Donald Trump finally got the lawyers he wanted. Their defence of Donald was, indeed, Trumpian. Dana Milbank writes:
They misstated legal precedents. They invented facts. They rewrote history. Trump lawyer Bruce Castor, panned for his rambling opening argument Wednesday, closed the argument Friday by confusing Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger with Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger.
The personal injury lawyer, Michael Vander Veen -- who sued Trump last year, claiming that Trump's insistence that the election had been stolen was based on "no evidence" -- didn't deal with the evidence. Instead, he
reinvented history for the senators, telling them that “the clearing of Lafayette Square” last summer, done for Trump’s famous photo-op with a Bible, actually happened because, in van der Veen’s fanciful vision, racial-justice protesters had “pierced a security wall.”
And he insisted that Trump did what civil rights leader Julian Bond had done:
Van der Veen claimed that a 1960s legal precedent involving civil rights leader Julian Bond was about “the exact type of political speech which Mr. Trump engaged in.” Bond’s speech involved opposing the war in Vietnam, not fomenting deadly violence.
Trump lawyer David Schoen attacked the House managers' arguments for gross inaccuracies:
He announced, dramatically, that he had “reason to believe the House managers manipulated evidence.” His support for this heavy charge? One graphic wrote the year as 2020 instead of 2021, and one highlighted tweet should not have had a “blue checkmark.”
That's what Trump wanted to hear. And Van der Veen and Schoen spoke to and for him yesterday.
Image: The Washington Post
8 comments:
Trump got what he wanted from his third-string lawyers: a further incitement to violence. Now we know why the lawyers who argued his first impeachment wouldn't touch this one and why the white-shoe lawyers he signed up to replace them dropped out a week from trial.
I watched yesterday's proceedings on C-Span and was amazed at the flat-out lies his lawyers were telling. In hindsight, I should have expected no less. Trump ruins the reputation of everyone who works for him.
Cap
Let the record show, Cap, that -- eventually -- Trump's lawyers get disbarred.
I read this article on Vox saying Trump's lawyers' defense was terrible because his actions were indefensible. In searching for the article again I notice that another writer from The Boston Globe said something similar!
What in the world are we going to talk about when this fiasco ends?
Will it ever end?
Will we have to fall back on those tedious all but forgotten subjects, Climate Change and The Pandemic?
Have a happy Valentine's Day!
Trump won't go away, John. But I suspect he will get smaller every day. At least I hope that will be the case.
Thanks for the links, thwap. The piece from Vox is particularly good. The central problem with Trump's defence is that it is an attempt to defend the indefensible. Trump's lawyers can't argue the case on the facts. They can't argue it on the process -- although they try to do that. So the only option they have is to pound the table. In other words, the only option they have is outrage.
This all done in the name of dignity and money,money money. Anyong
There are two things that Trump wants to avoid at all costs, Anyong: being poor and going to jail.
Post a Comment