Takeaways From Day 4 of Trump’s Impeachment Trial
Former President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers opened and closed his impeachment defense in a three-hour span on Friday. He did Mr. The House’s accusation against Trump called it a “false and monstrous lie,” and his arguments garnered praise from Republican senators. After the rescue, the senators presented questions to each party. Closing arguments are set to begin on Saturday, most likely after a swift verdict.
Here are the takeaways Fourth day of Mr. Trump’s trial.
The Trump defense sounded like Trump himself.
Republican senators praised Mr. Trump’s three-hour defense, during which his attorneys accused impeachment managers of the House of taking the former president’s words and actions out of context, complaining that they did not support their client’s media attention. What many saw as inappropriate coverage and presented several of Sh. . Trump’s own talking points and narrators.
It was almost as if Mr. Trump was presenting his defense. And the lawmakers named one of their lawyers, Bruce L. Commended as a huge improvement on Caster Jr.’s jugaad and cluttered logic, a performance on Tuesday, which was widely panned Maligned Mr. Trump.
Defense attorneys said House managers manipulated their client’s words and, in his Trump’s January 6 speech, told his supporters to “calmly and patriotically voice their voices”.
Mr Castor said, “House managers said: ‘Go down to capitol and riot.”
But that’s not what Mr. Trump was asking his supporters to do, with Mr. Kester saying: “He wanted to support them with primary challenges.”
The former president stood for law and order, Michael T., one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers. Van der Veen said, picking up the phrase used repeatedly by the president.
- Former President Donald J. A trial is being held to decide whether Trump is guilty. Instigate a deadly mob Their supporters when they Stormed the capitol On 6 January, violently violating security measures and sending MPs to hide As they met to authenticate President Biden’s victory.
- House Voted 232 to 197 To approve an article of Accusation, Accusing Mr. Trump of “inciting violence against the United States government”, in his quest to reverse the election results. Ten Republicans joined the Democrats and voted to impeach him.
- to convict Mr. Trump, Senate will need two-thirds majority Compromise This means that at least 17 Republican senators will have to vote with Senate Democrats to convict.
- A conviction is unlikely. Last month, Only five republicans The Senate, along with Democrats, attempted to dismiss allegations of beating a Republican because Mr. Trump is no longer in office. Only 27 senators They are inconclusive About convicting Mr. Trump.
- If the Senate blames Mr. Trump, Convicted of “inciting violence against the government of the United States”, senators may vote on him to withhold future office. That vote requires only a simple majority, and if it comes down to party lines, the Democrats will cast a tiebreaking vote with Vice President Kamala Harris.
- If Senate does not blame Mr. Trump, the former president may once again be eligible to run for public office. Opinion polls show that he is the most popular national figure in the Republican Party.
“Mr. C. Trump advocated legal action to the contrary,” said Mr. van der Veen. “He clearly advocated peaceful action at the Save America rally.”
Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said of the rescue.
He told reporters, “The president’s attorneys threw the house managers’ case out of the water – they only settled their case legally.” Mr Johnson was among Republican lawmakers who planned on 6 January To challenge Electoral College On Mr. Biden’s victory. But his plan changed after the attack.
Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told reporters that the defense made “a much stronger presentation than it did in the first week”. Ms. Murkowski is a former constitutional president with Democrats, and Democrats are hopeful They could count him to vote to convict Trump.
Trump’s defense went on the offensive and brought his own videos.
The former president’s lawyers began their defense by attacking the impeachment managers of the House, aiming for several compelling video presentations made by Democrats throughout the week.
The attorneys produced separate screens for the senators, staging footage that House managers showed during the first three days of the trial to explain exactly what the defense argued. Many were described as “managers” and “real”.
“Like every other politically motivated witch hunt that the Left has worked on over the past four years, this impeachment is completely divorced from the facts, evidence, and interests of the American people,” Mr. van der Veen said.
House managers used video footage to tell the Jan. 6 story in Mr. Trump and the rioters’ own words. He showed scenes of what was happening outside the Senate Chamber when the senators – in the same place where the trial is held – were running to safety and played recordings of distress calls from officers who were massed by violent crowds Were carried out.
Democrats and Republicans alike use the word ‘fight’.
Mr. Trump’s defense team released a rapid-fire video montage of Democrats calling the word “fight” in his political speeches, challenging a major House argument that Mr. Trump instigated the attack on Jan. 6 by calling his supporters “fighting.” A speech just before urging her to go to Catalit.
Earlier in the week, House managers ran a video of the speech, in which Mr. Trump said: “We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you can no longer go to the country.
Lawyers for Mr. Trump say this abusive language is common among politicians, as clarified by the video montage, which he said includes all House managers as well as Democratic senators using phrases such as : “You fight for it don’t you ‘don’ go to this fight.” “We’ll fight when we fight.” “We’re in this fight for our lives.”
April 2018’s “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” featured the final clip on a fight reel of Kamala Harris, the then senator.
Ms. DeNares asked Ms. Harris: “If you had to get stuck in the elevator with President Trump, Mike Pence or Jeff Sessions, who would it be?”
Ms. Harris replied, “Do any of us have to survive?” Drawing laughter from your host and audience.
Mr. van der Veen gave a deep sigh as soon as the video was over.
A Democratic lawmaker took issue with the montage.
Senator Chris Coons of Delaware told reporters during a break, “Yes, we all have used the word ‘fight’ at some point. But, he said, the Democrats had to stop people before they started attacking their supporters.” Not asked to fight properly.
The ‘due process’ and other familiar court standards do not apply to this test.
Trump’s defense team argued that the Democratic-led House had impeached for accusing Mr. Trump. High crime and misdeeds Abetment to insure Lawyers for the former president said the House did not fully investigate the January 6 incidents, and it robbed their client of due process.
“Vanity Cricketers said,” There is no due process in this proceeding, “Mr van der Veen said Friday afternoon during the question-and-answer portion of the trial.
Mr van der Ween was talking about the House investigation, which does not have “enforceable rights” to due process. But their point is a reminder that impeachment trial is very different from judicial trials which are familiar to the country’s court systems. Impeachment test Is political action.
For example, in this trial, Senator Patrick J. of Vermont. Leahy is the presiding officer, witness to the events that are the subject of the trial and members of the jury. The defense said that it would be a conflict of interest in another court.
On Thursday, three Republican senators – members of the jury at this trial – met with Mr. Trump’s defense team to discuss the strategy, a move that is very inappropriate in the court room outside the Senate chamber.
And many trial gamblers made up their minds long before the proceedings began, as they did at Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial last year.
The verdict then fell almost entirely along party lines, and impeachment proceedings are expected this time and in the future. ALEXANDER HAMILTON AS Described in one of the Federalist papers, Impassable offenses “are offenses that proceed from the misconduct of the public, or, in other words, from the misuse or violation of some public trust.”
“They are of a nature which may be peculiarly justified,” he said, “as they relate chiefly to the injuries done to society itself.”
Reporting was contributed by Luke broadwater, Glen thrush, Maggie Haberman And Adam Liptak.