WASHINGTON (AP) – The legal dispute over Donald Trump’s impeachment trial is underway, with summaries presented this week presenting radically different positions before the Senate trial next week.
House prosecutors and the former president’s defense team are presenting their arguments about Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 riot on the United States Capitol and the legality of even holding a trial. They are also debating the First Amendment and a strong assessment by Democrats that the mutiny posed a threat to the line of presidential succession.
Conclusions of arguments from both sides:
‘ONLY RESPONSIBLE’
Who is responsible for the turmoil? Democrats say there is only one answer and that is Trump.
Democrats say Trump was “uniquely responsible” for the January 6 attack, “creating a powder keg, striking a match and then seeking personal advantage in the ensuing destruction”. They say it is “impossible” to imagine the revolt unfolding as it did without Trump’s encouragement, and they even cite in support of a Republican colleague, Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who said essentially the same thing.
Trump’s lawyers, on the other hand, suggest that he cannot be responsible because he never urged anyone to “engage in destructive behavior”. They admit that there was an illegal violation of the Capitol that resulted in deaths and injuries. But they say that those “responsible” – those who entered the building and vandalized it – are being investigated and prosecuted.
FIRST AMENDMENT FAILURE LINE
Trump’s lawyers do not dispute that he told supporters to “fight like hell” before the Capitol siege. But the defense says Trump, like any citizen, is protected by the First Amendment to “express his belief that the election results were suspect”. He had an opinion that he had the right to express, they say, and if the First Amendment only protected popular speech, there would be “no protection at all”.
House Democrats don’t see it that way. On the one hand, they say that the First Amendment aims to protect private citizens of the government, and not to allow government officials to abuse their power. And while a citizen may have the right to defend totalitarianism or the overthrow of the government, “no one would seriously suggest” that a president who adopts these same positions should be immune from impeachment.
SUCCESSION LINE
Impeachment administrators say the legalists instigated by Trump have jeopardized the safety of lawmakers who fled the House and Senate while the rioters arrived.
Among those affected were the most important government leaders.
Those in the line of succession for the presidency after Trump – then Vice President Mike Pence, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Pro Tempore Chuck Grassley – were all on Capitol Hill and forced to flee for safety. Trump’s conduct not only “endangered the lives of every member of Congress,” the Democrats wrote, but also “endangered the peaceful transition of power and the line of succession.”
The brief details frightened threats to Pence and Pelosi as protesters ransacked the building and “specifically hunted” them. According to the document, which cites media and videos, the rebels shouted: “Hang Mike Pence!” and called him a traitor because he indicated that he would not challenge the electoral count, as Trump wanted. One person would have said that Pelosi would have been “shattered into small pieces” if she had been found.
Democrats also describe the terror felt by lawmakers and officials during the siege. “Some members called their loved ones for fear of not surviving the onslaught of President Trump’s rebel mob,” wrote the impeachment managers.
DENY, DENY, DENY
That’s the message from Trump’s defense team, which used the word “denied” or “denied” 29 times in its 14-page summary.
The Trump team denies that the impeachment trial can be held because he is no longer in office. They deny that he incited his supporters to violence. And they deny that he did anything wrong on January 6, or in the weeks leading up to the turmoil, when he drove his supporters into a frenzy by convincing them, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the election had been stolen from him.
When Trump told the crowd, “If you don’t fight like the devil, you won’t have a country anymore,” he was just pushing for “the need to fight for electoral security in general,” Trump’s lawyers say. He was not trying to interfere with the counting of electoral votes, although he did require Pence to do just that.
“It is denied that President Trump has ever jeopardized the security of the United States and its institutions of government,” they wrote. “It is denied that he threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power and endangered a government of equal power.”
Instead, they say, he “played an admirable role as president, always doing what he thought was best for the American people.”
There was no widespread election fraud, as confirmed by a number of electoral officials across the country and by former attorney general William Barr. Almost all legal challenges to the election presented by Trump and his allies have been rejected.
HISTORY LESSON
Both sides are at odds over whether a trial is permissible now that Trump has stepped down – and the seemingly mysterious argument may be the key to his acquittal.
Trump’s lawyers say the case is debatable, as he is no longer in the White House and the Senate therefore has no jurisdiction to try him in an impeachment case. Many Senate Republicans agree, and 45 of them voted on that basis to end the trial before it started. A two-thirds vote in the Senate would be necessary for Trump’s sentencing.
It is true that no president faced impeachment after leaving office, but House managers say there is ample precedent. They cite the case of former War Secretary William Belknap, who resigned in 1876 just hours before being accused of a bribery scheme. The Chamber impeached it anyway, and the Senate tried him, although he was finally acquitted. Democrats also note that Trump was impeached by the House while he was still president.
The constitution’s authors intended the impeachment power to sanction current employees or former employees for acts committed during their tenure – without any “January exceptions,” the Democrats wrote. In addition, they say, the Constitution explicitly allows the Senate to disqualify a former official he condemns for future office.
That possibility, they suggest, makes the case against Trump – who could set up another White House dispute in 2024 – anything less debatable.