Dan Abrams: Trump Attorneys Made ‘Meandering’ Case, Mixed ‘Serious Legal Arguments with Legal Gobbledegook’
EXCERPT:
ABRAMS: "Well, first of all, the President can’t be happy, in my view, with Bruce Castor’s presentation. Not just because it was meandering and it was a bit of a disaster as a presentation, but because he said again and again that President Trump was removed by the voters, the people picked a new administration. That belies everything that Donald Trump has been saying and what got him into this mess in the first place. So it’s not just that they’re not arguing voter fraud. They’re clearly arguing that the election was valid and it’s over. So, that was Bruce Castor. Now, with regard to Schoen, it was a mixture of what I think were some serious legal arguments with legal gobbledegook. The serious arguments were with regard to whether a former president can be and should be tried in an impeachment. And I think that there was some real arguments made about the text of the impeachment clause, etc., which we’re going to hear again and again. But then there were these arguments about due process and a bill of attainder and the presumption of innocence, none of which is relevant to what we’re talking about here.”
