Trump’s lawyers present their charges in the indictment | Solidarity Political News

They were 16 hours, but safe Donald Trump, Used only three-thirty on Friday afternoon to present his arguments in favor of the former president, who is being indicted in the Senate for deciding his responsibilities. Violent attack on the Capitol On January 6, 5 people died.

Three defense attorneys attacked the arguments put forward by the accused party in the House of Representatives in the previous two days and assured that Trump was not responsible for the violent outburst and, moreover, was protected by the message he delivered to his followers.

The basis of their argument is that there is no “proper procedure” when accusing Trump (an irrelevant complaint because the session in the Senate is not governed by the same parameters as a legal court) and sometimes they raise their voices in a way that is not welcomed in court.

The former president’s lawyers showed an aggressive rhetorical style, which was very much in the style of their client, and became a challenge when addressing senators, especially during the question and answer session.

Fighting, symbolically

In order to promote free speech, David Schoen and Michael van der Wein originally had a revised (and expanded) video in which a few Democrat leaders supported the “struggle” at different times in their lives.

“The word fight has always been used in politics,” said Van der Veen, referring to a video showing moments when they openly said, “Fight like hell.” Fight like hell, In English), a phrase used shortly before Trump’s mob of his supporters attacked the headquarters of the Legislature.

READ  Felipe Ramos Risso said Cruz had benefited from the sentence in Azul's absence

“The president did not instruct a fight in physical form”, but rather they fought to protect the electoral process, amid unsubstantiated claims that the presidential election was rigged, ending Trump’s defense.

Lower House executive Stacy criticized the use of flask videos, which showed black women talking about “fighting” for a reason, sometimes in the context of protests against police brutality last summer.

“Defense lawyers put up a lot of videos, clip after clip of black women talking about fighting for a cause, an issue or politics. Many of those people are women, black women like me, we can’t ignore that. Tired of being sick and tired,” Blasket said.

Video war

Outraged, Shoen and Van der Wein accused Democrats of “damaging” evidence against Trump, and said they had been provided with evidence to present at trial.

However, the videos they showed below suffered from the same flaws that they blamed on their colleagues, and they seemed like a series of illustrative cuts, inciting violent attitudes by Democratic leaders without timelines.

These videos were similar to the ones used in the election campaign, indicating that Trump’s lawyers, like the Democrats before them, did not speak much to senators in public beyond the Capitol.

In another section, Shoen contained a clipped video of several Democrats in which they referred to media reports or planned issues that were said to be “stated” in relation to certain points raised in their arguments.

Sean said it was tantamount to saying “I have no evidence”, “we have reason to believe the delegates damaged the evidence” or “created a false presentation” in some of the president’s tweets.

READ  Simon Piles, the first athlete with his own emoji

Jamie Raskin, the head of the defense and investigation team that allegedly handled a tweet from the president, showed photos in front of a computer where he appeared to be reading them.

But that point in the presentation was confusing because even though it was talking about a date change in a Trump tweet, the attorney general said it was not ultimately used in the presentation by executives, so it could not be part of The Case of the former president.

At the end of the security presentations, Bruce Custer concluded by reiterating that the purpose of the indictment was to prevent former President Trump from running again.

“Its purpose is to eliminate a political opponent and change his opinion to the will of the electorate (…) This test goes far beyond Trump (trying) to criminalize political opinion, and this test is really this,” Castor concluded.

Eden Hayes

"Wannabe gamer. Subtly charming beer buff. General pop culture trailblazer. Incurable thinker. Certified analyst."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top