Schoen is pretending courtroom "due process" must be followed--after meeting with some of the jurors to plan strategy last night.

Schoen accuses Democrats of editing videos and taking comments out of contexts, after showing edited videos of Democrats and taking their comments out of context. I guess he wanted us to know he knows what he's talking about.
Schoen is showing longer clips of Trump speeches. The additional footage doesn't help Trump's case, unless you're a racist insurrectionist.
Yeah? Well what about YOUR whataboutism?
Schoen REALLY doesn't like Senator Warren.

It's because Trumpists love attacking Senator Warren.

Gee, it's almost like he thinks Senator Warren is being impeached.
Now we're being treated to a twelve-hour video of every time a Democrat said the word "fight".
Now they need to show every time a Democratic candidate cheered while people at their rallies stomped on newspeople, or when their supporters ran busses off the road or invaded the Capitol building and killed cops after being told to "fight".
Now claiming the violence over last summer was BLM and "antifa", to scary music.
Schoen's arguments, "You objected to Trump doing X, but look you did it too!" are like, "Sure the murderer used a knife, but look, here you are, using a knife to cut your steak!"
There is a logical fallacy called "tu quoque", which means, "you, too".

"You can't accuse ME of X, when YOU'VE done X!!"

This isn't a defense (even in the few cases when it's honest). It is neither a denial nor a justification. It's deflection, done when the accusation is true.
"This case is about political hatred... House Democrats HATE Donald Trump."

That's their defense.
Trump's lawyer saying we can't look at either the "meaning or implied intent" of Trump's words.

Apparently, we're supposed to see everything Trump says as meaningless noise.
Lawyer is arguing Trump's incitements to violence should be protected under the First Amendment.

No. The First Amendment defends citizens against laws restricting their speech.

It's NOT about protecting insurrection, nor protecting government officials.

More from Government

This is a good piece on fissures within the GOP but I think it mischaracterizes the Trump presidency as “populist” & repeats a story about how conservatives & the GOP expelled the far-right in the mid-1960s that is actually far more complicated. /1

I don’t think the sharp opposition between “hard-edge populism” & “conservative orthodoxy” holds. Many of the Trump administration’s achievements were boilerplate conservatism. Its own website trumpets things like “massive deregulation,” tax cuts, etc. /2

https://t.co/N97v85Bb79


The claim that Buckley and “key GOP politicians banded together to marginalize anti-Communist extremism and conspiracy-mongering” of the JBS has been widely repeated lately but the history is more complicated. /3


This tweet by @ThePlumLineGS citing a paper by @sam_rosenfeld and @daschloz on the "porous" boundary between conservatives, the GOP and the far-right is relevant in this context.


This is a separate point but I find it interesting that Gaetz, like Roy Moore did In his failed Senate campaign, disses McConnell. What are their actual policy differences? MM supported taking health care away from millions, a tax cut for the rich, conservative judges, etc. /5

You May Also Like