Jamie Raskin: Trump’s impeachment defense amounts to ‘absurd constitutional arguments’

by



[ad_1]

The Maryland Democrat’s comments on a caucus call on Wednesday offered a glimpse of how House impeachment officials planned to punch holes in the former president’s defense in next week’s trial , while also arguing that Trump was responsible for inciting the deadly riot on Capitol Hill. January 6th. Trump’s lawyer, meanwhile, said on Wednesday that the defense will focus on “technical” reasons Trump should not be convicted and avoid Trump’s false claims of widespread electoral fraud.

House impeachment officials and Trump’s legal team submitted preliminary legal briefs on Tuesday ahead of the trial, which begins February 9. Both sides are expected to submit a new set of preliminary briefs on Monday before the trial begins the next day.

Trump’s lawyers argued Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for the Senate to hold an impeachment trial against a former president. Trump’s team also argued that the former president’s speech on voter fraud did not incite rioters and was protected by the First Amendment. “The 45th President exercised his First Amendment right under the Constitution to express his belief that the election results were suspect,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

But Raskin argued during the Democratic call that Trump’s remarks at a rally on Jan.6 before rioters attacked Capitol Hill were not First Amendment protected speech. His comments were not like fire screams in a crowded theater, Raskin said, but like a fire chief sending a crowd to the theater, according to the source.

Raskin added to the call that extremist elements in Russia and Germany regard the capture of the Capitol as a great victory for 21st century fascism.

In their legal brief on Tuesday, the House impeachment team rebuffed the constitutional argument that Senate Republicans came together as a reason to acquit Trump, pointing to the Senate precedent for trying a former official and the fact that the House impeached Trump while he was still in office.
Trump impeachment lawyers involved in controversial legal cases

That will be one of the key questions at next week’s trial, although Senate Republicans already signaled with a 55-45 procedural vote last week that they are highly unlikely to convict Trump.

But House Democrats are preparing a visceral case to detail the events of January 6 and how Trump was “singularly responsible” for the deadly riot, in which a Capitol Hill police officer was killed and dozens injured. This includes the use of video footage of the riots on Capitol Hill and showing how the insurgents said they were acting on behalf of the president.

Raskin told Democrats on Wednesday that one Capitol Hill police officer lost three fingers in the attack and another was at risk of losing his eye.

A “ technical ” defense

Speaking to Pennsylvania radio station KYW Newsradio on Wednesday, Trump’s attorney Bruce L. Castor said he planned to focus on Trump’s “technical” defenses and did not have been forced to try to craft a defense based on Trump’s false and baseless claims. widespread electoral fraud.

“There are a lot of questions about how the elections went across the country, but that’s for a different forum. I don’t think it’s important to argue in the Senate trial because you don’t don’t need it, ”Castor said.

“I said I was not going to take this path,” he added. “No one pressured me. It wasn’t even discussed. So I don’t know where people got this idea which was kind of a litmus test to come up with defending the president.”

Of course, while the legal brief Castor and David Schoen filed on Tuesday in defense of the former president did not claim the election was stolen, it did include some of Trump’s false statements about the election. The filing in response to the House indictment claimed that “there is insufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th President’s statements were correct or not, and he therefore denies that they were false.”

Senate Republicans have publicly warned Trump’s team not to try to argue voter fraud at the trial. Senator John Cornyn of Texas said this week that it would be a “disservice” to Trump’s defense.

Castor said the impeachment defense planned to argue that the Senate lacked jurisdiction to try Trump because he is no longer in power, along with Trump’s Jan.6 speech before the Capitol riots did not meet the criminal definition of incitement and was protected by the First Amendment.

“Just because someone gave a speech and people got excited doesn’t mean it was the speech writers’ fault – it’s the people who got excited and did what they know they are. evil that are at fault, ”Castor said. “That’s the goal we’re going to take.”

Questions loom over next week’s trial

It is still unclear how long the Senate trial will last – as Senate Democrats have hinted they want a speedy trial – and whether House Democrats will call witnesses, such as someone who might talk about the state of mind and motivation of the president before and during the Capitol riots. House brief accused Trump of “dereliction of duty” for failing to respond to riots by activating National Guard or recalling insurgents to attack Capitol Hill

“No idea,” Raskin said of the length of the trial.

And asked if he believed it would include witnesses, Raskin replied, “I think all that remains to be seen in the Senate.”

Pressed on his preference, Raskin said, “justice” as he entered the chamber of the House.

This story was updated with additional developments on Wednesday.

[ad_2]

Source link