What if the "Defense" simply rests without mounting a defense?

[intrepidity]

I think all senators already know how they'll vote, so any defense is really moot, and could possibly lose them some votes.

So why not? Besides, so far the prosecution is mostly explaining the defense anyway.

Can they? Will they?

[unblock]

1. They could, knowing the fix was in. But they can't resist some time in the spotlight.

They'll use it as an opportunity to advertise for Donnie's next scam/toxic spew.

[Irish_Dem]

9. Right, I think so. Time to do some Trump PR.

[intrepidity]

10. Barf

God, if even one of them utters "2024" I'm throwing my shoe at the TV.

[unblock]

12. They'll be plugging ivanka's senate run....

[Mike 03]

2. It definitely can happen

It happens even in very serious criminal trials, where the defense argument is basically: "The prosecution clearly hasn't met its burden of proof." And they make a closing argument without ever presenting a case.

IIRC, the defense for Michael Lee King in the murder of Denise Amber Lee (a death penalty case, no less!) didn't present a defense, but during the penalty phase they did call character witnesses in mitigation. Of course it is their right not to mount a defense, but it always blows my mind when it happens, especially in a capital case. And the jury is not allowed to draw any negative inference from it.

Of course this is different because it's an impeachment trial in front of the senate and the legal parameters are different.

[intrepidity]

6. Sometimes it just seems like the right move

I know attornies like to talk, so it probably goes against their nature.

But oftentimes, remaining silent is prudent.

I think in this case, they can only hurt their case by speaking. What I'd like to see is them grossly overplay their hand and actually piss off some Rs! Make them pay for their cowardly votes.

[Mike 03]

11. "...they can only hurt their case by speaking..."

It seems that way to me. What a perilous defense we're talking about here! They are either going to have to argue that the election was stolen (history will destroy them for that) or that the Impeachment is improper on a technicality (which is no defense at all) or free speech (most experts say this will fail). I don't know where they go.



I'm no lawyer, but you couldn't pay me enough money to get up there in front of the world and make a case for Trump's innocence.

[lagomorph777]

3. They're a very crappy team; their arguments will be crappy.

But they won't just "rest." Trump would refuse to pay them. Oh, wait....

[intrepidity]

7. Haha right? nt

[Towlie]

4. I expect we'll hear a real-life version of the Chewbacca Defense.

 
←

Wikipedia: The Chewbacca Defense

[GemDigger]

5. I don't know what is going to happen down the road but I know that his lawyers are now

shitting bricks to figure out how they are going to get around what has been said already. It has only been an hour and 20. The heat will only get turned up hotter and hotter.

[intrepidity]

8. I can't envision his side even being concerned a little

How often does an attorney get a national case to argue while knowing beforehand the verdict is on your side?