Thread by @ThePlumLineGS

1) The new GOP defense of Trump is that the extortion plot never came to fruition, so nothing untoward happened.

@Jim_Jordan and @SteveScalise both pushed this on the Sunday shows.

But new revelations blow this nonsense to smithereens.

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…

@Jim_Jordan @SteveScalise 2) An important new report in the @WSJ shows degree to which Sondland kept the WH apprised of the developing scheme.

That included Mulvaney.

Importantly, Mulvaney *both* froze the military aid *and* was kept informed of the status of the "deliverable."

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…

@Jim_Jordan @SteveScalise @WSJ 3) As I argue in this piece, it's telling that the two officials -- Mulvaney and John Bolton -- who likely have the most direct knowledge of Trump's *intended* corrupt scheme are not testifying.

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…

@Jim_Jordan @SteveScalise @WSJ 4) If the fact that the scheme was never consummated is exonerating, then why the enormous efforts to prevent Trump's *corrupt intent* from getting a full airing?

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…

@Jim_Jordan @SteveScalise @WSJ 5) Finally, I asked white collar crime expert @RDEliason if the failure to consummate a scheme would constitute a defense in a criminal bribery trial.

His answer is: No, it wouldn't.

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…

@Jim_Jordan @SteveScalise @WSJ @RDEliason 6) The full argument is here:

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…

@Jim_Jordan @SteveScalise @WSJ @RDEliason Let me simplify the argument.

Republicans are claiming the fact that Trump's scheme never came to fruition is exonerating.

But that's nonsense. Look at bribery law. Failure to consummate a bribery scheme is not exonerating.

Corrupt intent matters:

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…