“He summoned a crowd to Washington, exhorted them to the frenzy and aimed them like a cannon loaded down Pennsylvania Avenue,” wrote the managers.
Unlike the first impeachment case against Trump, which focused on his campaign of pressure on Ukraine, he has bipartisan support and prosecutors seem willing to make frequent use of the Republicans’ own criticisms of Trump. His brief cited representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, one of 10 House Republicans who voted for impeachment, as well as Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, who publicly said Trump “provoked” the crowd.
In presenting constitutional arguments in favor of Trump’s conviction, however, they reached hundreds of years ago, arguing that Trump had not only incited violence but threatened Washington’s peaceful transfer of power tradition. They also cited debates by the founders about who would be subject to impeachment and when, as well as a 19th-century impeachment trial by a former war secretary, to state that the Senate clearly had the right to try Trump even after he left office .
“There is no ‘January exception’ for impeachment or any other provision of the Constitution,” wrote the managers. “A president must answer comprehensively for his conduct in office, from the first day to the last.”
They also insisted that the First Amendment’s right to freedom of expression could not protect Trump from responsibility for inciting violence that would aim to undermine the constitution, undermining all rights enshrined therein, including freedom of expression.
The president’s case was more restricted by project, with a longer and more detailed document delivered by his lawyers early next week. Still, the contours of his defense were becoming clear.
The lawyers said the Democrats misinterpreted Trump’s actions and intentions, denying that he was responsible for the Capitol riot or that he intended to interfere in Congress’ formalizing Biden’s victory. They said their words to supporters on January 6 – “if you don’t fight like hell, you won’t have a country anymore” – they weren’t meant to be a call to violent action, but they were “about the need to fight for electoral security in general. “