- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
"The problem was when the president went from his judicial combat, which was fine, to intimidating and bullying state election officials and state legislators and then finally as Representative Cheney said 'summoning a mob, assembling a mob and then lighting the match'," Raskin said on Friday, during the point of the impeachment trial when Senators ask questions.
Donald Trump's lawyers at his impeachment trial accused Democrats of a double standard for prosecuting him on a charge of inciting the deadly U.S. Capitol riot last month after using combative language themselves.
- Is it true or false that in the months leading up to January 6th, dozens of courts, including state and federal courts in Georgia rejected President Trump's campaign's efforts to overturn his loss to Joe Biden?
JAMIE RASKIN: That's true. I want to be clear, though, that we have absolutely no problem with President Trump having pursued his belief that the election was being stolen or that there was fraud or corruption or unconstitutionality. We have no problem at all with him going to court to do it. And he did, and he lost in 61 straight cases.
The big lie was refuted, devastated, and demolished in federal and state courts across the land, including by eight judges appointed by President Donald Trump himself.
The problem was when the president went from his judicial combat, which was fine, to intimidating and bullying state election officials and state legislators, and then finally, as representative Cheney said, summoning a mob, assembling a mob, and then lighting the match for an insurrection against the union. When he crossed over from nonviolent means, no matter how ridiculous or absurd-- that's fine, he's exercising his rights-- to inciting violence, that's what this trial is about.
And we heard very little of that from the presentation of the president's lawyers. They really didn't address the facts of the case at all. There were a couple propaganda reels about Democratic politicians that would be excluded.
In any court in the land, they talk about the rules of evidence. All of that was totally irrelevant to the case before us. Whatever you think about it, it's irrelevant. And we'll be happy, of course, to address the First Amendment arguments too.