A Question Of Intent: How The Trump Trial Is Designed To Enrage But Not Convict

[rangerrebew]

Columns, Constitutional Law, Criminal law   February 5, 2021   
A Question Of Intent: How The Trump Trial Is Designed To Enrage But Not Convict

Below is my column in the Hill on the trial briefs filed by the House and the Trump team for the second Trump impeachment trial.  The brief of the House promises an emotionally charged but legally insufficient case for conviction. Indeed, there is no evidence that the “prosecution” is designed to win the trial since the House offers little on the issue of intent. Conversely, if Donald Trump insists on arguing election fraud, he could conceivably engineer his own conviction.  Rather the strategy on both sides seems to be to enrage the emotions of viewers rather than prove an actual case for incitement to insurrection.

Here is the column:
 

I don’t believe Punxsutawney Phil said anything about winter this year. Phil’s handlers claim to speak “Groundhogese,” but there are just some things that should come from the marmot himself. If you’re a groundhog skeptic like me, you will be equally unsatisfied by the filings for the second Trump impeachment by House impeachment managers and the Trump team.

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/05/a-question-of-intent-how-the-trump-trial-is-designed-to-enrage-but-not-convict/

[Sled Dog]

The sole purpose of this trial is to keep Toto from pulling back the curtain on the senile-dementia wizard.

The morons that voted Biden, the morons that keep claiming Trump was a bad president, the morons that like thugs like Romney, they're enthralled watching the fake impeachment and, as the additional benefit, none of the Fake Nooze outlets have to cover anything else and highlight how destructive the Ho-Jo Gang has already been in just two weeks.