These are Trump’s eight responses to the Supreme Court indictment – VG

As only the third American president in history, Donald Trump has been tried. And not just once, but now for the second time. The special thing is, of course, that already, before the case is considered in the Senate next week, he resigned as president, because he lost the election against Joe Biden in November of last year.

The impeachment itself, drawn up by the House of Representatives, the second chamber of Congress, is a five-page document that basically states that Trump, before resigning in a riot before his supporters’ attack on Congress on January 6.

On Tuesday, Trump’s attorneys, Bruce L. Castor jr. and David Schoen sent his response document on the impeachment to the Senate. The document provides a good idea of ​​how they plan to defend the resigned president when the case begins next week.

American expert Eirik Løkke, an adviser to the Civita think tank, believes Trump’s defenders have done the only right thing when they argue that it is unconstitutional to bring a case in national court against a president who has already resigned.

– I think it’s a smart strategy.

At 14 pages, the two attorneys have divided the indictment document chronologically into eight statements to which they respond. Here is Trump’s response to his second indictment before the Supreme Court:

1. The Constitution

The indictment states that the constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to nominate a president to the Supreme Court, and that the president must be removed from office if found guilty.

Trump’s advocates argue that it is unconstitutional to retain the Chief Justice for as long as he has resigned, and therefore there is no office to remove him from. This is also an argument that has already been made by a large majority of Republican senators. However, several constitutional experts have stated that it will not violate the constitution. One argument for this is that in that case, any president who is afraid of being judged can only resign and thereby formally avoid being held accountable for his actions.

2. Rebellion

The indictment states that the constitution prohibits people who have been involved in the rebellion against the United States from holding elected positions in the country.

Trump’s advocates deny that he was involved in any uprisings and therefore believe that he cannot be denied to run again at a later time. It has been speculated whether Donald Trump will be calm again after 2024.

Violation of the oath

The indictment claims that Trump broke the oath which, among other things, says that a president must, to the best of his ability, uphold and protect the constitution.

Trump’s advocates categorically deny it and believe it is irrelevant to the case. They write that Trump, on the other hand, always acted to the best of his ability, and they say that is irrelevant anyway, as they believe the Senate cannot remove Trump from a position he no longer holds. An argument that they otherwise use in several of the eight points.

4. Excited by the violence

The indictment alleges that Trump incited violence against US authorities by making false allegations of voter fraud for several weeks prior to the Jan.6 attack on Congress.

Trump’s defenders, for their part, claim that the former president only exercised his freedom of expression and argue that the country would be in big trouble if only “popular” opinions were protected by that freedom. They also write that there is not enough clear evidence to conclude whether the president’s statements were correct or not. Allegations of voter fraud were brought to various courts in the weeks after the election without being confirmed. Among the many who have denied cheating was Trump’s own attorney general, William Barr, who said there was no evidence for such a claim.

5. Speeches of January 6 I

The indictment refers to a speech the president delivered to his supporters in Washington, DC just before many of them stormed Congress. There he repeated the erroneous claim that he won the election by a wide margin.

Trump’s defenders repeat here that he only used his freedom of speech and say he denies that what he said was really wrong.

6. Languages ​​6. January II

The indictment alleges that Trump knowingly and intentionally made appropriate remarks to incite an attack on Congress, in order to prevent formal approval by Congressmen this day of Joe Biden as the winner of the election. The indictment further establishes that this is also what actually happened shortly after the speech and that this, among other things, led to deaths. They are known as “if you don’t fight like hell, you won’t have land anymore.”

Trump’s defenders do not deny the actual facts of the attack, but write that Trump denies that Trump provoked the behavior of those behind the assault on the Congress building. They claim that the specific quote highlighted in the indictment was about the fight for electoral security in general.

7. Phone call

The indictment documents that Donald Trump had made several attempts to reverse the election result. Among other things, in a telephone conversation with Georgia’s Administration Minister Brad Raffensperger, where he asked the latter to “seek” enough votes to change the result, and threatened him if he did not.

Trump’s advocates believe that the use of the term “find” meant nothing more than if one carefully examined the evidence, one would find that there were many false voices. Georgia made three counts, and each time Joe Biden won by a relatively clear margin. Advocates also deny that Trump came with threats. Subsequently, recordings of the entire telephone conversation between the two were leaked to the media.

8. Threat to security

The indictment concludes that Donald Trump’s behavior posed a threat to the security of the nation and some of its most important institutions. Furthermore, it is alleged, among other things, that it threatened the integrity of the country’s democratic system and prevented a peaceful seizure of power. It is claimed at the end that the trust that had been given him as president failed.

Trump’s advocates categorically deny this, writing that, on the contrary, he performed his role as president admirably by doing what he thought was in the interest of the American people.

Expert: – Wise

Before Castor jr. and Schoen got the job of defending Trump, another defense team withdrew, allegedly because the former president wanted to use the case to continue his allegations of voter fraud.

– We don’t see any of that here. I think it’s wise, says US expert Eirik Løkke, who praises the strategy of arguing that the whole case is unconstitutional.

It is the 100 senators of the Senate who will act as jury and decide if he will be convicted. Since a two-thirds majority is required to rule Supreme Court cases, all 50 Democrats and at least 17 Republicans must vote in favor. Løkke has very little faith that this will happen if Trump sticks to the argument defenders use in the document they sent Tuesday.

The different senators are supposed to vote:

– The only one who can really ruin this case is Trump himself. If he now finds a platform where he continues to spread lies about voter fraud, it will make it harder for Republicans. But now he’s almost protected from himself by getting kicked off Twitter, Løkke notes.

Political process

The American expert believes that it is possible to see this case from both sides. He says that if you want to hold a president accountable for something he did in his time as president, then the Supreme Court is precisely the possibility. At the same time, the constitution is formulated in such a way, regardless of the intention of those who wrote it, that it can be argued that the tool of the Supreme Court cannot be used against someone who has already left the job.

Løkke is not unaware of the fact that Democrats would have used that argument if Bill Clinton had already resigned when he was tried.

– It is true that the gravity of these cases is very different, but this is a political process. It is not a legal process. It is very important to be aware. Where there is political will, one will be able to find arguments to support that will, says Løkke, who adds that he is more skeptical of the side argument of Trump’s defenders – if senators think the case does not violate the constitution – that he only used his freedom to expression.