bruce castor speaks at trumps imeachment trial

CSPAN/YouTube

Trump impeachment lawyer’s opening statement is so bizarre that people think he’s trolling

'If Bruce Castor was trolling and not really trying to defend Trump, I couldn’t differentiate it from what we’re seeing right now.'

Feb 9, 2021, 4:00 pm*

Tech

 

David Covucci

House Democrats, who are trying former President Donald Trump’s impeachment in the Senate, kicked off their case with a harrowing video of the events of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, splicing together Trump’s words with the violent mob they say he tried to incite.

Featured Video Hide

Trump’s lead impeachment lawyer rebutted it with… nonsense.

Advertisement Hide

After Dems presented their opening statements, Bruce Castor stepped up to the floor of the Senate and proceeded to ramble on for nearly an hour, with a message that amounted to nothing. It left the internet confused and bewildered.

He began by accidentally saying that he was here to prosecute Trump, and tried to laugh off that little slip.

Castor is there to defend Trump. No one could tell, though, because his speech was filled with tangents, and offshoots, and nothing that represented a coherent case to defend Trump on charges he incited the Capitol riot.

Advertisement Hide

At one point he called the state of Nebraska a “judicial thinking place,” a phrase no one understood coming from a lawyer.

He went on an extended riff about why people love their senators, which has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Advertisement Hide

He botched a basic understanding of the impeachment clause in the Constutition and, essentially, dared the FBI to arrest Trump.

Advertisement Hide

And he said Trump should not be convicted because of the 2024 election.

Advertisement Hide

People thought it was babble.

And he reminded people of a famous chicken lawyer from Futurama.

Advertisement Hide

Others wanted to see what Trump would think.

Advertisement Hide

Most though just had to laugh.

Advertisement Hide

But according to the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, that was the plan, an attempt to “reduce the emotion in the room.”

Advertisement Hide

It was an intentional move, apparently, because the House case was so strong.

It may have worked?

Share this article
*First Published: Feb 9, 2021, 3:58 pm