The New York Times on Trump’s Defense:
...Earlier, the defense team had channeled the former president’s own combative style and embrace of falsehoods to claim, contrary to facts, that Mr. Trump never glorified violence during his presidency and that he consistently called for peace as the rampage at the Capitol unfolded. Showing video clips of Democrats urging their supporters to “fight” and Mr. Trump venerating “law and order,” they sought to rewrite not just the narrative of his campaign to overturn the election but that of his entire presidency...
Combative style? Embrace of falsehoods? Contrary to facts?
Don’t frighten the children.
They still can’t seem to use the words “lie”, “liars”, and “lying” when talking about Trump or Republicans in general, but they're getting closer.
But nobody expects Trump to pay any kind of penalty.
ICYMI, Digby has defense ‘highlights’ here.
FWIW, I’d made predictions about what the defense would do here. I listened to the opening statement for a few minutes, and that was all I needed to hear.
I didn’t bother to keep score to see if I or they missed anything, but I will admit they took shamelessness to new lows. I’m sure Trump was pleased. They’ve given the Republicans all the talking points they need to claim outrage and disgust at the vindictive, partisan witch hunt by evil Democrats.
The only think I can think of that they didn't do is invite the mob back, to make sure Trump is fully “vindicated”. I wouldn’t rule that out yet either, not while the Sedition Caucus is still alive and breathing.
One thing to keep in mind is that the trials of the insurrectionists over the months to come will keep the details of the insurrection in the news. Democrats should seize every opportunity to remind people of what really happened.
Friday, Feb 12, 2021 · 11:51:52 PM +00:00 · xaxnar
UPDATE: Talking Points Memo picks up on a couple of key questions the defense refused to answer.
Trump’s attorneys refused to answer questions relating to two key areas: when Trump first learned of the attack on the Capitol and the nature of his response, and whether Joe Biden, in fact, won the 2020 presidential election.
In the first instance, Trump himself could address the matter with clarity. In the second, the answer is obvious.
...Shockingly, Trump attorney Michael van der Veen replied by saying that it was up to the House managers — the prosecution — to answer that question.
...It was a stunning response in part because Trump is van der Veen’s client; asking the person who hired him is, in theory, all it would have taken to elicit a response about a question that’s become key to the Senate trial.
Among other things, GOP Senator Tommy Tuberville is on record telling Trump in a phone call that Pence had just been evacuated, minutes before Trump tweeted an angry message about Pence.
At another point, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) asked both the managers and the defense who won the 2020 election.
“In my judgment — who asked that?” Van der Veen retorted.
“I did!” Sen. Sanders yelled.
“My judgment is irrelevant in this proceeding,” van der Veen replied, to groans from the Senate and a response from Sen. Sanders: “You represent the President of the United States!”
Want to bet the defense team has explicit orders to never admit Trump lost? Trump’s still unable to admit it — possibly because it would cut off the cash flow from his cult if he conceded, and he still thinks he can come back. Watch for his travel plans on March 4, 2021.
Saturday, Feb 13, 2021 · 12:24:14 AM +00:00
·
xaxnar
Update: Charles P. Pierces sums things up in his distinctive style:
The lawyers for the former president* had nothing. They had nothing a month ago, a week ago, and they had nothing on Monday, when the festivities began in the Senate. So, on Friday, when they finally got a chance to put on their case, they decided to go full dickhead. This was especially true of Michael Van der Veen, the personal-injury lawyer from Philadelphia who was a last-minute addition to the legal team. VdV was plainly convinced that the United States Senate was made up exclusively of the manufacturers of exploding toasters. Bernie Sanders sent him up a tree by asking, simply, if VdV believed that the former president* lost the election. VdV couldn’t, or wouldn’t, answer.
Earlier, defense counsel, including VdV, had enlivened the proceedings, and delighted all of social media, with some of the greatest malaprops in the history of the legal system. VdV himself kicked things off by saying that his client stands accused of something called “incitement to resurrection,” which gets Pontius Pilate off the hook, I guess. There also was a complete burlesque involving a tweet in which someone confused the word “cavalry” with the word “Calvary,” which is one of the most common typos there is. The defense tried to argue that the House managers were being disrespectful to Christianity. Later, he confused Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger with Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. His colleague, Bruce Castor, added to the mystery of what they were all trying to prove by opining, weirdly, that he didn’t know whether everybody was under oath or not. That seems like something one would remember.
This is not even to get into the endless, repetitive montages of every time a Democratic politician has used the word “fight” all the way back to Martin Van Buren, I believe. (These brought back terrible memories of all those Elizabeth Warren rallies that ended in bloodbaths.) I’m telling you, if El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago follows his lifelong business plan and stiffs these guys, I’m on his side.
I’ll tell you something else. They’re going to win, too, because the Senate Republicans care less about this country than they do the tender fee-fee of a lunatic in exile.