“Incitement to resurrection,” anyone?
Attorneys representing Donald Trump on Friday set about defending the former president from the charge of inciting the deadly U.S. Capitol riot.
But some of their comments in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial amusingly missed the mark.
“Incitement to resurrection,” anyone?
Rachel Maddow highlighted some of the strangest gaffes and malapropisms on her MSNBC show on Friday. Check out the above MSNBC clip for examples.
“The president’s defense today was a little weird,” she said, wrapping up some of the “Saturday Night Live”-esque comments in a montage.
And from the Washington Post (Opinion Piece) Four silly arguments the defense made: Here is an example:
Trump’s team aired video showing numerous Democrats using the word “fight” in all kinds of contexts (which were almost never included). That was supposed to show Trump’s use of the word while inciting the insurrection was somehow analogous.
That’s also absurd: Trump’s efforts actually did incite the violent assault on the Capitol. Many rioters have confirmed this in their own words. As two researchers who closely examined the motives of the rioters recently concluded in the Atlantic:The overwhelming reason for action, cited again and again in court documents, was that arrestees were following Trump’s orders to keep Congress from certifying Joe Biden as the presidential-election winner
That completely destroys the fake equivalence Trump’s lawyers tried to draw (indeed, the whole point of the equivalence was to erase this glaring problem they face).
Source: The Huffington Post and The Washington Post
Note: If you run into a paywall and can’t read the entire WaPo article and want to, let me know ….
