Trump’s defense talks of free speech at trial
WASHINGTON — In a whirlwind defense, Donald Trump’s impeachment attorneys aired a long list of grievances Friday, arguing that he former president bore no responsibility for the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol while accusing Democrats of “hatred” and “hypocrisy.”
The defense team, which wrapped up its arguments in just over three hours, said Trump was engaged in “constitutionally protected speech” when he spoke at a rally that immediately preceded the violence on Jan. 6.
They called the impeachment trial a “witch hunt” and accused Democrats of elevating a destructive “cancel culture” to the halls of Congress. They also suggested Democrats were hypocrites for impeaching Trump after some had voiced support for racial justice marches last summer, some of which turned violent.
“It has become very clear that House Democrats hate Donald Trump,” said Michael van der Veen, a Philadelphia personal injury attorney who is part of Trump’s defense team. “Hatred is at the heart.”
Here are some highlights from Friday’s impeachment proceedings:
First Amendment
Regardless of what occurred after Trump’s Jan. 6 speech, the former president was simply exercising his First Amendment right to free speech and can’t be found at fault, his attorneys argued.
“The Senate cannot ignore the First Amendment,” van der Veen said.
Nearly 150 constitutional scholars disagree. In a letter signed last week, they wrote that “the First Amendment does not apply in impeachment proceedings, so it cannot provide a defense for President Trump.”
The First Amendment has long been invoked as a powerful and compelling defense in court. But impeachment proceedings are an inherently political process that exists outside the U.S. court system.
Tempers flared during a question-and-answer session as impeachment proceedings stretched into the evening.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, tried to pressure Trump’s attorneys to say whether the former president had lost the election, which Trump has refused to acknowledge.
“Are the prosecutors right when they claim that Trump was telling a big lie, or in your judgment, did Trump actually win the election?” Sanders asked in a written inquiry.
Van der Veen bristled and inquired who had asked. Sanders responded, “I did.” Van der Veen retorted, “Irrelevant.”
“No, it isn’t!” Sanders angrily shot back. He scoffed audibly when van der Veen avoided answering the question.
Insurrection or not?
The articles of impeachment charge Trump with the “incitement of an insurrection,” a word that Webster’s Dictionary defines as “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.”
Trump’s lawyers say that’s not technically correct.
“‘Insurrection’ is a term of art,” said attorney Bruce Castor, and it “involves taking over a country” or “a shadow government taking the TV stations over and having some plan on what you’re going to do when you finally take power.”
“Clearly this is not that,” he added.
Trump’s speech, in which he urged his supporters to “fight like hell,” was a call for the “peaceful exercise of every American’s First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances,” Castor said.
And he suggested that Trump wasn’t literally calling on his supporters to “fight,” but rather get involved in the political process, such as supporting primary challengers of elected officials they did not like.