A CNN legal analyst, when asked about the legal brief filed Tuesday by former President Donald Trump‘s lawyers ahead of his February 9 impeachment trial, said that people “don’t have a First Amendment right to lie.”
Exactly one week following a violent mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, the House of Representatives voted 232-197 to charge then-President Trump with “incitement of insurrection.”
Shortly before the Capitol assualt to stop Congress from certifying the state’s Electoral College votes and President Joe Biden‘s 2020 victory, Trump and his staunchest allies held a “Save America” rally in front of the White House. There, he and his allies made comments continuing to allege that widespread fraud stole the election from him as well as remarks many have cited as inciting the subsequent riot.
Legal analyst Jennifer Rogers was asked by CNN host John King to comment on the 14-page brief from Trump’s legal team arguing that the upcoming impeachment trial is unconstitutional because Trump is no longer in office and that what Trump said at the January 6 rally was protected by the First Amendment.
“Yeah, those are wrong and they’re well countered by the very long brief the House filed earlier today,” Rogers said.
“You don’t have a First Amendment right to lie, you don’t have a First Amendment right to put people in danger, and he did both of those things,” she added.
Rogers also said that the much longer brief filed by House Democrats covered the jurisdictional arguments.
“It’s not surprising that, in only 36 hours with what are clearly not [Trump’s] A-listers of defense lawyers, they weren’t able to come up with compelling arguments,” Rogers continued. “But it also highlights that there really aren’t any compelling defense arguments here at all.”
Recently, Trump parted ways with a group of attorneys who were formerly set to defend him, but on Sunday named two new attorneys to lead his defense: David Schoen and Bruce L. Castor.
While Rogers said that Trump’s legal brief was “mostly what was to be expected,” she noted that the one thing to surprise her was that the brief claims that a person cannot prove that the 2020 presidential election results were valid and thus one cannot accuse Trump of lying about his repeated allegations.
“Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that the 45th President’s statement were accurate or not, and he therefore denies they were false,” the brief reads under the section titled “Answer 4,” per The New York Times.
“You can definitely prove” that the results were valid, Rogers said about that, adding that it “has been done.”
Rogers, a former federal prosecutor, is most likely referencing the over 60 court cases filed by Trump’s team and his allies that failed to properly demonstrate that such alleged widespread election fraud occurred.
MORE ON IMPEACHMENT: Lindsey Graham: If Dems want impeachment witnesses, GOP will call on FBI to testify
You can follow Douglas Braff on Twitter @Douglas_P_Braff.
You may like
Historic House Vote Expels Rep. George Santos Amidst Scandal
In a turn of events, the House of Representatives made history on Friday with a vote to expel Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), marking the first such expulsion in over two decades. A moment fraught with gravity unfolded as Speaker Mike Johnson wielded his gavel to formalize Santos’ removal, setting a precedent in congressional annals.
Santos, indicted on 23 counts related to wire fraud, identity theft, and other charges, has not faced conviction but stands accused of misusing campaign funds for opulent purchases. The bipartisan vote, tallying 311 to 114, signaled robust support for expulsion, with a marginally higher number of Republicans opting to retain Santos.
Questions loomed as Speaker Johnson left the chamber, his silence leaving the fate of the ongoing government spending battle uncertain. According to reports from Fox News, Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer emphasized the non-partisan nature of the decision, asserting that members concluded Santos had tarnished the House’s reputation and was unfit for representation.
Within the GOP, conflicting opinions emerged, with Rep. Darrell Issa arguing against expulsion, citing the presumption of innocence. The tight-lipped stance of the House Ethics Committee played a pivotal role in the deliberations.
Conversely, members of the New York Republican delegation, led by Rep. Marc Molinaro, asserted Santos’ commission of crimes, justifying expulsion based on a comprehensive investigation.
Santos himself predicted the outcome in an exclusive morning interview on “FOX & Friends.” This vote not only underlines the House’s rare use of expulsion powers but also sets a critical precedent in handling members facing severe legal challenges.
You may like
Media6 days ago
Robert De Niro anti-Trump speech mysteriously replaced in teleprompter at Awards Show
Nation7 days ago
Elizabeth Warren Acknowledges Unintended Consequences of Obamacare
education7 days ago
Calls for Hofstra University President’s Resignation Over Statements on Israel-Hamas Conflict
Nation6 days ago
Political Gambit or Defense Strategy? Hunter Biden’s Aggressive Testimony Plans Stir Democratic Intrigue