Jay Sekulow’s closing argument in opposition to convicting President Donald Trump on Monday centered on how Democrats purportedly had it out for
Jay Sekulow’s closing argument in opposition to convicting President Donald Trump on Monday centered on how Democrats purportedly had it out for Trump because the starting. However as has been the case with a lot of Trump’s impeachment trial protection, a key a part of Sekulow’s argument concerned deceptive folks.
Sekulow tried to make an enormous deal out of a January 30, 2017 tweet posted by Mark Zaid, an lawyer representing the whistleblower who first sounded the alarm about Trump’s Ukraine dealings, by which he wrote {that a} “#coup has began” and added, “#impeachment will observe in the end.” The purpose Sekulow was making an attempt to make is that Trump’s opponents had been planning to topple him ever since he took workplace, and that the Ukraine scandal was only a pretext for making an attempt to make it occur.
“And right here we’re,” Sekulow stated, after studying Zaid’s tweet. “What this physique, what this nation, what this president have simply endured, what the Home managers have compelled upon this nice physique, is unprecedented and unacceptable.”
Here is Jay Sekulow omitting context & misleadingly suggesting @MarkSZaidEsq‘s “coup” tweet was meant to sign his intention to overthrow Trump, when actually Zaid was responding to a different tweet about Sally Yates being fired for refusing to implement Trump’s journey ban pic.twitter.com/rPvjc9rrUB
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 3, 2020
To be truthful, some Democrats did want to impeach Trump earlier than experiences broke that he had tried to coerce Ukraine into opening an investigation into his home political opponent.
However with regard to Zaid’s tweet particularly, what Sekulow didn’t inform folks is that it was really in response to a different tweet from CNN’s Jake Tapper about Trump firing then-acting Legal professional Common Sally Yates. Trump, you may recall, fired Yates after she introduced she wouldn’t defend court docket authorized challenges to Trump’s government order banning folks from seven Muslim-majority nations from touring to america, citing issues in regards to the order’s legality.
Learn in that context, Zaid’s tweet is clearly meant as commentary on Trump’s early strikes to purge authorities of any and all officers who wouldn’t perform his coverage directives, not as an announcement of Zaid’s intentions. And, as CNN’s Daniel Dale notes, any lingering doubts ought to’ve been cleared up by one other tweet Zaid posted days later about “the coup [the Trump administration] simply perpetrated to take over the nation.”
Zaid then used the phrase “coup” once more three days later — this time very clearly accusing Trump and firm of getting perpetrated a coup, not saying he, Zaid, can be perpetrating a coup. pic.twitter.com/otUcOzNxqM
— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) February 3, 2020
Sekulow’s closing argument wasn’t the primary time through the impeachment course of that Republicans have sought to capitalize on Zaid’s tweet in a foul religion method — they did the identical factor through the Home hearings in November.
They airbrushed out the embedded Jake Tapper tweet about Sally Yates’ firing that Zaid was commenting on. Simply members of Congress presenting a non-public citizen in a false mild to pillory him at a number of the most intently watched hearings in current historical past. https://t.co/9IgphZQ2eH
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) November 13, 2019
At the moment, Zaid told Law&Crime that Republicans had been making an attempt to make a fuss over his tweet as a part of “the persevering with partisan deflection to desperately keep away from discussing the substance of my shopper’s whistleblower criticism.”
Certainly, regardless that the White House itself corroborated the whistleblower complaint and what it says about Trump’s efforts to strongarm Kyiv into doing political favors for him, Trump continues to insist that the whistleblower is a part of a nefarious conspiracy to take him down.
The place’s the Whistleblower? The place’s the second Whistleblower? The place’s the Informer? Why did Corrupt politician Schiff MAKE UP my dialog with the Ukrainian President??? Why didn’t the Home do its job? And sooo way more!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2020
Sekulow leaned into this idea of the case throughout his closing argument. Along with twisting Zaid’s tweet, he performed a video montage of various Democrats speaking about Trump’s attainable impeachment through the years — the implication being that it’s their normal animus towards Trump, and never the wrongness of his Ukraine dealings, that culminated in his impeachment.
The montage was even accompanied by scary-sounding music:
However there’s one other manner of taking a look at this. The context surrounding Zaid’s tweet serves as a reminder that Trump was doing legally doubtful stuff because the very first days of his administration. Can Democrats actually be blamed for speaking about probably impeaching the president within the wake of him taking unilateral motion to meet a racist marketing campaign promise that caused chaos at airports and tore families apart?
Trump’s authorized staff’s argument is that they’ll. Then once more, different arguments they introduced through the trial would let presidents get away with almost anything in need of probably the most egregious and clear-cut of crimes. And but with closing arguments now within the books following a trial that didn’t embody witness testimony, it seems the arguments introduced by Sekulow and firm were sufficient to carry the day with the Senate’s Republican majority.
The information strikes quick. To remain up to date, observe Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and skim extra of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.