Trump's Impeachment: The defense's weak weak case

In the one in a million case that Trump is found guilty, he has an excellent excuse: his attorneys were really lousy!

Let's see their arguments:

Trump didn't know that he was inciting an extremist mob: As expected, this is the "too stupid to prosecute" argument. He didn't know that far right extremists had been tweeting for months about doing this. Especially after his calls for this specific event in mid-December. Pathetic. But some GOP senators might try to use this excuse.

But but but... he said "peacefully": Poor defense, but it's the best they have: that among all the incendiary rhetoric, his call to "fight like hell" and "you have to be strong", he casually threw in the word "peacefully". And they did march to the Capitol peacefully. It was AFTER that, at the end of their march, where the violence took over. The main problem with this argument is that he was rallying people to do something illegal. How did Trump expect his mob to stop Congress from counting the electoral votes "peacefully"? The obvious answer is that he didn't! The only way to do that was... well... exactly what they try to do: enter in the Capitol violently, kidnap son lawmakers and/or try to steal any records of the electoral votes.

Democrats use the word "fight": It was when I saw them try to make this argument that I realized they had no case. They tried to make it by showing clip after clip of a democrat just saying the word "fight". By God, that was like an hour long (I know it wasn't, but it felt like it). Of course people use the word "fight" in other contexts. That's legitimate. NONE of the things that democrats called to fight for was illegal. Trump WAS demanding that they commit an illegal act: stop the count of the electoral votes.

Attack the prosecutors: I can't see even Republican Senators using ad-hominem attacks as their excuse to acquit Trump. But I found it funny that they accused the managers of taking videos "out of context", because they cut the irrelevant parts and did not show context, and then they proceeded to show video after video in which there wasn't even a context.

And, as far as I can recall, that's it! They didn't even try to make the case that most Republican Senators are likely to embrace, given that the ones the attorneys tried to push were ludicrous. The one about the trial not being constitutional. Of course, that issue was already settled before the trial began. Not only by the Senate vote, but because even right-wing legal scholars agree that it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that it's not constitutional to impeachment a former President. Trump's attorneys aren't trying to make that case anymore, but they are also no setting the record straight.

Again: none of this will make any difference. Because Republicans will vote to acquit even if the defense attorneys had stood up and sang Star Spangled Banner the whole time. But GOP Senators who vote in favor of Trump will have a harder time explaining this to their level-headed constituents.

 

Weak? They demostrated that the language Trump used was common political rhetoric. The Dems played carefully edited, and mostly immaterial vids to evoke emotional rather than logical reactions; Trump’s side just pointed out that the prosecutio side commonly and frequently used the same words and phrases they’re claiming drove hoards of people to become wild-eyes vandals. It was friggin’ brilliant.

 

Oh... I also forgot a BIG one.

It was free speech: Probably the most ridiculous and easy to debunk of all. There is no 1st Amendment protection for inciting others to commit an illegal act.

 

Really? Really really? LOL

 

Read again!

You can call others to "fight" against poverty or "fight" to protect their rights or "fight" in the war against drugs. You cannot call others to "fight" to commit an illegal act.

 

Very true, but since Trump wasn’t encouraging them to fight to commit an illegal act, a totally vapid observation.

 

What was he telling them to fight for?

 

Yeah, really. The Dems case was Trump saying “fight” was the cause of the riot, showing many of those present as well as Biden and other speaking even more violently (Biden said he was going to take Trump behind the gym and beat the crap out of him). Trump’s folks emphasized that talk like that is metaphorical rather than literal.

 

Yeah, we're never going to agree on this one, buddy. You still doing photography?

 

It’s a political metaphor, just like the litany of agreesive speech from LWers Trump’s defense played today. At least also said “peacefully and patriotically”; I didn’t hear anything like that from the rogues gallery of clips offered today.

 

Metaphor or not, in ALL cases in the video the defense presented, they were telling people to fight for something. The only instance in which I have seen anybody use the word "fight" not intended to mean "fighting to reach a goal" is when used literally. As in going and punching people in the face for no reason.

So what was it a metaphor for. What was he asking them to fighting for? If you don't have an answer just say so.

 

LOL, now your resorting to semantic salad? They were fighting for fair elections or at least to express their views on the honesty of the election.

 

Absolutely NOT semantic. It's exactly the one and only point in this whole impeachment trial. What is it he was asking them to "fight" for?

Why the evasives? Just answer the question. You brought it up.

 

I'm sorry. I forgot yet ANOTHER "brilliant" argument by Trump's defense:

Trump must be acquitted because Democrats hate him: They spent most of the morning trying to prove that Democrats hate Trump. How absurd! So, turns out that the only thing a President needs to do to avoid impeachment is to be hated by the opposition. He can abuse power, accept bribery,... anything he wants, because "his opposition hates him"

 

Already did. Nothing evasive about it.

 

No! You didn't! You said it was "semantics".

But you also said...

Literally, that's what Semantics IS: The study of how words and phrases are commonly used. And you called it "friggin' brilliant"

Look... it appears that you are new here. You can retract your statement, admit you were wrong, and that's not detrimental. As a matter of fact, it would earn you much respect.

Or you can answer the question. What was Trump telling them to fight for?

If you "already did", then do it again. Answer it here and now! If you're afraid your screen might run out of ink if you repeat your answer, you shouldn't worry. You can answer the same question twice.

Unless you really are trying to evade it.

 

there is no doubt common political rhetoric on both sides

but the word "common" and trump do not belong in the same sentence

from mexicans are thieves and rapists to she had blood coming out of her whatever to grab em by the pu$$y

no politician on either side could say anything remotely close to what trump has said without being ruined politically

if trumpspeech is common in a persons household I kinda feel bad for the kids that may be living there

growing up, had I said anything near the things trump had said my mother would have washed my mouth with soap

c'mom folks trump canot be civil enough to stay on twitter

twitter has million of users and trump is in the group that have been banned

kinda sad

 

When in December did he call for his supporters to enter the capitol building and kill anyone?

But he did tell them to be peaceful.

That is what the democrats are saying how Trump caused the riots. The democrats have used the word "fight" more than Trump.

That is enough. They failed to show intent except possibly with the word "fight" and the democrats have used the word more than republicans.

 

Again, I’ve already covered this. And can the ridiculous pomposity.

 

No idea what you are talking about.

Maybe you can answer the question. What was Trump asking his mob to "fight" for?

 

He lied to his audience and used that lie to place the blame on his own VP, who had told him he was going to follow the Constitution and U.S. law. The lie was that he had proven "election fraud." In the first place, he hadn't and in the second place, he doesn't have the power to make such a judicial decision. Then, he told the crowd that because he had proven "election fraud," that freed Pence to use "different rules" in overseeing the joint session and return the certified electoral counts back to the States for a new count. It was a second lie and the third was that he was going to march with them to the Capitol to support Pence break the law. And, watching the Capitol being stormed and overcoming the Capitol Police, he tweeted those at the Capitol that Pence had failed them. Pretty clear evidence that he incited the mob to invade the Capitol in order to disrupt the electoral count.

 

You are looking for a literal translation. His defense was that he did not mean it literally. He was wanting them to fight to show the election was fraudulent.

In response to your comment "Especially after his calls for this specific event in mid-December."

 

Say what you want, but if I had to chose someone to represent me in a trial I would pick Trump's team over the impeachment members.

 

"you have to fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore"
And you think he wasn't encouraging them fight and commit illegle acts? even though he had been wee weeing them up for 2 months and KNEW they were ready to do what they did??
You really going to stick with that?

 

You want cell block C or cell block D? Because with those idiots you are certain to lose.