Add news
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010June 2010July 2010
August 2010
September 2010October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011March 2011April 2011May 2011June 2011July 2011August 2011September 2011October 2011November 2011December 2011January 2012February 2012March 2012April 2012May 2012June 2012July 2012August 2012September 2012October 2012November 2012December 2012January 2013February 2013March 2013April 2013May 2013June 2013July 2013August 2013September 2013October 2013November 2013December 2013January 2014February 2014March 2014April 2014May 2014June 2014July 2014August 2014September 2014October 2014November 2014December 2014January 2015February 2015March 2015April 2015May 2015June 2015July 2015August 2015September 2015October 2015November 2015December 2015January 2016February 2016March 2016April 2016May 2016June 2016July 2016August 2016September 2016October 2016November 2016December 2016January 2017February 2017March 2017April 2017May 2017June 2017July 2017August 2017September 2017October 2017November 2017December 2017January 2018February 2018March 2018April 2018May 2018June 2018July 2018August 2018September 2018October 2018November 2018December 2018January 2019February 2019March 2019April 2019May 2019June 2019July 2019August 2019September 2019October 2019November 2019December 2019January 2020February 2020March 2020April 2020May 2020June 2020July 2020August 2020September 2020October 2020November 2020December 2020January 2021February 2021March 2021
1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
News Every Day |

Trump Defense Lawyers’ 4 Most Baffling Arguments in Impeachment Trial

Donald Trump’s defense team quickly concluded their argument on Friday afternoon, bringing the former president’s impeachment trial in the Senate close to an end. But in their two-and-a-half-hour presentation, Trump’s attorneys lobbed a number of questionable arguments in defense of Trump — some of which were demonstrably false.

Here are their four most confounding arguments:

1. Trump’s rally speech telling his followers to “fight like hell” and head to the Capitol was “political rhetoric”

Trump’s attorneys argued that the former president’s rally speech ahead of the Jan. 6 attack — where he encouraged his followers to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” — was simply “political rhetoric.”

“He meant the crowd should demand action from members of Congress and support primary challenges,” attorney David Schoen said.

Attorney Michael van der Veen said that Trump’s remarks “explicitly encouraged” those attending the rally “to exercise their rights peacefully and patriotically.”

Trump’s defense team sought to demonstrate that Democratic lawmakers have also used words like “fight” before in their political rallies and speeches. But it should be noted that none of those speeches have been directly followed by an insurrection.

2. “All political speech must be protected” under the First Amendment

Van der Veen argued that “all political speech must be protected” under the First Amendment. But there are limits to what kinds of speech the First Amendment protects. Included in those limitations, under Brandenberg v. Ohio, is speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

Meanwhile, nearly 150 constitutional scholars and First Amendment lawyers signed a letter last week to say that Trump’s First Amendment defense was “legally frivolous.”

“Asking whether President Trump was engaged in lawful First Amendment activity misses the point entirely,” the letter said. “Regardless of whether President Trump’s conduct on and around January 6 was lawful, he may be constitutionally convicted in an impeachment trial if the Senate determines that his behavior was a sufficiently egregious violation of his oath of office to constitute a ‘high crime or misdemeanor’ under the Constitution.”

3. The U.S. Capitol attack was pre-planned so Trump could not have incited the insurrection

Van der Veen said that Trump could not hvae incited the insurrection because “extremists of various different stripes and political persuasions” had pre-planned the attack.

“You can’t incite what was already going to happen,” Van der Veen said.

4. Antifa was involved in the attack

Van der Veen, in making his argument that “extremists” pre-planned the attack, also said Antifa was involved in the insurrection.

FBI officials, however, have said there is “no indication” that Antifa members disguised themselves to participate in the Capitol attack. Plus, numerous rioters have been identified as conspiracy theorists and members of right-wing extremist groups such as the Proud Boys.

The attorney also said, without evidence, that one of the first rioters arrested in the Jan. 6 attack was a member of Antifa.





Read also

Co-op scandal heading for a cover-up, MPs claim

Jeep CEO says company is open to dropping ‘Cherokee’ name from cars after criticism from Native American tribe

Man kills wife with kitchen knife in Anambra




News, articles, comments, with a minute-by-minute update, now on Today24.pro



Today24.pro — latest news 24/7. You can add your news instantly now — here
News Every Day

Laser Hair Removal - 12 Weeks later FULL results - Kayley Melissa