I was right. "Lawyer" starts out with name-calling and an insistence that trial is "unconstitutional". He's saying Trump's 1/6 speech was rather bland, and pretending that was the only thing the House managers talked about, and the managers were "slanderous."

Bilious bullshit.

"Lawyer" is arguing that since there were objections raised by Democrats to some of the vote counts in 2016, that means Trump didn't engage in sedition.

I'm not sure how that logic works.
Now they're running a Trump campaign commercial.
A bunch of whataboutism, contrasting patriotic music behind Trump's racist dogwhistles about "law and order" against Democrats making firey speeches with dark music.
He went to the moronic Gym Jordan argument that Trump couldn't have instigated insurrection if the violence was gonna happen anyway (without acknowledging Trump had been encouraging and building up to that violence for close to a year).
About ten minutes in, and already he's fulfilled all of my expectations.
https://t.co/IKpBkDzahB
I think he intentionally mispronounced "Kamala" and "Ayanna".

Of course, he also referred to "incitement to resurrection," so it's hard to say.
Most of his presentation so far is distraction and whataboutism. No reference to the arguments and evidence presented by the House Managers.
Like all Republicans, he can't distinguish between a noun and an adjective, and he insists on referring to the "Democrat Party."
Schoen's argument is, "Democrats HATE Trump! They HATE him!! They HATE HATE HATE TRUMP! Do you hear me? They HATE TRUMP! It's all because they HATE TRUMP! It's TRUMP! and they HATE HIM! Got it? THEY HATE TRUMP!"
Schoen is claiming the House didn't give Trump "due process."

There is no "due process" consideration in either a grand jury or a House Impeachment. That's not how it works. It's like saying you can't checkmate someone in chess without holding a straight flush.
Schoen is insisting anything that was reported by the news media is false.
He's also pretending courtroom due process must be followed--after meeting with some of the jurors to plan strategy last night.
Back to THEY HATE TRUMP!!!! HATE HIM!! That's why we have to acquit Trump!! Because DEMOCRATS HATE TRUMP!!
More here.
https://t.co/KyCcL1HyOK

More from Law

This issue was repeatedly highlighted bu Judge Totenberg:

Dominion’s system “does not produce a voter-verifiable paper ballot or a paper ballot marked with the voter’s choices in a format readable by the voter because the votes are tabulated solely from the unreadable QR code.”


Judge also found that Dominion's QR codes are NOT encrypted:

“Evidence plainly contradicts any contention that the QR codes or digital signatures are encrypted,”

This was “ultimately conceded by Mr. Cobb and expressly acknowledged later by Dr. Coomer during his testimony.”

Judge Totenberg said there was “demonstrable evidence” that the implementation of Dominion’s systems by Georgia placed voters at an “imminent risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote,” which she defined as a “vote that is accurately counted.”

Judge Totenberg found that Dominion Systems inherently could not be audited.

She noted that auditors are severely limited and “can only determine whether the BMD printout was tabulated accurately, not whether the election outcome is correct.“

Totenberg stated in her ruling that a BMD printout “is not trustworthy” and the application of an Risk-Limiting audit (RLA) to an election that used BMD printouts “does not yield a true risk-limiting audit.”

Georgia used RLAs to claim no fraud...
Hot take: Courts might be able to review the legality of this impeachment, even under current political-question doctrine. Here’s why and how the issue might arise:


Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.

Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:

According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.

The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).

You May Also Like

Still wondering about this 🤔


save as q