AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas jury is currently deliberating a case involving a convoy of then-President Donald Trump’s supporters, who allegedly used threatening tactics against a Biden-Harris campaign bus and its occupants in the days leading up to the 2020 Presidential Election. The incident occurred on a highway stretch between San Antonio and Austin and involved several vehicles that besieged the campaign bus, effectively hindering its passage and leading to the cancellation of a scheduled campaign event.
The trial, which commenced on September 9, revisits the claims that the Trump supporters’ aggressive driving constituted a violation of state and federal law, specifically citing the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which prohibits political violence and intimidation. The plaintiffs—former Democratic lawmaker Wendy Davis, a campaign staffer, and a bus driver—testified that they were encircled and intimidated by the ‘Trump Train’, a caravan of trucks waving Trump flags.
Video evidence and eye-witness testimonies presented during the trial paint a harrowing picture of the events. The footage, recorded by Davis, showed the convoy slowing to a crawl, taking over all traffic lanes and at one point, colliding with a car driven by a campaign volunteer. The defendants, however, argue that their actions were part of a political rally meant to display support for Trump, not to threaten or intimidate.
During the proceedings, Samuel Hall, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the defendants strategically targeted the bus to thwart the Democrats’ campaign efforts, suggesting a clear intent to intimidate. In contrast, defense attorneys maintained that there was no conspiracy to harm or impede the Democrats, emphasizing the defendants’ right to hold a political demonstration.
San Marcos, the location where the bus was headed, became a focal point of the case after settling a related lawsuit with the plaintiffs earlier. The city agreed to a $175,000 payment and committed to enhancing political violence training for local law enforcement, highlighting the broad implications of the incident on local government policies.
Testimonies revealed the deep psychological impact the event had on those aboard the bus, including Davis, who stated she sought treatment for anxiety stemming from the episode, feeling as if she’d been held hostage. Additional allegations of harassment and received threats leading up to the bus incident were also brought up during the trial, painting a troubling picture of the political climate at the time.
The defense, led by attorney Jason Greaves, argued that the “Trump Train” was simply an enthusiastic display of political support, an expression of the partisans rallying behind their preferred candidate. Francisco Canseco, representing three of the drivers, criticized the trial as a politically motivated attack intended to financially and morally burden conservative activists.
The presiding judge previously denied a motion to dismiss the case, stating that using force or threats as a means of political expression does not merit protection under the law, setting the stage for a full judicial examination of the events.
As the jury deliberates, this case not only revisits the divisive nature of the 2020 elections but also tests the boundaries of political speech and the rights to safe campaigning. The outcome could potentially set significant precedents concerning how political demonstrations are conducted and regulated in the United States.