,
15 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ The GOP has a 2-part strategy:
💠Keep the focus on the phone call itself, ignoring the surrounding circumstances,
💠Say 'there was no quid pro quo in the phone call, so no crime."
In the emails released on Friday, you could see that this was planned in advance.
💠Keep the focus on the phone call itself, ignoring the surrounding circumstances,
💠Say 'there was no quid pro quo in the phone call, so no crime."
In the emails released on Friday, you could see that this was planned in advance.
2/ Notice how Sondland replies ⤵️ When he says Trump has been "crystal clear no quid pro quo of any kind" what he means is that "Trump is being careful that nobody can pin him down on a quid pro quo."
This was the "no collusion" strategy . . .
This was the "no collusion" strategy . . .
3/ It has the benefit of keeping people focused on the criminal code instead of national security.
It was the "no collusion" strategy, which worked once.
Trump wants this to be about the criminal code for the reasons I explained here:
It was the "no collusion" strategy, which worked once.
Trump wants this to be about the criminal code for the reasons I explained here:
4/ When we talk about crimes, we talk about proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt and other protections given to defendants in criminal trials.
These protections are in place because in a criminal trial, a defendants stands to lose constitutional protected rights.
These protections are in place because in a criminal trial, a defendants stands to lose constitutional protected rights.
5/ A person convicted stands to lose life (capital cases) liberty and property. In an impeachment trial, all that is at stake is not being president any more. There is no constitutionally protected right to be president.
Moreover, crimes always seem petty . . .
Moreover, crimes always seem petty . . .
6/ . . . compared to the kinds of behavior the drafters of the Constitution had in mind for impeachable behavior —
Stuff like trading U.S. foreign policy for personal gain, corruptly using the powers of the presidency to consolidate personal power and keep himself in office.
Stuff like trading U.S. foreign policy for personal gain, corruptly using the powers of the presidency to consolidate personal power and keep himself in office.
7/ The "no collusion" strategy was similar.
Trump was careful never to get pinned down on the elements of conspiracy.
Then he shouted "NO COLLUSION" for 2 years.
When there wasn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove each element of conspiracy, he shouts "Exonerated!"
Trump was careful never to get pinned down on the elements of conspiracy.
Then he shouted "NO COLLUSION" for 2 years.
When there wasn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove each element of conspiracy, he shouts "Exonerated!"
8/ Yes, of course there was quid pro quo.
But that's not the discussion we should be having.
We should be talking about the kind of self-dealing behavior, corrupt behavior the founders had in mind when they created the impeachment clause, and how Trump's behavior fits.
But that's not the discussion we should be having.
We should be talking about the kind of self-dealing behavior, corrupt behavior the founders had in mind when they created the impeachment clause, and how Trump's behavior fits.
9/ True. I stand corrected.
As people are saying in the comments, they're also saying quid pro quo is normal in international relations.
Notice it still keeps the focus on quid pro quo, which is an element of bribery, instead of the larger picture:
As people are saying in the comments, they're also saying quid pro quo is normal in international relations.
Notice it still keeps the focus on quid pro quo, which is an element of bribery, instead of the larger picture:
10/ What is the larger picture?
Conducting United States foreign policy to benefit Donald Trump and his pals (which include his Russian pals, of course.)
This is exactly the kind of behavior the framers were afraid of and considered impeachable.
Quid pro quo is a distraction.
Conducting United States foreign policy to benefit Donald Trump and his pals (which include his Russian pals, of course.)
This is exactly the kind of behavior the framers were afraid of and considered impeachable.
Quid pro quo is a distraction.
11/ Why do I think the Trump-FOX-GOP wants the conversation to be about quid pro quo?
I gathered some clues a few days ago⤵️
FDR said: “Never let your opponent pick the battleground on which to fight. If he picks one, stay out of it and let him fight all by himself.”
I gathered some clues a few days ago⤵️
FDR said: “Never let your opponent pick the battleground on which to fight. If he picks one, stay out of it and let him fight all by himself.”
12/ Want to see a great example of how to do the messaging?
c-span.org/video/?c482043…
Schiff says: "The Framers were concerned with foreign interference in American affairs. They wanted to make sure the President was advancing the interests of the United States . . .
c-span.org/video/?c482043…
Schiff says: "The Framers were concerned with foreign interference in American affairs. They wanted to make sure the President was advancing the interests of the United States . . .
13/ . . it didn't fit into a Tweet, so here it is as a screen shot ⤵️
Go, Schiff.
Go, Schiff.
@AzEagletarian For people who want messaging that fits into a tweet, Ted Lieu is the master.
@AzEagletarian Check out his TL for more examples:
