AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas jury will soon decide whether former Democratic lawmaker Wendy Davis and two others on the Biden-Harris campaign bus were violently threatened by a convoy of supporters of then-President Donald Trump after the so-called “Trump train” pummeled them for more than an hour on a Texas highway a day before 2020 elections.
The trial, which began on September 9, continues 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. Lawyers for the defendants said they did not conspire against Democrats on the bus and that their actions constitute protected speech.
Here’s what else to know:
What happened on October 30, 2020?
Dozens of cars and trucks organized by the local Trump Train group ambushed the bus on its way from San Antonio to Austin. It was the last day of early voting in Texas for the 2020 general election, and the bus was scheduled to stop in San Marcos for an event at Texas State University.
Video captured by Davis shows pickup trucks with large Trump flags aggressively slowing down and punching the bus as it tried to move away from the Trump train. One responder hit a campaign volunteer’s car as trucks occupied all lanes of traffic, slowing the bus and everyone around it to a 15km/h crawl.
Those on the bus — including Davis, a campaign staffer, and the driver — repeatedly called 911 asking for help and a police escort through San Marcos, but when law enforcement officers didn’t show up, the campaign canceled the event and pushed on to Austin.
San Marcos settled a separate lawsuit brought against the police by the same three Democrats, agreeing to pay $175,000 and provide law enforcement with political violence training.
Davis testified that she felt “held hostage” and has sought treatment for anxiety.
In the days leading up to the event, Democrats were also intimidated, harassed and received death threats, according to the suit.
“I feel like they enjoy scaring us,” Davis testified. “It’s traumatic for all of us to go back to that day.”
What is the plaintiffs’ argument?
In opening statements, the plaintiffs’ attorney said the convoy organizers targeted the bus in a premeditated attack to intimidate Democrats in violation of the “Ku Klux Klan Act,” an 1871 federal law that outlaws political violence and intimidation.
“We’re here because of actions that put people’s lives at risk,” said Samuel Hall, a lawyer with Willkie Farr & Gallagher. He said the plaintiffs “literally drove a swarm of trucks out of town.” “
Six Trump Train drivers managed to get the campaign to cancel its remaining events in Texas in a war they believed was “between good and evil,” Hall said.
Two nonprofit advocacy groups, the Texas Civil Rights Project and Protect Democracy, are also representing the three plaintiffs.
What is the defense’s argument?
Lawyers for the defendants accused of driving and organizing the convoy said they did not conspire to get Democrats on the bus, which could have left the highway at any time.
“This was a political protest. This was not a conspiracy to scare people,” said attorney Jason Greaves, who represents the two drivers.
The defense also argued that their clients’ actions constituted protected speech and that the trial is a concerted effort “to fleece conservatives out of their money,” according to Francisco Canseco, a lawyer for the three accused.
“It was a rah-rah group trying to support and defend the candidate of their choice in a very vocal way,” Canseco said in his opening remarks.
Last month, the defense lost a bid to have the case settled in their favor without a trial. The judge wrote that “abusing, threatening, or directly threatening others with force is not protected expression.”
___
Lathan is a member of The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places reporters in local newsrooms to report on classified issues.
