Thread by @moscow_project

.@RepAdamSchiff debunks Trump's defenses so far, starting with the fact that there hasn't been any defense—or, for that matter, any actual invocation of executive privilege.

@RepAdamSchiff Trump's lawyers want to have it both ways: They're arguing both that the House needs to wait to hear from the courts about their subpoenas and that the courts shouldn't be ruling on issues relating to impeachment.

@RepAdamSchiff "Can you really live up to the oath you've taken to be impartial and not know? I don't think you can."

@RepAdamSchiff Schiff debunks two more arguments: That abuse of power isn't an impeachable offense (it is) and that releasing the call transcripts after he got caught amounts to some kind of unprecedented transparency (it isn't)

@RepAdamSchiff Republicans were there for the intel committee's closed hearings. Trump's lawyers were invited to appear at the public hearings. Any claim otherwise is just plain wrong.

@RepAdamSchiff "Are we prepared to say" that any future president can call up a foreign power and extort them for help in a presidential election?
"Well, that's why we're here."

@RepAdamSchiff The evidence that's come to light since Trump was impeached show why it's so important for the Senate to hear from new witnesses and see new documents.

@RepAdamSchiff .@RepZoeLofgren, now part of three presidential impeachment processes, provides a master class in the documents and witnesses presented in the Senate's previous impeachment trials—and why Trump's stonewalling is so unprecedented:

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren Trump and his legal team appear to believe that "Congress's authority is subject to the approval of the president."
That's not how it works.

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren The White House has tried to stonewall the investigation every step of the way, in direct defiance of the Constitution's clear delineation of Congress's sole power of impeachment.

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren When Nixon tried to invoke executive privilege—which Trump has yet to do—over Watergate, the Supreme Court unanimously voted against him. Trump's efforts to withhold documents are just as illegitimate, if not more so.

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren An example of documents the Senate needs to see: notes Trump received before his July 25 call, which would show that Trump's "statements to Zelensky were unrelated to the foreign policy objectives of his own administration, and show that they served his own personal interests."

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren Multiple administration officials testified that they took notes about events they witnessed, including the July 25 call. Those documents would provide great insight into how people within administration saw the aid hold in real time.

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren Documents would show how top White House officials understood Trump's efforts to get Ukraine to announce investigations into his political opponents.
Every Senator should want to see them.

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren In his explosive testimony, Sondland referred to numerous emails that he said were being withheld by the State Department.
Seeing them is necessary for the Senate to understand the full scope of Trump's extortion scheme.

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren Then there are the documents from the private citizens who comprise Trump's de facto foreign policy team in Ukraine—Rudy Giuliani, Joe diGenova, Victoria Toensing, and others—that would shed light on how they pressured Ukraine and how closely Trump followed their efforts.

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren The GAO concluded that Trump's decision to withhold aid was illegal.
Internal emails and other documents would show how Trump substituted his personal political benefit for America's national security and the law.

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren The OMB has reportedly identified 20 emails about the effort to withhold aid from Ukraine—but, at the president's insistence, won't release them. The Senate needs to see them to hold a fair trial.

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren White House lawyers claim they're withholding documents to avoid disclosing potentially embarrassing conversations.
But "no privilege or national security rationale can be used as a shield from disclosing misconduct."

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren Multiple witnesses testified that they reported their concerns to the National Security Council's lawyers.
"Attorney/client privilege cannot shield information about misconduct from the impeachment trial of the President of the United States"

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren "Congress and the American people deserve the full truth. There is no plausible reason why anyone wouldn't want to hear all of the available evidence about the president's conduct."

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren .@RepZoeLofgren debunks Trump's lawyers' defenses in 20 seconds:
"Have you ever heard of a trial that doesn't have evidence? That doesn't have witnesses? That is what this amendment is all about."

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren Lofgren offers a history lesson on her experience in the Nixon investigation:

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren "The doctrine of absolute immunity ... has been invoked and attempted by presidents of both parties and rejected uniformly by the courts, including in the most recent decision involving Don McGahn ... where the court said that it would make him a king."

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren The Supreme Court's precedent is clear: "You cannot invoke privilege to protect wrongdoing. You cannot invoke privilege to protect evidence of a constitutional crime like we have here."

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren One by one, Schiff knocks down each of Republicans' procedural complaints: They followed a procedure set by Republicans themselves, and followed "how every credible investigation works."

@RepAdamSchiff @RepZoeLofgren Schiff concludes with a plea to the Senate: "The oath requires you to do impartial justice which means to see the evidence, to see the evidence. That is all we are asking. Just don't blind yourself to the evidence."