Tuesday’s submission responded in response to an argument from Trump’s defense team that, among other defenses, shifted responsibility to the riots themselves rather than the rhetoric of the then president. House Democrats have been accused of committing “political theater,” saying Trump’s first amendment to the right to free speech is being misjudged.
In short, the House Prosecutors reviewed their most powerful case against Trump and how they plan to separate his various defenses – from his technical allegations that the lawsuit itself is unconstitutional to an attempt to seek protection against the First Amendment. 6 speeches that preceded the violent riot that resulted in the death of a captain police officer and four other people.
Trump not only sparked the uprising with false rhetoric about weeks of stolen elections, they argued; he then sat on his hands during the riots and ignored calls for help until hours after the threat had metastasized and the Capitol had been crossed. Even when he responded, Trump seemed to excuse the violence, they claim.
“In an astonishing act of further incitement and betrayal, President Trump had just announced his own vice president on Twitter when mobs hunted him down through the halls of the Capitol,” the managers wrote.
Leadership prosecution leaders will receive a preview when the Senate opens trial on Tuesday with a four-hour debate over whether it is constitutional to bring a former president to justice – the first step in a trial that is expected to last at least a week after.
While the Senate is expected to maintain the constitutionality of the trial on Tuesday, a majority of GOP senators are likely to vote that the lawsuit is unconstitutional. Last month, 45 of the 50 Senate Republicans voted on a motion that would have really confused the trial for procedural reasons. The vote foreshadowed Trump’s likely acquittal, given that at least 17 Republicans must join all Democrats in order for Trump to be condemned.
Democrats say they want to investigate Republicans to make a substantive decision on the matter if the constitutional dispute is resolved in their favor.
When the debates begin on Wednesday, managers will explain their case as “accusations of a violent crime” and make a “concise” account of the January 6 uprising that began weeks earlier when the former president launched a campaign to delegitimize the 2020 election defeat. , senior aides said earlier Tuesday.
To explain the mechanics of the Senate deliberations, anonymous aides stressed that they intended to present a visually captivating version of events that relied on personal experiences that would resonate with a number of lawmakers fleeing violent insurgents.
It will not resemble the technical constitutional arguments that they say will receive the dominant emphasis on Tuesday when Trump’s legal team tries to dismiss the case for procedural reasons on the opening day of the trial.
“It’s more of a violent crime prosecution because that’s what it’s all about,” one counselor said. “He’ll tell the story, the full story … of how the president incited it.” January 6 was the culmination of this incitement, with behavior that led to giving meaning and context to his words. “
Chief helpers to the House’s accountability leaders said they trusted that they would prevail over the constitutional vote and urged senators to consider the matter and urge them to judge Trump on the facts of their case rather than continue to insist. for constitutional reasoning. .
Nevertheless, procedural objections are key issues in Trump’s defense strategy. His lawyers, led by Bruce Castor, argued that the Constitution did not explicitly allow a former president to be brought to justice on charges of prosecution.
Leaders of the House’s accountability are expected to evoke scattered precedents for such action, as well as a bipartisan consensus among jurists who believe it is in fact a constitutional practice. Proponents of this argument note that the Constitution explicitly states that the Senate has “sole authority to try all accountability”.
Tuesday’s arguments are led by Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), The head of the House, followed by Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) And David Cicilline (DR.I), key members of the House’s judiciary. Commission.
Managers are controlling Chuck Cooper, a GOP-compliant attorney, by name who wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the Senate has the power to condemn Trump, even though he is now a private citizen.
Managers want to refute Trump’s defense that he encouraged prospective rioters to take peaceful action, stressing that despite using the term “once in a speech,” it was part of a month-long campaign. Trump argued with false allegations that the election was stolen and repeated it on January 6, knowing that at least a few people in the crowd had violent intentions.
Managers also plan to undermine the efforts of Trump’s lawyers to seize the remarks of prominent Democrats who they claim incited violence. While some Democrats may have made “false” remarks, assistants noted none of them spent months developing a coordinated campaign based on lies about voter fraud while occupying the sole position of Commander-in-Chief.
“While other political figures have used fierce rhetoric, none of the speeches quoted by President Trump resemble President Trump’s anti-democratic efforts to extend his presidency by encouraging the masses to attack Congress,” the managers said in their briefing.
Aides said they have no illusions that Senate Republicans will interrupt the lines in large enough numbers to condemn Trump, but the strength of their case makes it difficult for them to excuse him: “We are open-minded about this. “