Fantastically, Trump’s Lawyers Argue To Dismiss J6 Case On Grounds Of Double Jeopardy and Worse

Interesting pattern beginning to form. Yesterday, Donald Trump was screaming in all-caps about Peekaboo and how the judge is terrified of her. Trump demanded a dismissal of the New York Trump Organization case, currently in progress. Late Monday night Trump’s lawyers actually filed a motion to dismiss — in the January 6 insurrection case. It’s a pretty incredible document, like most of the legal work that Trump commissions done. In essence its argument is that Trump’s coup attempt was only the exercise of free speech and that in any event, the Senate decided not to remove him, so it’s double jeopardy to try him. Huh?

In an astonishing display of doublethink, the prosecution simultaneously claims that President Trump—simply by speaking his mind and petitioning for a redress of grievances—also somehow conspired to “defraud the United States,” “oppress rights,” and “obstruct an official proceeding.” Id. at ¶ 5–6, 125–130. Attempting to explain this obvious contradiction, the prosecution argues that there was no “outcome- determinative fraud in the election” (whatever that means), id. at ¶ 2, and that President Trump knew this because some government officials “notified” him “that his claims were untrue,” ¶ 11. […]

The First Amendment embraces and encourages exactly this kind of behavior, and therefore states in the clearest of terms that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. CONST. amend. I. The indictment, taken as true, violates this core principle as to each count. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss the indictment in its entirety.

Additionally, as the United States Senate has previously tried and acquitted President Trump for charges arising from the same course of conduct alleged in the indictment, the impeachment and double jeopardy clauses both bar retrial before this Court and require dismissal.

Finally, because of our country’s longstanding tradition of forceful political advocacy regarding perceived fraud and irregularities in numerous Presidential elections, President Trump lacked fair notice that his advocacy in this instance could be criminalized. Thus, the Court should dismiss the indictment under the Due Process clause.

Sing with me now, to the tune of Love Story: “Where do I begin, to tell the story of how effed up a defense can be, this is the most screwed up motion that you will ever see, where do I start?”

Let’s start with the fact that the Senate impeachment trial is not the same as a regular criminal trial, it is a very specific governmental function. Therefore, there is no issue of double jeopardy, trying the same case twice, here. Unless I miss my guess, Trump’s lawyers cobbled together this ridiculous pleading in order to impress MAGA that Trump is being treated egregiously and illegally. Nothing is farther from the truth.

Next, Trump’s “obstruction” was inciting a riot. He stood at the Ellipse and said, “If you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore,” and this was a few minutes after Rudy Giuliani advocated “trial by combat” and they ginned up a mob which then rioted. This is beyond free speech. And don’t forget Trump’s promises of paying peoples’ legal fees if they were prosecuted for “beating the hell” out of people who deserved it. Trump has a history of violent rhetoric. It’s frankly surprising that a crowd of MAGAs didn’t riot earlier.

Trump also headed up a conspiracy, which was the fake electors scheme, dreamt up by his co-defendant John Eastman and executed by his other co-defendant Kenneth Chesebro. Sidney Powell will undoubtedly be illuminating the details of all of this in the very near future, as will Chesebro and it’s a safe bet that Eastman is going to cave at some point.

John Lauro’s name is on this motion and he’s got a D.C. Bar number, so I guess he got admitted. So is Christopher Kise’s. Believe me when I tell you that you don’t need to be Clarence Darrow to know that this motion is a rag. It’s pure sophistry, a fallacious argument made with the intent to deceive. There is no merit in this pleading and I frankly can’t wait for the likes of Joyce Vance, Glenn Kirschner, Andrew Weissman and the rest to rip into this thing. To use one of Trump’s favorite words, this is a disgrace.

And this is downright scary.

There is no “public evidence” of fraud and other irregularities. There are fake news stories pushed by right-wing outlets that things happened which simply did not take place. This is why Rudy Giuliani was sued for defamation when he claimed that thumb drives were being exchanged between two election workers in Georgia, when in fact the object in question was a piece of candy. This is why Fox News negotiated out a settlement of $787 million to Dominion Voting Systems. There is no evidence. These lawyers are pushing a lie.

And this is beyond the pale.

Trump was “entitled to mistrust the word of establishment-based officials” — meaning people in his own administration? Ladies and gentleman, if a United States president can’t trust the word of the people s/he appoints to advise and work in said administration, then there is no way to function normally on a daily basis. These lawyers are advocating anarchy. This is total madness.

I’m sure what they’re specifically referring to is Christopher Krebs, who was the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, telling Trump that the 2020 election was the “safest in history.” And who got fired for saying so. He told Trump, there “is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised,” as reported by CNN.

These lawyers are not deserving of the law licenses that they hold. This motion is not only lacking meritorious argument, it proselytizes the very falsehoods that are spewed on right-wing media and which are dividing our nation.