,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
I went through this nonsense so you don't have to
THREAD
THREAD
Article I - "Obstruction"
1. "Attempting" to fire Mueller isn't obstruction. He was a subordinate executive branch officer with serious potential conflicts of interest, not least of which is his longstanding friendship with Comey, a crucial fact witness. And he didn't fire him!
1. "Attempting" to fire Mueller isn't obstruction. He was a subordinate executive branch officer with serious potential conflicts of interest, not least of which is his longstanding friendship with Comey, a crucial fact witness. And he didn't fire him!
2. Trump's "efforts" to get a message to Sessions to unrecuse and then limit the investigation (while ill-advised) thru Lewandowski went nowhere. Trump could have ordered Sessions to un-recuse. He did not. He could have ordered Rosenstein to limit the investigation. He did not.
3. Trump disagreed with McGahn's recall of events about firing Mueller (McGahn is probably right in this case however). AFTER Trump had let McGahn - his WH laywer - testify for 30+ hours to Mueller, and his motivation was shaping press coverage, not obstructing the investigation
4. Firing Comey is an Article II power and not obstruction. Even Comey admits that, and no amount of Weissmann legal nonsense will ever change it
5. "The non-cooperation of Manafort and Stone...made it impossible to establish the exact nature of the relationship between the Trump campaign and the Russian government". COLLUSION TRUTHER.
Article II says *TRUMP* "failed to defend America" from foreign election interference? Who was President during 2016? Some guy called Obama I recall?
Also he "refused to notify the proper authorities" of Russia contacts? No evidence he a) knew about them or b) if he did, refused.
Also he "refused to notify the proper authorities" of Russia contacts? No evidence he a) knew about them or b) if he did, refused.
Article IIII "Trump attempted to investigate his political opponents".
a) He's the head of the executive branch, and norms not withstanding can order the DOJ to investigate someone
b) Er, Obama again.
a) He's the head of the executive branch, and norms not withstanding can order the DOJ to investigate someone
b) Er, Obama again.
Article IV. Trump "failed to produce papers and testimony as duly directed by Congress".
a) Congress is a co-equal branch of government and can't "direct" POTUS to the mens room absent a valid legislative purpose.
b) Hillary, hammers, bleachbit. Next.
a) Congress is a co-equal branch of government and can't "direct" POTUS to the mens room absent a valid legislative purpose.
b) Hillary, hammers, bleachbit. Next.
Article V. The Stormy payment via Cohen is not a violation of federal campaign finance law. You didn't cite the law because you don't understand it. 52 USC §30109 requires KNOWING INTENT to violate the law and there is zero evidence Trump did:
Article VI. Trump using a different emergency legislative act of congress to fund some/most of the wall might be creative accounting and a problem for Congress, but it hardly merits impeachment given Trump ran on that very policy and was elected. Also - US House of Reps v Mnuchin
Article VII. Emoluments again? Seriously?
Last thing - writing out badly thought through opinions as "Articles of Impeachment" doesn't make them any more legit.
/ENDS
/ENDS
Okay last last thing - anyone else notice what is missing from this list of so-called "criminal" actions by @realDonaldTrump? Something @MaxBoot has been pushing for two years?
Absolutely zero Collusion, conspiracy or coordination with Russia to interfere in the election.
Absolutely zero Collusion, conspiracy or coordination with Russia to interfere in the election.
