Lawfag here
Part 1 (body too long, will link to part 2)
Having sat thru yesterday's opening Peach Mint 2 arguments (ok, mostly didn't watch but did listen - I did catch much of the Dem "muh feelz" video), and pondered on what I saw and heard, I have a take on the situation that I'll just drop right here.
We all understand that the Dem position is based on a lie. There is ample evidence that the "insurrection" was a pre-staged, choreographed performance of a false flag designed to smear MAGA and position DJT for yet another harrassment move by the DS. I am intentionally not addressing whether Q team is ultimately maneuvering the orchestration of the cabal's idiot activities so that they march to their own demise. In context, I have 20+ years trial and appellate experience in a few different states as well as Fed courts.
From a trial standpoint, the Dems approach everything with a plaintiff's lawyer and stage-actor mindset, which means that they will have already focus-grouped their "evidence", a bunch of out-of-context cuts from DJT speeches and a chop-logic, high production value video of the staged riot that leaves them looking as good as they can. We're all aware that their narrative has already been seriously undercut by AOC's retarded commentary (she barely survived the sniper fire along with Hillbags, ya know) along with a lot of contradictory facts that have already been solidly established. The Dem managers went with "muh feelz" from the outset because they literally have nowhere else to go with their story. They surely didn't help themselves, either, with their weepfest during presentation. Did they connect? Only with their hardcore base and some outlier independents who've been fed nothing but MSM shit. The last time the public was introduced to their lies on national TV (Peach Mint 1), DJT's popularity ultimately increased. Keep that in mind.
Which leads me to the analysis of Trump's two-attorney opening yesterday. On the surface, these guys appear more "lightweight" than the slick production barfed up by the House managers. Production values and a few weeks to practice can work miracles for opening statements. However, let me explain to you why I believe you're seeing a brilliant longhaul strategy.
Let's deal with the 2nd Trump attorney first. He was extremely articulate from a legal standpoint, arguing at frankly the appellate level. While many viewers or listeners could follow his overall points, he did come across more textbook-ish than I would personally prefer in an opening statement. That said, he did drop several nukes on the entire House show, and (I know you know these already) they were:
1) Constitution doesn't permit Congress to impeach someone not in office. The proper thing to do is arrest and criminal trial. This is BIG.
2) The circus is rigged (a judge is a member of the jury?) and not even allowed under the law (since when does a Legislature act as a court against a private citizen). Meaningful but not necessarily something private citizens are going to really worry about unless they're smart enough to realize it could happen to them, too.
3) This whole thing is a hoax. That's really going to be the knife in the Dems' guts, because he's got the goods to prove it.
No, I am not forgetting the 1st Amendment free speech argument. It's absolutely correct, but it's of such nuance that the only way it will resonate with anyone on the other side is to show that his speech was no worse than the Dems (which he did preview).
The only real question with regard to Mr. Schoen is whether he can "dumb down" his presentation to play well on TV. His presentation was quite "pitbull", but scholarly. I suspect he absolutely can keep that fire while switching into a more plain-spoken mode. We'll see.