Skip to main content
Welcome to
super saver spring
offer ends april 20
save over $140
save over 85%
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks
Welcome to
super saver spring
$0.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Supporters of President Donald Trump march to the Capitol in Washington after hearing him speak at a rally outside the White House on Jan. 6, 2021.

KENNY HOLSTON/The New York Times News Service

Donald Trump’s use of violent rhetoric with his supporters was purely “metaphorical,” his lawyers told the former president’s impeachment trial, and he was not responsible for causing the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

Defending him before the Senate, Mr. Trump’s legal team on Friday repeatedly tried to equate his exhortations for supporters to descend on the Capitol and overturn his election loss with speeches by Democratic politicians, in which they called on people to “fight” for progressive policies.

“No human being seriously believes that the use of such metaphorical terminology is incitement to political violence,” said Michael van der Veen, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers. He derided the impeachment as a “witch hunt” and “constitutional cancel culture.”

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Trump’s legal team was allotted 16 hours to make its case but used only three, setting up a final vote on the verdict as early as Saturday.

His lawyers argued that convicting their client would violate his right to free speech, and that the swift impeachment process had abrogated his right to a fair trial.

Even with a second acquittal imminent, the mere threat of Trump’s impeachment may have saved the U.S.

The core of their presentation was a series of frenetic videos showing Democrats using martial language in political speeches. One 10-minute-long supercut showed President Joe Biden, Vice-President Kamala Harris and members of Congress repeatedly calling on supporters to “fight” for their principles as record-scratch noises played in the background. Another intercut Democrats praising racial-justice protests with shots of property destruction and arson.

Stacey Plaskett, one of the Democratic impeachment managers, fired back that her party’s rhetoric was not equivalent to Mr. Trump’s. She pointed to previous incidents of him praising violent acts by his supporters, such as when pro-Trump motorists tried to run Mr. Biden’s campaign bus off a highway in Texas. And she contended that he knew the crowd he had assembled on Jan. 6 was armed when he told his supporters to march on the Capitol.

“He has encouraged actual violence, not just the word ‘fight,’ ” she said. “He knew who he was calling and the violence they were capable of, and he still gave them their marching orders.”

Bruce Castor, the head of Mr. Trump’s legal team, also defended the former president’s Jan. 2 phone call to Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state. Mr. Trump threatened Mr. Raffensperger with criminal prosecution and demanded that he “find 11,780 votes” in Georgia – enough to overturn Mr. Biden’s victory in the state.

Mr. Castor said Mr. Trump was merely concerned that some ballots in Georgia had been fraudulently cast and wanted Mr. Raffensperger to “find” them. Mr. Castor did not say how Mr. Trump knew the exact total of ballots Mr. Raffensperger would find, or why that number coincided with the number Mr. Trump would need to win.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. van der Veen, meanwhile, raised a baseless internet conspiracy theory that the attack on the Capitol was actually secretly instigated by left-wing activists. He said that the first person arrested on Jan. 6 was a member of “antifa,” an anti-fascist movement. While some anti-racism protesters were arrested at previous Trump rallies in Washington, there is no evidence that they were involved in the Jan. 6 riot.

Mr. van der Veen also litigated a June 1 protest at Lafayette Square near the White House, in which riot police used pepper spray and truncheons to clear away a peaceful crowd of anti-racism protesters so Mr. Trump could hold a photo-op at nearby St. John’s Church. Mr. van der Veen defended the police action, arguing it had “prevented many calamities from occurring.” He said the public backlash against it was to blame for the much lighter police presence at the Capitol ahead of the riot.

But the former president’s defenders did not address some portions of the case against him, including Democrats’ assertion that he did nothing to stop the riot as it unfolded.

In a question-and-answer session with senators, Susan Collins, one of the few Republicans considered likely to vote for conviction, asked Mr. Trump’s lawyers to clarify when he learned of the riot on Jan. 6 and what he did about it. Mr. van der Veen said he did not know. He blamed the Democrats for not holding an investigation to find out. The Democrats asked Mr. Trump to testify during the trial, but he refused.

The Senate will reconvene Saturday morning for up to four hours of closing arguments from both sides. A conviction, which requires a two-thirds majority, would take 17 Republicans voting with all Democrats. Currently, all but six Republican senators have indicated that they do not believe the trial is constitutional.

The day saw one moment of bipartisanship, as the Senate voted unanimously to award a congressional gold medal to Capitol Police officer Eugene Goodman. Mr. Goodman single-handedly redirected a group of rioters away from senators and then-vice-president Mike Pence on Jan. 6.

Story continues below advertisement

Were it not for Mr. Goodman’s actions, Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “people in this chamber may not have escaped that day unharmed.”

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies