AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A jury in Texas will soon decide whether a convoy of supporters of then-President Donald Trump violently intimidated former Democratic lawmaker Wendy Davis and two others on a Biden-Harris campaign bus when a so-called “Trump train” trapped them on a Texas highway for more than an hour, just days before the 2020 election.
The trial, which began on September 9, will resume on Monday and is expected to last another week.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that six of the Trump train drivers violated state and federal law. Attorneys for the defendants said they did not conspire against Democrats on the bus and that their actions constituted protected speech.
Here’s more 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 en route from San Antonio to Austin. It was the last day of early voting in Texas before the 2020 general election, and the bus was scheduled to make a stop in San Marcos for an event at Texas State University.
Video footage captured by Davis shows pickup trucks flying large Trump flags aggressively braking and cornering the bus as it tried to pull away from the Trump train. One suspect struck a campaign volunteer’s car as the trucks filled every lane, slowing the bus and everyone around it to a crawl, or 15 mph.
Those on the bus, including Davis, a campaign worker and the driver, repeatedly called 911 for help and a police escort through San Marcos, but when no police arrived, the campaign canceled the event and moved it to Austin.
San Marcos settled a separate lawsuit brought by the same three Democrats against the police, agreeing to pay $175,000 and to mandate training in political violence for law enforcement officers.
Davis testified that she felt like she was being “held hostage” and that she sought treatment for her anxiety disorder.
The lawsuit alleges that Democrats were also intimidated, harassed and threatened with death in the run-up to the event.
“I feel like they enjoyed scaring us,” Davis testified. “It’s traumatic for all of us to relive that day.”
What is the plaintiffs’ argument?
In his opening statement, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said the convoy organizers targeted the bus to intimidate Democrats, in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act, an 1871 federal law that prohibits political violence and intimidation.
“We’re here because of actions that put people’s lives in danger,” said Samuel Hall, an attorney with the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher. The plaintiffs, he said, were “literally driven out of town by a swarm of trucks.”
The six Trump train drivers managed to cancel the remaining campaign events in Texas in a war they saw as “between good and evil,” Hall said.
Two nonprofit organizations, Texas Civil Rights Project and Protect Democracy, also represent the three plaintiffs.
What is the defense’s argument?
Lawyers for the defendants, who are accused of driving and organizing the convoy, said they did not conspire to swarm Democrats onto the bus, which could have exited the freeway at any point.
“This was a political meeting. This was not a conspiracy to intimidate people,” said attorney Jason Greaves, who represents two of the drivers.
The defense also argued that their clients’ actions constituted protected speech and that the trial is a concerted effort to “rob conservatives of their money,” said Francisco Canseco, an attorney for three of the defendants.
“It was a vocal group vociferously expressing their support and endorsement for a candidate of their choice,” Canseco said during his opening statement.
The defense lost a bid last month to have the case decided in its favor without a trial, with the judge writing that “assaulting, intimidating, or threatening others with violence is not protected speech.”
___
Lathan is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on under-covered issues.
