Thread by @samueledewey

Some quick legal and political analysis of the current draft Articles:

Article I

1. The article does not charge a crime—it charges only “abuse of power” as a "high crime and misdemeanors." This would be the first time a President was impeached without a federal crime charged.

As plead, the Article's legal theory lacks a limiting principle. It would essentially criminalize taking any official action for some form of political gain. That is politics--since the founding. Every President could likely be impeached under this standard--even James Madison

2. The Article does not charge completed conduct; it only charges an attempt. This would be the first time that only an attempt was charged in a Presidential impeachment.

3. The Article requires proof of corrupt intent. But @RepJerryNadler and @RepAdamSchiff have excluded

all the Republican witnesses whose testimony was offered to show the President acted with proper intent. They have literally only admitted evidence that is helpful to them on the question of intent. That is completely lawless conduct and is without precedent.

4. The Article makes reference to other “invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.” This may be a backdoor way to bring the Mueller Report into a Senate trial.

Article II.

1. This Article is an extraordinary abuse of power and an assault on the Constitution.

2. The Article specifically charges the President with directing defiance of subpoenas issued by the House “‘pursuant’ to its ‘sole Power of Impeachment.’”

But @RepAdamSchiff and others did not have impeachment jurisdiction until H. Res. 660 passed on October 31—so all subpoenas issued prior to that date (which includes all the subpoenas for documents) are outside of the scope of the Article.

3. As to deposition subpoenas issued post-October 31, in every single instance, the President asserted a claim of constitutional privilege. The House would impeach and remove the President simply for asserting a constitutional privilege claim in a procedurally proper manner.

4. The House has never acted to rule on the President's claims that the subpoenas are illegal. So to as to his claims of Executive privilege. You can't allege non-compliance without ruling on legal objections. Even Joseph McCarthy didn't do that; only the Star Chamber did.

5. There are no references to Ambassador Bolton (who was never subpoenaed) and Dr. Kupperman (whose subpoena was withdrawn). It’s quite odd to allege obstruction generally, but not to take the steps necessary to charge it for witnesses described as “critical.”