The Washington Post said that former President Donald Trump's defense team failed to defend him during his second Senate trial after the trial administrators presented arguments clearly condemning him, and showed how he prepared and confronted the mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6. the past.
The newspaper stated in its editorial that Trump's lawyer was facing a "difficult task" and could only try to circumvent and come up with amputated arguments that the trial administrators had previously refuted during their interventions.
She emphasized that they had no defense of what happened because there was nothing defended, nor could they explain or justify why the former president remained a bystander, but rather was an instigator of the mob as they looted the Capitol and threatened Vice President (Mike Pence) and members of Congress.
The Washington Post spoke of the disappointment of Republican senators who were hoping to obtain a fig leaf that would cover their cowardice when they voted on Trump's innocence, and the defense team's pleading did not give them any acceptable excuse for failing to hold a "dangerous" man accountable.
The former president’s lawyers tried - the newspaper adds - to focus and insist that their client was a "peacemaker" for a long time, and accused the Democrats of seeking to try Trump for years, which does not add anything to whether he really deserves a trial in the current situation.
Video clips
The lawyers also showed many videos of Democrats talking about "fighting" in defense of political issues in an attempt to make them appear guilty like Trump by accepting and encouraging them for extremism. They also broadcast a video clip showing other MPs praising "Black Lives Matter" demonstrators, hinting that they encourage provocateurs. Riots.
But Trump's defense focused on a basic idea - according to the newspaper - that the Democrats violated the former president's right to freedom of expression by punishing him for words uttered in his speech on the sixth of last January, and that punishing politicians if it is done in this way and for this consideration will not be Nobody is safe from retribution based on party affiliation.
However, invoking the first chapter of the constitution (which stipulates the principle of freedom of expression) is not appropriate - according to the Washington Post - because the former president “is not an ordinary citizen who is punished for a few words he uttered, he is an official who swore to protect and defend the constitutional order and then betrayed this section ".
The newspaper concluded by saying that the proposed punishment against the former president is not criminal that justifies - in a way - the violation of freedom of expression, but only a formal declaration that prevents a person who has proven untrustworthy in exercising power from obtaining this right again.