![red herring fallacy trump red herring fallacy trump](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/76w6i025VxU/maxresdefault.jpg)
What happens next: The impeachment trial is expected to resume at 10 a.m. It undoubtedly will resonate with many Republican senators looking for a justification to vote to acquit Trump. And so they fell back on the everyone-is-so-partisan argument. Trump's legal team was simply not willing to engage on the merits of what Trump said and did. You can hate Trump and still believe he didn't incite a riot. After all, this isn't an either/or choice. But this argument is also a bit of a red herring. 6 but rather because they simply hate him – and that hate has blinded them to due process and the rule of law. It's all about the "hate": The main reason that Democrats in the House impeached Trump, according to his lawyers, was not because of his action (and lack of action) on Jan.But to believe that and be convinced by it, you have to be willing to ignore any sort of context. And come up with videos they did! The most notable one was a mashup of Democrats – from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris to virtually every Democratic senator – saying the word "fight." The point, as I noted above, was to make the case that Trump telling his supporters to "fight like hell" shouldn't be taken as a serious incitement to violence because, well, Democratic politicians say the word "fight" as well. 6 by the impeachment managers on the second day of the trial, the Trump team was scrambling to make more videos of their own to counter the impact it had on the jury of senators.
![red herring fallacy trump red herring fallacy trump](https://i0.wp.com/www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/donald-trump-pointing.jpg)
The "fight" video: As we know from reporting after the airing of a 13-minute video detailing the events of Jan.The facts, however, are not on the side of Trump's lawyers on this one. What those arguments are aimed at doing is removing any blame for Trump in, well, any of this. "You can't incite what was already going to happen," said van der Veen at one point. 6 was an isolated incident with zero prologue and b) these bad actors were going to behave badly no matter what Trump said or did that day. 6 was NOT inevitable: At the core of the defense team's case were these twin notions: a) What happened on Jan. On the other hand, Trump's lawyers dismissed his repeated use of the words "fight" during that same speech by playing a long smash cut of Democratic politicians saying the word "fight." The message was muddled: Do words - whether from the President or anyone else - matter, or don't they? It seemed as though Trump's lawyers were making the case that words mattered when it bolstered their argument that Trump didn't incite a riot but not so much in other circumstances. On the one hand, Trump attorney Michael van der Veen suggested that the President using the phrase "peaceful and patriotic" regarding the protests during his speech at the "Stop the Steal" rally, was proof-positive that he had told them to not engage in a violent manner. Except when they don't: Trump's lawyers tried to make two diametrically opposed arguments to dispel the idea that the former President was culpable for the Jan.