Exactly what exculpatory evidence could tRump possibly present at his impeachment trial?

[stopbush]

I mean, the whole world saw and heard him incite the crowd to violence. Are his lawyers going to claim he was making a joke? That he was insane? That he didn’t say what the world heard him say?

[Rorey]

1. People died

So even if they want to pretend it was a joke, that's not a valid excuse. Obviously his mob didn't think he was joking because they did what he told them to do.

I wonder if his supporters realize that what he's doing is calling them too stupid to see that he was "just kidding". I guess the ones who go to prison will have lots of time to think about that.

[njhoneybadger]

2. It's hard to prove intent because it's based on circumstantial evidence

[Beachnutt]

3. trump will say its fake news

[Eyeball_Kid]

4. He has white skin and golden hair. What else is needed? n/t

[EarlG]

5. Not only that but

everyone is very focused on the speech he made right before the riot. However, I'm hoping that at the trial the Democrats build the case that he has been inciting violence for a long time, and that the riot was the culmination. I'd expect them to refer back to Trump's history of inciting violence -- think long video supercuts of four years of his comments and tweets -- to show that this wasn't just an isolated event where things got out of control, but a long-planned strategy.

[agingdem]

8. right...start with

"I could shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters"...

[njhoneybadger]

10. Absolutely Earl, that's the key

[frazzled]

6. "I was joking". / nt

[Hoyt]

7. Doubt trump will go out of his way to defend himself. He'll depend on his allies and the fact

that he is already out of office, therefore the consequences aren't meaningful since he knows he won't be running in 2024 anyway.

I'd be more excited if this were a criminal charge. Even then, trump knows no jury will convict him. A jury won't absolve him either, more likely to hang.

[Alacritous Crier]

9. It wasn't him...

it was some fellow named John Barron.

[dalton99a]

11. .

[Midnightwalk]

12. Maybe tenuous but the bogus law suits show bad intent

60+ suits filled with errors, no evidence, simple logic errors.

None of the rulings against them stopped further suits. They didn’t correct the problems pointed out in the new suits.

I thought it was a fund raising scheme and it was, but in hindsight it’s clear they were intended to incite anger and violence. The suits worked for their intended purposes.

[OhNo-Really]

13. Piles ogaslit bull poo 💩 💩 💩

And attack dema

[SoonerPride]

14. How long until the story goes from "I never said it" to "I was just joking?"

I think that's coming

[lettucebe]

15. Their entire defense is going to be "it's unfair" and "illegal" to try tRump now

Which is obviously, as always, false. They may not vote to convict but we'll do the right thing, and that is what matters.