Fact check: Trump lawyer closes impeachment defense with a barrage of dishonesty – CNN

Prior to Trump’s Senate acquittal on Saturday on a charge that he incited the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol, Trump lawyer Michael van der Veen delivered a closing argument that was replete with false and misleading claims.
This followed a Friday session in which van der Veen delivered other false and misleading claims. Which followed a Monday written filing in which van der Veen and his colleagues delivered still more false and misleading claims.
Here is a fact check of some of the things van der Veen said on Saturday, plus a fact check of a false claim made by a Democratic impeachment manager during Saturday’s closing arguments.

Who perpetrated the insurrection

Van der Veen claimed that the insurrection at the Capitol was “preplanned and premeditated by fringe left and right groups.”
Facts First: This is false: there is no evidence that left-wing groups were involved in planning or participating in the insurrection. Members of right-wing groups, conversely, have been charged with both planning and participating. Though Trump’s legal team has repeatedly attempted to muddy the waters, the evidence shows it was Trump supporters who were overwhelmingly responsible for the attack.
Numerous participants are alleged in court documents to have told the FBI their actions were motivated by their support for Trump — and some have even said they felt they had been directly instructed by Trump to take action. While some alleged participants have idiosyncratic political histories and hard-to-pinpoint ideologies, there is no basis for the suggestion that organized left-wing entities were involved in the insurrection.
It’s also important to note that some of the criminal behavior that day was allegedly planned in advance, but some was not. Only a handful of the 200-plus criminal cases filed to date indicate that rioters had showed up that day with the intention of breaching the Capitol.

Trump and incitement

Van der Veen said that the House impeachment managers had not shown “a single example of Mr. Trump urging anyone to engage in violence of any kind.”
He then added: “At no point did you hear anything that could ever possibly be construed as Mr. Trump encouraging or sanctioning an insurrection. Senators, you did not hear those tapes because they do not exist.”
Facts First: It is obviously not true that Trump has not made any comments that could even “possibly” be construed as encouraging or sanctioning an insurrection. Multiple alleged insurrectionists or their lawyers have claimed to the FBI or in court that Trump’s words inspired them to action that day.
It’s possible that some of the people who are facing charges are simply trying to shift blame to Trump after the fact. But it is abundantly clear Trump’s words were understood by some listeners as a presidential endorsement of an uprising.

Trump’s words prior to January 6

Van der Veen said: “Mr. Trump did not spend the weeks prior to January 6 inciting violence. He spent those weeks pursuing his election challenge through the court system and other legal procedures, exactly as the Constitution and the Congress prescribed.”
Facts First: This is a highly incomplete account of Trump’s behavior after the election. Rather than simply file lawsuits and await court decisions, Trump mounted a relentless public campaign to convince his supporters of the lie that they had been cheated out of victory. He also urged supporters to come to Washington for a January 6 protest he promised would be “wild.”

Biden, Harris and condemnations of violence

Van der Veen echoed false attacks Trump himself had made in the past, claiming President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris “repeatedly refused to condemn” acts of violence during riots last year.
Facts First: This is false. Both Biden and Harris condemned riots and violence last year on multiple occasions. They expressed support for peaceful protest.
In August, Biden said, “I want to be very clear about all of this: Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It’s lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted. Violence will not bring change, it will only bring destruction. It’s wrong in every way.”
Harris distinguished between peaceful and violent protest in her own August statement, saying, “We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence.” She added, “We will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice.”
In October, Biden and Harris issued a joint statement following the fatal police shooting of Walter Wallace Jr., a Black man in Philadelphia who was carrying a knife during what his family said was a mental health crisis. Biden and Harris said that “no amount of anger at the very real injustices in our society excuses violence” and that “looting is not a protest, it is a crime.”

The timing of the trial

Van der Veen claimed that it was Democrats’ fault that there were constitutional questions about holding an impeachment trial for a president who is no longer in office. He said, “They sat on the article. They could have tried the President while he was still in office if they really believed he was an imminent threat. They didn’t.”
Facts First: It is inaccurate for van der Veen to pin sole blame on the Democrats for the Senate’s decision to hold the trial after Trump left office. Democrats did propose to try Trump while he was still in office; it was Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, then the majority leader, who rejected the idea, rebuffing Democrats’ suggestion of bringing the Senate back on an emergency basis for a trial before Biden’s inauguration.
McConnell said on January 13, the day the House voted to impeach Trump, that there was no chance a “fair or serious” Senate trial could be completed before the inauguration.

Trump’s past comments about violence

One of the Democratic House impeachment managers, Rep. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania, spoke during closing arguments about Trump’s rhetoric before the insurrection.
“Donald Trump knew the people he was inciting. Leading up to January the 6th, he saw the violence they were capable of. He had a pattern and practice of praising and encouraging supporters of violence — never condemning it,” Dean said.
Facts First: It’s true that Trump had a pattern of encouraging or applauding supporters of violence; we listed nine examples in a fact check Friday. But it’s not true that Trump “never” condemned violence or support for violence. Trump has issued repeated condemnations.
Trump was vocal last year in his denunciation of violence connected to racial justice protests and violence allegedly associated with the Antifa movement. In both cases, he was transparent in his efforts to use these incidents as a cudgel against his Democratic opponents.
But he has also condemned violence of other kinds on multiple other occasions. These include an anti-Semitic massacre at a Pittsburgh synagogue in 2018, the mailing of bombs in 2018 to Trump’s political opponents and CNN, mass shootings in Texas and Ohio in 2019, and an anti-Semitic stabbing attack in New York in 2019.
“No nation can succeed that tolerates violence or the threat of violence as a method of political intimidation, coercion, or control. We all know that. Such conduct must be fiercely opposed and firmly prosecuted,” he said in one October 2018 speech in which he discussed the mail bombs.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

How to get into 4 of the best law schools in the US, according to consultants, admissions officers, and students

student loan forbearance

Summary List Placement

Attending law school is time-consuming and expensive, but if you end up in the right program, it could lead to a fulfilling and successful career.

For example, according to Yale Law School’s website, over 13,000 YLS alumni are leaders in their organizations — and a decade after graduating they almost unanimously express job satisfaction.

But to get into a top school, you’ll need more than just high test scores. Here are some tips and best strategies on how to get accepted into one of the best law schools in the country, according to people who’ve done it. 

Yale Law School

Yale Law School is the No. 1 law school in the US, according to US News & World Report, while the 2023 acceptance rate was a slim 7.3%.

Yale places high emphasis on obtaining letters of recommendation from professors who know you well and can personally evaluate aspects of your academic work. Something unique about the YLS admissions process is their faculty is heavily involved in selecting each class, so they might especially value strong academic letters. 

Read more: How to get into Yale Law School, the No. 1 program in the US

Columbia Law School

Columbia Law School is currently recognized as the fourth best law school in the US, trailing only Yale, Stanford, and Harvard (and tied with the University of Chicago). Of the more than 7,000 students who applied for the class of 2020, only about 16% were accepted.

Applicants to Columbia Law should pay extra attention to their personal statements. Use this as an opportunity to reveal who you really are and what you’re passionate about. Having strong reasons to be in New York City helps as well since it’s an integral part of the school, Timothy Knox, a law school admissions counselor, told Insider. 

Read more: Admissions consultants and recent graduates of Columbia Law share what it takes to get into the top 5 law school

UChicago Law School

UChicago Law School consistently ranks among the most prestigious graduate law programs in the world, with an acceptance rate of 18%. Unlike some of the other top schools, UChicago Law has an especially small class size, at just over 600 full-time students. (Columbia, which shares its No. 4 ranking, has double the number.)

The community prioritizes close faculty engagement and “the life of the mind.” Once you’ve taken your LSAT and applied, prepare for your interview by nailing your answer to the question, “Why UChicago?”

Read more: UChicago Law students and a dean of admissions explain how to nail your interview and personal statement to land a spot at the elite law school

Harvard Law School

In 2018, Harvard Law School — currently third in the rankings — offered admission to just 12% of applicants. In 2019, it made the shift to rounds of admission.

Per law school admissions coaching consultant Anna Ivey, “HLS admissions officers are very conscientious about recruiting minorities of various kinds: They want a diversity of people and geographic areas,” including veterans and older applicants. This means there’s no standard profile for an HLS student. Don’t be discouraged if you don’t fit what you think to be their ideal type of candidate.

Read more: How to get into Harvard Law School, according to the chief admissions officer, students, and admissions consultants

SEE ALSO: The 8 best executive MBAs that let you get a prestigious degree from anywhere in the world while working full time

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A cleaning expert reveals her 3-step method for cleaning your entire home quickly

Source link