N※N

Trump Defense Claims Case Attacks Legal Team

  //house-home.news-articles.net/content/2026/02/1 .. rump-defense-claims-case-attacks-legal-team.html
  Published in House and Home on Friday, February 13th 2026 at 20:01 GMT by The Raw Story
      Locales: New York, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, UNITED STATES

Washington D.C. - February 14th, 2026 - The trial of former President Donald Trump continued Friday with his defense team vigorously arguing that his actions following the 2020 presidential election did not constitute a criminal conspiracy to overturn the results. Instead, they contend, Trump was legitimately exercising his right to challenge what he, and many of his supporters, genuinely believed was a fraudulent election. The core of their argument rests on the assertion that the prosecution is attempting to criminalize standard legal advice given to a client.

Attorney Steven Cheung, representing Trump, told the court that the prosecution's case amounts to an "attack" on the legal team simply for fulfilling their professional duties. "We are here because the prosecutors want to attack us for giving legal advice," Cheung stated, as reported by Politico. "We are here because the prosecutors are trying to punish counsel for doing their jobs." This framing attempts to shift the focus away from the substance of Trump's post-election actions and towards a defense of the attorney-client privilege and the right to legal representation.

Cheung further elaborated that Trump "genuinely believed" the election was riddled with fraud and that, therefore, he was fully within his rights to pursue legal challenges to the results. The defense appears to be building a narrative centered on Trump's state of mind - emphasizing his honest conviction, however misguided, that the election was stolen. They aim to portray his actions not as a malicious attempt to subvert democracy, but as a sincere, though perhaps flawed, effort to ensure election integrity.

This strategy represents a significant departure from initial defenses that downplayed the intensity of the challenges or focused solely on procedural issues. By explicitly stating Trump's belief in fraud, the defense is attempting to introduce reasonable doubt about his intent - a crucial element in proving a criminal conspiracy. However, prosecutors maintain that the evidence will demonstrate a deliberate and coordinated effort to undermine the democratic process, regardless of Trump's personal beliefs. They argue that the actions taken went far beyond legitimate legal challenges and included attempts to pressure election officials, submit false slates of electors, and ultimately incite the January 6th insurrection.

The prosecution, in their opening statements and subsequent evidence presentation, has painted a picture of a coordinated campaign to overturn the election, alleging that Trump and his allies knowingly spread false information, pressured state officials to alter vote counts, and attempted to exploit legal loopholes to achieve an unlawful outcome. They point to numerous instances where Trump publicly and repeatedly claimed the election was stolen, despite repeated assurances from election officials and intelligence agencies that the election was secure.

Adding another layer of complexity to the proceedings, the defense team requested a mistrial, alleging bias on the part of Judge Tanya Chutkan. Details regarding the specific allegations of bias remain sealed, but the request signals a growing frustration within the defense team. Judge Chutkan, however, swiftly rebuked Cheung for what she considered inappropriate comments during his presentation. "Mr. Cheung, I'm not going to allow you to make comments like that," she stated, firmly reminding him that the courtroom is not a platform for personal attacks. This exchange highlights the tense atmosphere within the courtroom and the judge's determination to maintain order and focus on the factual evidence.

The implications of this trial extend far beyond the fate of Donald Trump. It sets a legal precedent regarding the boundaries of acceptable political discourse and the limits of presidential power. A conviction could dramatically alter the landscape of American politics and potentially disqualify Trump from future office. Conversely, an acquittal could embolden similar challenges to future election results. The case is being closely watched by legal scholars, political analysts, and citizens across the nation, all seeking clarity on the fundamental principles of democratic governance. The coming days will likely reveal further evidence and arguments as both sides strive to convince the jury - and the public - of their respective narratives.