‘Trump Train’ trial begins in Austin

Occupants of a Biden campaign bus sued Trump supporters who followed and blocked the bus as it traveled down I-35, days before the 2020 election. The case reached a federal courtroom this week.

By Shelly BrisbinSeptember 10, 2024 12:08 pm,

A lawsuit filed against members of what’s become known as the “Trump Train,” has gone to trial in Austin. 

In 2020, occupants of a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris campaign bus were traveling on I-35 near Austin when a convoy of vehicles adorned with pro-Trump signs and flags began to surround the bus, plaintiffs say, attempting to block the bus, nearly running it off the road and terrorizing those on board.

Three occupants of the bus, including former state Senator Wendy Davis, filed suit, alleging an orchestrated attack aimed at intimidating people on the bus and forcing the campaign to cancel its remaining events in Texas.

Bayliss Wagner, a reporter for the Austin American Statesman, says the trial opened Monday in a packed courtroom. Listen to the interview above or read the transcript below.

This transcript has been edited lightly for clarity:

Texas Standard: This Trump Train incident happened just before the 2020 election, as I recall. Remind us what actually happened. Any injuries or damage on that day? 

Bayliss Wagner: It was the last day of early voting and there were not any injuries, except that the car of a campaign staffer who was following the bus was sideswiped by one of the defendants. 

As I understand it, those on the bus were frantically calling 911 and asking for police to intervene. I think there was ultimately a settlement with the San Marcos Police Department in relation to this case. But Davis and the others sued, as I understand it, the drivers participating in this Trump convoy. Who exactly did they sue? What kind of damages are they seeking? 

So they’re seeking what they’re entitled to under the Ku Klux Klan Act, which forbids people from conspiring to threaten, harass or use violence to prevent a citizen from engaging in political support or advocacy. Under that law, they’re entitled to damages – compensatory damages for any emotional distress, of which all three say they experienced, and punitive damages. And I think attorneys’ fees as well.

So in the San Marcos case, they had a settlement with the police who they accused of ignoring 911 calls and requests for them to send protection. 

» GET MORE NEWS FROM AROUND THE STATE: Sign up for Texas Standard’s weekly newsletters

Now, the lawsuit accuses six named defendants of violating this act. What are the defendants having to say about all this?

The defendants’ attorneys argued that this was sort of a typical rally. They noted that during the COVID-19 pandemic, car-based events were very popular with people – having birthday parties where people honked to show their support.

Attorney Francisco Canseco said that it was a “rah rah” group that sought to support and advocate for the candidate of their choice. They didn’t deny that it was loud. They didn’t deny that the videos showed a lot of curse words and a lot of emotion. But they said, “well, think of it as a sports game. Think of it as being in the heat of the moment.”

But, of course, in this case, we’re talking about political speech and how much of this has become a duel between what the limits of political speech are and where it starts to to border on actual violence and intimidation?

I think that’s going to be the central question of this case, because both sides are arguing that their political speech is at stake here.

The defendants are saying this is almost a conspiracy on the plaintiffs’ part of trying to get them to silence themselves, trying to drain their funds. One attorney invoked a larger plan of “lawfare,” intended to drain Republicans of their money.

But obviously, the plaintiffs are saying “we canceled an event in Austin because we were so concerned about this.” Both the campaign staffer and Wendy Davis have said that they suffered anxiety and stress that inhibited their participation in future political advocacy. So, yeah, I think that will be the central question of this trial.

This has taken a long time to reach this point. What are we looking at when it comes to a timeline? How long could this trial go on?

The schedule says that it’s scheduled to end on Sept. 17, but it could go longer. It could go to the 20th. It could go past that. We’re not totally sure, but it’ll be at least a week. 

If you found the reporting above valuable, please consider making a donation to support it here. Your gift helps pay for everything you find on texasstandard.org and KUT.org. Thanks for donating today.