPlaskett. #429

Excellent Romney question about what Trump knew about threat to VP when he sent his disparaging tweet.

Trump’s lawyer says Trump was never told Pence was in any danger

If that’s right, Secret Service woefully fell down on the job. Answer seems jarringly wrong with everything I know about Secret Service. Fortunately the Service can give us truth quickly and must

If Trump lied...

Watching history with @StaceyPlaskett telling us about history. Spellbinding. Her future is incredibly bright.

Trump as usual blames others for his evil. This time the Secret Service. He is no longer President. They can turn over all info to House tonight and must.

This Trump lawyer is pounding the table because he has figured out his only audience, 1 person, insists on it. It's a disgraceful performance. But that's what Trump does to people.

Now this Trump lawyer says the attack on 1/6 "did not have anything" to do with Donald Trump

Yeah, I'm sure they were just invading the Capitol wearing Trump hats&trying to call him and saying stop the steal for no reason, when they were really just there to tour the Rotunda art

Now @StaceyPlaskett nails it: if Trump had any exculpatory ev, he could bring it forth. He hasn't. That's the key fact.

The Trump lawyer has done the unthinkable: He distorts the facts as Trump does

Now @RepRaskin makes the key point: Trump lawyers are wrong to blame us for not having facts of what is in Trump’s head. We invited Trump to testify and he said no. So you can draw the adverse inference from his fear of testifying.

Thank you @RepRaskin for making the point that Trump’s lawyers are anticipating that he is a criminal defendant and want the burdens of beyond Reasonable doubt. But it’s impeachment, and drawing adverse inferences from Trump’s scaredy cat fear of testifying in impeachment hearing

I’ve always thought Trump’s call to Georgia was itself impeachable, as I wrote 2 days before January 6. nytimes.com/2021/01/04/opi…