Thread by @Teri_Kanefield

(Thread) Trump's Trial Brief
whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…

From the brief:

“Trump acted properly” when he rejected all subpoenas and requests for information. (p. 37)

“No witness with direct knowledge testified that Trump conditioned a presidential meeting on investigations (p. 97)

In other words, he's arguing that

🔹He properly refused to turn over evidence and permit witnesses to testify, and
🔹There was insufficient evidence to support the allegations.

Let's call that Contradiction #1

1/

Team Trump conveniently omitted these items from the timeline:

Sept 9: The House announced an investigation into a Trump-Giuliani scheme to pressure Ukraine.

Sept 11: The White House informed Senators it was releasing the Ukraine military assistance it had been withholding.

2/

Contradiction #2 is basically a corollary of Contradiction #1:

Page 13: The Brief argues that the Senate Must Decide All Questions of Law and Fact.

Page 37: Trump can withhold evidence from Congress.

So they decide questions of law and fact without evidence?

3/

The brief cherry-picks a few facts, ignoring the bulk of testimony, and then concludes that the evidence shows something it does not show.

Like this: Trump claims that it was perfectly appropriate that he "asked" about the Biden-Burisma affair. . .

4/

But then ignores the evidence that:

🔹He wanted an "announcement" not an investigation

🔹There were legal channels for asking for investigations. He avoided the established channels.

🔹His henchmen conditioned a meeting and aid on such an announcement.

5/

Notably, Trump isn't denying the facts. He's arguing that

🔹There wasn't evidence to support the allegation that he behaved corruptly, and

🔹He had the right to do everything he did.

(He says investigating Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election is in the US interests)

6/

Trump claims the sole power to determine foreign policy, and says Congress has no right to inspect his motives⤵️

In fact "executive power" doesn't mean the president has sole power over foreign policy.

The Constitution specifically says otherwise . . .

7/

The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and the power to:

"Declare War"
"regulate Commerce with foreign nations"
"define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the High Seas"

(Okay, that one seems dated, but you get the idea.)

8/

Trump argues that Congress has no right to scrutinize his motives. He says if an action is legally permissible, nobody can question why he did it.

At the same time, he claims that he can only be impeached for a crime.

All crimes have a mental component (mens rea). . .

9/

Bribery, as defined in the federal statutes, requires a corrupt intent.justice.gov/archives/jm/cr……
See #6⤵️

If Congress is not permitted to examine motive or intent, it is by definition impossible to impeach a president for bribery (as defined by the current federal statute).

10/

Trump is often cherry-picking facts, and arguing that the evidence therefore doesn't prove the allegations.

First, obviously, he's not allowed to cherry-pick facts, leaving out all the testimony inconvenient to him.

Second, he's basically making what is called . . .

11/

. . . a "sufficiency of the evidence" argument, which happens on appeal.

An appellate court looks at the lower court record to determine if there was enough evidence to support the verdict.

The Court looks at all the evidence (no cherry picking).

However. . .

12/

. . .what happens in the Senate isn't an appeal. It's a trial.
In fact, it's the only trial. From the Constitution ⤵️

The evidence gathered by the House need only be enough to show a trial is warranted.

Trump also cherry picks from the Constitution. He likes the 2/3 vote.

13/

Here Trump argues that the Senate

🔹"may not rely" on the House's deficient inquiry, and
🔹cannot develop its own record.

This works only if you disregard the "Senate has the Sole Power to Try Impeachments" part of the Constitution.

14/

This is just silly.

He is cherry picking the facts (an "innocuous phone call") and cherry-picking Constitutional history.

And, um. What about a "debt ridden" President?
What about a president vulnerable because of HIS debts?🤣

15/

This next one is pure Trump.

Here's the "Adam Schiff is a liar" defense.

The citation is to a a media article where Schiff is quoted as saying that there is more than circumstantial evidence that that Trump campaign "colluded" with Russia.

So that's Schiff's "lie."

16/

Schiff's "false statement" to damage the president is this⤵️ (I looked up the citation)

Actually, Mueller found multiple "links and/or coordination" between the Trump campaign and the Russians, but didn't have enough evidence to charge criminal conspiracy.

17/

Here's where Trump claims that there's a legal doctrine stating that his advisors are immune from testifying. (There isn't, and they aren't)

Just last month, Judge Jackson debunked the DOJ claims that anyone has "absolute immunity. . .

18/

Here's where Judge Jackson says "Presidents are not kings" assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6560…

The central contradiction in this brief is this:

If the President is indeed entitled to refuse to comply with evidence requests from Congress. . .

19/

. . . and if Congress has no right to question the motives or intent of the President, what are the impeachment and removal clauses doing in the Constitution?

Did the framers just goof by including a provision that allows the Senate to put the president on trial?

20/

Disclaimer: I made no attempt to debunk all the lies in this brief. Life is short.

Here's the problem for the Republican Senators, who we know plan to acquit Trump: How will they acquit without condoning Trump's behavior in Ukraine?

https://twitter.com/tedbrogan6901/status/1219386652319264775

21/

Once witnesses appear, and Trump refuses to hand over documents, it's harder to acquit on grounds like, "The House did a bad job."

Also, once witnesses testify, it's harder for Trump to cherry pick the facts.

22/

Here is this thread as a (better organized) blog post: terikanefield-blog.com/trumps-trial-b…