By NADIA LATHAN Related Press/Report for America
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas jury will quickly determine whether or not a convoy of supporters of then-President Donald Trump violently intimidated former Democratic lawmaker Wendy Davis and two others on a Biden-Harris marketing campaign bus when a so-called “Trump Train” boxed them in for greater than an hour on a Texas freeway days earlier than the 2020 election.
The trial, which started on Sept. 9, resumes Monday and is anticipated to final one other week.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that six of the Trump Prepare drivers violated state and federal legislation. Attorneys for the defendants mentioned they didn’t conspire in opposition to the Democrats on the bus and that their actions are protected speech.
Right here’s what else to know:
What occurred on Oct. 30, 2020?
Dozens of vehicles and vehicles organized by a neighborhood Trump Prepare group swarmed the bus on its means from San Antonio to Austin. It was the final day of early voting in Texas for the 2020 basic election, and the bus was scheduled to make a cease in San Marcos for an occasion at Texas State College.
Video recorded by Davis exhibits pickup vehicles with massive Trump flags aggressively slowing down and boxing within the bus because it tried to maneuver away from the Trump Prepare. One defendant hit a marketing campaign volunteer’s automobile whereas the vehicles occupied all lanes of visitors, slowing the bus and everybody round it to a 15 mph crawl.
These on the bus — together with Davis, a marketing campaign staffer and the driving force — repeatedly known as 911 asking for assist and a police escort by San Marcos, however when no legislation enforcement arrived, the marketing campaign canceled the occasion and pushed ahead to Austin.
San Marcos settled a separate lawsuit filed by the identical three Democrats in opposition to the police, agreeing to pay $175,000 and mandate political violence coaching for legislation enforcement.
Davis testified that she felt she was being “taken hostage” and has sought remedy for anxiousness.
Within the days main as much as the occasion, Democrats had been additionally intimidated, harassed and obtained demise threats, the lawsuit mentioned.
“I feel like they were enjoying making us afraid,” Davis testified. “It’s traumatic for all of us to revisit that day.”
What’s the plaintiffs’ argument?
In opening statements, an legal professional for the plaintiffs mentioned convoy organizers focused the bus in a calculated assault to intimidate the Democrats in violation of the “Ku Klux Klan Act,” an 1871 federal legislation that bans political violence and intimidation.
“We’re here because of actions that put people’s lives in danger,” mentioned Samuel Corridor, an legal professional with the legislation agency Willkie Farr & Gallagher. The plaintiffs, he mentioned, had been “literally driven out of town by a swarm of trucks.”
The six Trump Prepare drivers succeeded in making the marketing campaign cancel its remaining occasions in Texas in a battle they believed was “between good and evil,” Corridor mentioned.
Two nonprofit advocacy teams, Texas Civil Rights Mission and Shield Democracy, are also representing the three plaintiffs.
What’s the protection’s argument?
Attorneys for the defendants, who’re accused of driving and organizing the convoy, mentioned they didn’t conspire to swarm the Democrats on the bus, which may have exited the freeway at any level.
“This was a political rally. This was not some conspiracy to intimidate people,” mentioned legal professional Jason Greaves, who’s representing two of the drivers.
The protection additionally argued that their shoppers’ actions had been protected speech and that the trial is a concerted effort to “drain conservatives of their money,” based on Francisco Canseco, a lawyer for 3 of the defendants.
“It was a rah-rah group that sought to support and advocate for a candidate of their choice in a very loud way,” Canseco mentioned throughout opening statements.
The protection misplaced a bid final month to have the case dominated of their favor with out a trial. The decide wrote that “assaulting, intimidating, or imminently threatening others with force is not protected expression.”
Initially Printed: September 16, 2024 at 10:44 a.m.
