Trump defense attorney Michael van der Veen broke down Brandenburg v. Ohio, a case House managers raised Thursday. Van der Veen cited the "landmark case on the issue of incitement speech" to argue that Trump didn't intend for supporters to attack the Capitol.
A displayed slide read that the Brandenburg test "precludes speech from being sanctioned as incitement to riot unless: 1) the speech explicitly or implicity encouraged use of violence or lawless action, 2) the speaker intends that his speech will result in use of violence of lawless action and 3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action is likely to result from the speech."
He called Trump's uses of the words "fight" in the speech "metaphorical." However, he did not address the impeachment managers' assertions that Trump had primed his supporters with a "big lie" of a stolen election.
"Spare us the hypocrisy and false indignation. It's a term used over and over and over again by politicians on both sides of the aisle," van der Veen said, honing in on arguments of "whataboutisms" of Democrats.
"The reality is Mr. Trump was not in any way shape or form instructing these people to fight or to use physical violence. What he was instructing them to do was to challenge their opponents in primary elections to push for sweeping election reforms, to hold big tech responsible," he said.
However, at least 15 individuals who stormed the building have since said that they acted based on Trump's encouragement, including some of those accused of the most violent and serious crimes. House managers also argued in their time that Trump's oath of office to protect the country supersedes his First Amendment rights.
Trump's defense team has also played extended video of Trump's speech at the Jan. 6 rally, in which the former president repeated false claims that the election was stolen and encouraged Republican lawmakers to vote to overturn the Electoral College results.