AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas jury will soon decide whether a group of supporters of then-President Donald Trump trapped former Democratic Rep. Wendy Davis and two others riding the Biden-Harris campaign bus on the so-called “Trump Train” for more than an hour on a Texas highway days before the 2020 presidential election and violently threatened them.
This trial, It began on September 9will resume on Monday and are expected to continue for another week.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the six Trump Train drivers violated state and federal laws, while defense lawyers said the drivers weren’t plotting against the Democrats who were riding the buses and that their actions were entitled to free speech protections.
Here’s what else you need to know:
What happened on October 30, 2020?
Dozens of cars and trucks organized by a local Trump Train group swarmed the bus as it traveled from San Antonio to Austin on the last day of early voting in Texas for the 2020 general election, with the bus scheduled to stop in San Marcos for an event at Texas State University.
Video taken by Davis shows a pickup truck flying a large Trump flag slowing violently and striking the bus as it moves away from the Trump Train. As the truck takes over all lanes of traffic, causing the bus and surrounding cars to slow to a slower speed of 15 mph, one of the defendants crashes into a campaign volunteer’s vehicle.
Those on the bus, including Davis, campaign staff and the driver, called 911 multiple times to request help and a police escort in San Marcos, but when police never arrived, the campaign canceled the event and moved on to Austin.
San Marcos Another lawsuit was settled filed by the same three Democrats Against the policeIt agreed to pay $175,000 and require law enforcement agencies to undergo mandatory training on political violence.
Davis testified that she felt like she was being “held hostage” and sought treatment for an anxiety disorder.
According to the lawsuit, in the days leading up to the rally, Democrats had been subjected to intimidation, harassment and even death threats.
“I feel like they enjoyed scaring us,” Davis testified. “It’s traumatic for all of us to remember that day.”
What are the plaintiffs’ arguments?
In opening statements, lawyers for the plaintiffs said convoy organizers targeted the bus in a planned attack to intimidate Democrats in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act, an 1871 federal law that bans political violence and intimidation.
“We’re here because of behavior that put people’s lives at risk,” said Samuel Hall, an attorney with the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher. The plaintiffs “were literally run out of town by a fleet of trucks,” he said.
Hall said the six Trump Train drivers were successful in forcing the cancellation of the remaining events in Texas in what they believed was a “battle between good and evil.”
The nonprofit advocacy groups Texas Civil Rights Project and Protect Democracy are also representing the three plaintiffs.
What is the defense’s argument?
Lawyers for the defendants charged with driving and organizing the motorcade said they did not conspire to cram the Democrats onto the buses because the buses could have left the highway at any time.
“This was a political rally. It wasn’t a plot to intimidate people,” said Jason Greaves, an attorney representing both drivers.
The defense also argued that their clients’ actions were protected speech and that the case was a concerted effort to “siphon money from conservatives,” according to Francisco Canseco, a lawyer for three of the defendants.
“This was a passionate group of people who were loudly supporting and defending the candidate of their choice,” Canseco said in his opening statement.
The defense lost a motion to win a judgment without trial last month, with the judge writing that “assaulting, threatening or imminently threatening another person with violence is not protected speech.”
___
Lathan is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report to the United States is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.