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

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

by

The Maryland Democrat’s comments on a caucus call on Wednesday offered a preview of how House impeachment administrators plan to drill holes in the former president’s defense during next week’s trial, while also arguing that Trump was responsible for incite the deadly riot at the Capitol on January 6. Trump’s lawyer, however, said on Wednesday that the defense will focus on “technical” reasons that Trump should not be convicted and will avoid Trump’s false allegations of widespread electoral fraud.

Both House impeachment managers and Trump’s legal team submitted pre-trial legal documents on the Tuesday before the trial that begins on February 9. Both sides are expected to present yet another round of pre-trial documents on Monday, before the trial begins the next day.

Trump’s lawyers argued on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for the Senate to hold an impeachment trial for a former president. The Trump team also said that the former president’s speech on electoral fraud did not incite troublemakers 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,” wrote Trump’s lawyers.

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

Raskin added that extremist elements in Russia and Germany see the takeover of the Capitol as a major victory for 21st century fascism.

In their legal summary on Tuesday, the House’s impeachment team rejected the constitutional argument that Senate Republicans came together as a reason to absolve Trump, pointing to the Senate precedent to try a former employee and the fact that the Trump impeachment Chamber while he was still in office.
Trump's impeachment lawyers have a history of involvement in controversial legal issues

It will be one of the key issues during next week’s trial, although Senate Republicans have already signaled with a 55-45 procedural vote last week that it is highly unlikely that they will condemn Trump.

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

Raskin told Democrats on Wednesday that one Capitol Police officer lost three fingers in the attack and another is likely to lose his eye.

A ‘technical’ defense

Speaking to Pennsylvania radio station KYW Newsradio on Wednesday, Trump’s lawyer Bruce L. Castor said he plans to focus on Trump’s “technical” defenses and that he has not been pressured into trying to create a defense based on false claims and unfounded Trump. widespread electoral fraud.

“There are a lot of questions about how the election was conducted across the country, but this is for a different forum. I don’t think it’s important to litigate at the Senate trial, because you don’t need that, ”said Castor.

“I said I would not go that way,” he added. “Nobody put pressure on me. It wasn’t even discussed. So, I don’t know where people got this idea that it was a litmus test to defend the president.”

Of course, although the lawsuit that Castor and David Schoen filed on Tuesday defending the former president did not claim that the election was stolen, he embraced some of Trump’s false claims about the election. The action in response to the impeachment of the Chamber claimed that “there is insufficient evidence on which a reasonable lawyer could conclude that the 45th president’s statements were accurate or not, and he therefore denies that they are false”.

Senate Republicans have publicly warned the Trump team not to try to argue electoral 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 plans to argue that the Senate has no jurisdiction to try Trump because he is no longer in office, as well as that Trump’s January 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 were excited, it doesn’t mean that the editors are to blame – it’s people who get excited and do what they know is wrong who is to blame,” said Castor. “This is the focus we are going to have.”

Questions loom over the course of next week’s trial

It is not yet clear how long the Senate trial will last – as Senate Democrats have suggested they want a quick trial – as well as whether House Democrats will call witnesses, like someone who could talk about the president’s mindset and motivation before and during the Capitol riots. The House report accused Trump of “abandoning duty” for not responding to the riots by activating the National Guard or canceling the rebels attacking the Capitol

“I have no idea,” Raskin said of how long the trial will last.

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

Pressed on his preference, Raskin said, “justice” by entering the Chamber of Deputies.

This story was updated with further developments on Wednesday.

.Source