[ad_1]
As we reported yesterday, the defense did a fabulous job against the House managers case, pointing out that the Democrats have used far more inflammatory language than President Donald Trump did on Jan. 6, that they had in the past objected to the electoral count including impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doing so and speaking approvingly of it, and that their own rhetoric could be said to have incited violence and riots in the past.
George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley said that Trump team landed some “haymakers” on the House managers case, particularly on Raskin over using some of the same language as Trump in the 2016 electoral count and on Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) “misrepresenting a piece of evidence,” those “certainly left a mark,” Turley said.
“They landed a couple of haymakers today…” – Jonathan Turley reacts to former President Trump’s lawyers presentation. pic.twitter.com/vGmv3Jb4H9
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) February 12, 2021
Turley said the defense argument is beginning to resonate and that the House managers “opened the door” to making this about “reckless political rhetoric” which the Democrats have a problem with themselves.
Turley also pointed out how it didn’t help the House managers case that they edited out the mitigating information from the videos they presented. “Too clever by half,” Turley called it and a “colossal mistake” he said, because then the jury (the senators) don’t believe their presentation anymore after that. And of course they got nailed by the defense for doing it.
Moreover Turley said the House Democrats failed because of their overreach. They wanted to try to tag Trump with an “incitement of insurrection” charge, but then they didn’t have a hearing and present any witnesses in the House and they haven’t been able to support the claim in the Senate.
So that puts the defense in great condition and as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) pointed out, there had already been more people moving to the not guilty side, in addition to those Republicans who don’t think it’s even constitutional to bring the case against a former president to begin with.
[ad_2]
