“The problem was when the president went from his legal battle, which was good, to intimidating and intimidating state election officials and state legislators, and finally, as Congressman Cheney said ‘summon a crowd, assemble a crowd and light the match'” Raskin said on Friday, during the impeachment trial when senators ask questions.
Donald Trump’s lawyers in his impeachment trial accused Democrats of two pesos and two measures for prosecuting him on charges of inciting the deadly riot at the United States Capitol last month after using combative language.
Video transcription
– Is it true or false that in the months leading up to January 6, dozens of courts, including state and federal courts in Georgia, rejected President Trump’s campaign efforts to reverse his loss to Joe Biden?
JAMIE RASKIN: That’s true. I want to make it clear, however, that we have absolutely no problem with the fact that President Trump continued to believe that the election was stolen or that there was fraud, corruption or unconstitutionality. We have no problem with him going to court to do that. And he did, and he lost 61 consecutive cases.
The big lie has been refuted, devastated and demolished in federal and state courts across the country, including by eight judges appointed by President Donald Trump himself.
The problem was when the president went from his good legal battle to intimidating and intimidating state election officials and state legislators and finally, as Representative Cheney said, summoning a crowd, building a crowd and lighting the match for an insurrection against the union. When he moved from nonviolent means, no matter how ridiculous or absurd – okay, he’s exercising his rights – to incite violence, that’s what this trial is about.
And we hear little about it at the presentation of the president’s lawyers. They didn’t really address the facts of the case. There were some propaganda rolls about Democratic politicians who would be excluded.
In any court in the country, they talk about the rules of evidence. All of this was totally irrelevant to the case before us. Whatever you think about it is irrelevant. And we will be happy, of course, to address the First Amendment’s arguments as well.