Maybe in a classic murder case, physical evidence makes the case stronger. Here you have Exhibit A, B and C that you can feel, touch, pick up, examine under a microscope, extract DNA and fingerprints, smell, weigh, see. However, that is not the sole sum of evidence. In a case like Insurrection Against the USA Government by a Sitting President, it is a lot more abstract as leading an insurrection involves proving there was a persuading of minds, inflaming of emotions, whipping up of hysteria, none of which is is tangible. This is why Van der Veen's core argument was, 'Well, for stirring up an insurrection, you have to look at the words used, which led on nicely to his other key argument, the First Amendment, the right to free speech, which he argued quite well as being of essential for a politician at the highest levels in order to express political concepts, whatever they may be.
His error was focussing solely on the speech Trump made at the Ellipse before and during the mob march down Pennsylvannia Avenue. Trump very cannily included the word 'peacefully' - well, he could hardly say, 'violently' - and his whole case hinged around that. In addition, Trump was not physically there at the Capitol Riots. Unlike Wat Tyler of the fourteen century, leading his angry mob of peasants over London Bridge after marching all the way from Canterbury, incensed by the newly imposed Poll Tax, to confront the king, 14-year-old Richard II, where they met face to face at Smithfield. (Tyler met a sorry end, when Richard's men killed him.) Quite likely, Trump intended to 'walk' with them but was forcibly prevented by his bodyguards for fear of his assassination.
So, how do you prove 'insurrection' beyond a reasonable doubt if the perpetrator wasn't actually at the scene of the action? Well, we look at something that is extremely important in criminal law/impeachment law: we look closely at the chronology of events, and the House Managers did this superbly and should not be downhearted at the defeat. Trump had planted the claim of a 'rigged election' during the six months previously. This he did as tactically and as strategically as any army general.
He built up a hardcore of 'troops' made up the most radicalised, violent, psychopathic, baying thugs, hiding behind 'patriotism' as an excuse for thuggery. The prosecution showed an exchange of social media message between Kremer, an organiser for his rally, in which she agreed to change the date of a rally earmarked 20/21 Jan 2021 to 6 Jan 2021 timed to take place 11:00 - circa 13:00, when the certification of the election was due to take place at Capitol Hill - saying 'I am bringing the Calvary' [sic], to which Trump retweeted with the words, I am greatly honored.
Van der Veen made the ludicrous claim that when there is a murder, it doesn't matter what the murderer does afterwards, to rebut the hard physical evidence in the form of a phone log between Trump and Turbeville that Trump knew Pence and his family were in immediate danger, yet still (a) failed to do anything at all to stop the riots as Commander-in-Chief with the National Guard at his disposal, and (b) continued to bear pressure on a Senator to prevent the certification.
So, was that enough to convict, given there is never going to be 'hard evidence' for an abstract concept of insurrection, especially if the supposed leader is not even there at the scene of the uprising? IMV the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What Trump did - or failed to do - after his speech of 6th Jan 2021 was just as important as what he did before. The chronology is very clear and sound legally acceptable evidence.
