#TrumpImpeachmentTrialDefense

Read the Brief from Trump’s Defense Team on Impeachment Charge

via @nytimes https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/02/us/politics/trump-brief-defense-impeachment.html

From the top their defense is flawed.

“It is denied that the quoted provision currently applies to the 45th Presidentof the United States since he is no longer ‘President.’”

Trump WAS IMPEACHED ON JANUARY 13, 2020 while he was still a sitting President.

This is the TRIAL!

Article I § 3
“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, & disqualification”
Is a list of the furthest extent of penalties.
The 1st isn’t requisite for the 2nd
If it were, the language would be the equivalent to “If only” / “but for”

This bit is downright OFFENSIVE & DISGUSTING

This part is EMBARRASSING. How many courts heard & dismissed (some w/prejudice) election fraud conspiracy theory lawsuits? Too many for me to count. @marceelias can give you the count. The only fraud found was the illegal actions taken by Trump & his supporters.

Answer 4 defense claims Trump’s comments are protected by first amendment.
Refer to:

Schenck v. United States

Whitney v. California
“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears”

Brandenburg v. Ohio: The Supreme Court established the modern version of the "clear and present danger" doctrine, holding that states only could restrict speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Answer 5. See the myriad lawsuits. Answer 6 is flawed for the same reasons as answer 4 w/ the added proof of premeditation published in @nytimes & @washingtonpost @ktbenner & @CarolLeonnig et al. As well as his inaction to quell the insurrection.

Answer 7. Trump didn’t ONLY pressure Raffensperger. He forced US Attorney Pak to Resign, he pressured the acting AG to announce a fake investigation & on & on & on

Given the warnings & actions BEFORE #Jan6
+ all of the plans explicitly outlined to bring weapons etc we all saw on the internet,
the Brandenburg "imminent lawless action" test – for judging "seditious speech" under the First Amendment is clearly met. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Company SCOTUS applied Brandenburg & found that the speech was protected: “free to stimulate his audience.… When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”

#TrumpImpeachmentTrialDefense