Thread by @dcpetterson

Schoen is pretending courtroom "due process" must be followed--after meeting with some of the jurors to plan strategy last night.

Schoen accuses Democrats of editing videos and taking comments out of contexts, after showing edited videos of Democrats and taking their comments out of context. I guess he wanted us to know he knows what he's talking about.

Schoen is showing longer clips of Trump speeches. The additional footage doesn't help Trump's case, unless you're a racist insurrectionist.

Yeah? Well what about YOUR whataboutism?

Schoen REALLY doesn't like Senator Warren.

It's because Trumpists love attacking Senator Warren.

Gee, it's almost like he thinks Senator Warren is being impeached.

Now we're being treated to a twelve-hour video of every time a Democrat said the word "fight".

Now they need to show every time a Democratic candidate cheered while people at their rallies stomped on newspeople, or when their supporters ran busses off the road or invaded the Capitol building and killed cops after being told to "fight".

Now claiming the violence over last summer was BLM and "antifa", to scary music.

Schoen's arguments, "You objected to Trump doing X, but look you did it too!" are like, "Sure the murderer used a knife, but look, here you are, using a knife to cut your steak!"

There is a logical fallacy called "tu quoque", which means, "you, too".

"You can't accuse ME of X, when YOU'VE done X!!"

This isn't a defense (even in the few cases when it's honest). It is neither a denial nor a justification. It's deflection, done when the accusation is true.

"This case is about political hatred... House Democrats HATE Donald Trump."

That's their defense.

Trump's lawyer saying we can't look at either the "meaning or implied intent" of Trump's words.

Apparently, we're supposed to see everything Trump says as meaningless noise.

Lawyer is arguing Trump's incitements to violence should be protected under the First Amendment.

No. The First Amendment defends citizens against laws restricting their speech.

It's NOT about protecting insurrection, nor protecting government officials.

Trump's lawyer making it all about himself.

He's making stupid and frivolous arguments and feels attacked because HUNDREDS OF LAWYERS pointed out his arguments are frivolous and stupid.

Poor him.

Lawyer keeps saying Trump shouldn't be impeached, because legal actions aren't impeachable.

1) Insurrection isn't a legal action.

2) Trump has already been impeached. This isn't about whether he can be impeached. It's about whether he's guilty and should be convicted.

3) Abuses of power are usually legal actions that are done for corrupt purposes, as when a mayor steers all city contracts to his brother-in-law. He's allowed to assign city contracts, but he's exercising his power corruptly. Impeachable actions need not violate any laws.

Okay, now he's arguing "Trump didn't incite insurrection, but he was protected by the First Amendment when he did."

Lawyer asking why Trump should be held guilty for objecting to the EV count, when Dems have objected to such counts.

A: Because that's NOT what Trump was impeached for. He was impeached for incitement to insurrection.

There was no attack on the Capitol after Dems spoke.

Lawyer arguing Trump's use of the word "fight" was metaphorical. The House Managers addressed this argument already. Context matters. Trump had been encouraging and celebrating non-metaphorical violence for years.

Michael Cohen explained before Congress how Trump's language is that of a mob boss, speaking almost in code; not, "I'm ordering you to go kill that guy," but, "Gee, ya know, I wouldn't be sad if that guy was out of the picture. Hey, unrelated, do you owe me a favor?"

Trump's lawyer is making a bunch of arguments the House Managers told us he'd make, and he's pretending his arguments weren't exploded and made irrelevant yesterday and the day before.

The lawyer here now sounds like he's just filling time. His presentation is rambling, repetitive, and nearly devoid of content.

He's claiming the House Managers didn't say things that they actually said. He's showing tweets the House Managers showed and claiming the Managers didn't show them.

It's almost as if he didn't watch their presentations.

"almost"
"as if"

He's claiming Trump couldn't have incited the insurrection because there were "violent criminals" assembling at the Capitol even before he started speaking.

He's pretending Trump's speech was the only element of Trump's incitement.

This argument ignores the months and months of preparation Trump put into the incitement. The Managers laid out that preparation in great detail.

The Trump lawyer's videos all have dramatic music soundtracks. Clearly, even they know their "evidence" needs help.

Lawyer is making it plain: "The January 6 speech did not cause the riots."

NO, YOU JACKASS, THERE WAS MONTHS OF PREPARATION. TRUMP WAS INVOLVED IN ALL OF IT.

He's arguing the arsonist couldn't have started the fire on 1/6, even though the arsonist had spent months before that planting fuses and gasoline at the target and convincing toadies to run the matches he lit into the building on the proper day.

Now he's arguing that Trump's extortionist call to Georgia A) couldn't have incited a riot, and B) was justified, because maybe there was enormous voter fraud in Georgia.

So he's just repeating the Big Lie conspiracy theory.

He's reading more of the transcript of Trump's Georgia phone call, AND HE THINKS THIS MAKES TRUMP LOOK GOOD. It makes Trump look like an insane conspiracy theorist.

Only someone who already believes Trump's Big Lie would find this material "exonerating."

And then he's back to claiming it's all about THEY HATE TRUMP!

More video with dramatic music.

Yes, you dumfuk, there are people we don't want to be in office again.

Lawyer saying he's not going to use most of the time they have, so the Senate can get back to enacing COVID relief (which Republicans have opposed for a year, and said they didn't want to consider during a trial).

"Constitutional cancel culture". Whatever that is, he wants it to sound bad, and to sound like a reason we shouldn't keep a fucking authoritarian insurrectionist out of office.

He asks Republicans NOT to file impeachment articles against Democrats if they get back into the majority, because HE ADMITS THEY WOULD DO SO ONLY AS A STUPID AND EMPTY POLITICAL STUNT. Not a smart move.

The defense rests on that.

Less than three hours. And maybe a third of that was the same videos with scary music played over and over.

Clearly, the dum jock threw his term paper together during breakfast on the day it was due, and kept repeating a few sentences a cheerleader wrote for him.