He accuses Defendants of violating the KKK act, which outlaws (among other things) preventing an official from discharging duties. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42…
Fittingly, the Act was passed after the Civil War when White supremacists violently interfered with lawful processes.
2/
Facts: When Trump, Proud Boys, and pals incited the insurrection, they hindered Thompson in the discharge of his official duties and deprived him of his right to be free from intimidation and threats in the discharge of his duties.
3/
Here's what they're seeking ⤵️
It's another opportunity to bring facts to light. Discovery will be (shall we say) interesting.
Good for @NAACP and @BennieGThompson. Other members of the House of Representatives are expected to join the lawsuit.
4/
I agree. There is something perfect about suing them under the KKK act.
After all, they carried the Confederate flag, which is exactly who they are and what they stand for.
. . . how do they keep their constituents happy as they rob from them and keep them poor? (Things like give tax cuts to the rich and eliminate health care for all?)
They create a show. They do battle with enemies.
(Snyder quotes fascist philosopher Ivan Ilyin who explains)
2/
Made-up enemies are safest.
The next best are powerless enemies. That's why Trump picked homeless migrants as enemies.
That way the ruling oligarchs don't get hurt and their property doesn't get damaged.
It's also why Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
3/
The idea that Trump got off on a technicality is not only false (he got off on a made-up technicality) it's also a slur on "technicalities" which are procedures put in place in the interests of fairness.
1/
If the police screw up, you go free.
If you are guilty, but the only evidence is that the police beat your confession out of you, you get off because we decided that making sure police don't beat confessions out of people is more important than jailing every guilty person.
2/
I understand "getting off on a technicality" means you're guilty but you get off for a reason other than your factual guilt.
Well, one job of a defense lawyer is to check to make sure procedures were followed. Did the police violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights?
3/
Rep Neguse now debunks Trump's "First Amendment defense."
Trump's defense is based on
🔹misreading the law
🔹distorting the Constitution, and
🔹misconstruing the facts.
First: the "fact" Trump asserts is that he was an ordinary guy giving a politically unpopular speech.
1/
The First Amendment doesn't allow a president to incite an insurrection based on the lie that the election was rigged against him. (Duh, right?)
The Defense doesn't actually claim the president can do that.
They say Trump didn't do any of this.
2/
From Rep. Raskin: In addition to Trump's First Amendment defense having nothing to do with the facts, the First Amendment can't be a defense to impeachment.
First problem: He was a public official with lots of power.
3/
There are no due process procedures for impeachment mandated by the Constitution. The House decides how it will impeach, and the Senate decides the rules for the trial.
The Fifth Amendment requires due process before a person can be deprived of life, liberty or property.
The Constitution specifically says a president can be indicted (criminal) after being removed from office.
Impeachment isn't about losing life, liberty or property.
2/
Trump is complaining that he was denied due process because the article was hurriedly drafted before a lengthy inquiry. He also claims that a president cannot be put on trial after he leaves office.
These two claims together create a last-minute coup exception.
3/
The brief opens by presenting Trump as a victim ⤵️
The brief cherrypicks the facts and claims that Trump quickly denounced and urged only a peaceful protest.
The brief concludes that none of it was Trump's fault.
This "conclusion" is reached by selecting a few facts and ignoring everything else.
1/
We saw this strategy in the first impeachment: Focus on the single telephone call (in this case, a single speech), ignore all the surrounding facts and circumstances, and conclude that the call (or speech) fails to prove the allegation.