Thread by @moscow_project

.@RepAdamSchiff begins with a summary of article one: Trump's abuse of power by pressuring Ukraine to help him cheat the 2020 election.
"That has been proved."

@RepAdamSchiff "These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in U.S. elections. That has been proved."

@RepAdamSchiff "Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any honor, trust or profit under the united States, that will be for you to decide. But the facts have been proved. Those facts are not contested. We have met our burden."

@RepAdamSchiff .@RepAdamSchiff lays out Article 2: Trump has abused the powers of his presidency to obstruct Congress.
"That has been proved."

@RepAdamSchiff "In the history of the republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors.
"That has been proved."

@RepAdamSchiff "Do not mistake for a moment the fact that it was simple and quick to present that course of conduct compared with the sophisticated campaign to coerce Ukraine into thinking that that second article is any less significant than the first."

@RepAdamSchiff "Justice delayed is justice denied and so is true about presidential accountability."

@RepAdamSchiff "Article II is every bit as important as article I. Without article II, there is no article I ever again...If you can't have the ability to enforce an impeachment power, you might as well not put it in the Constitution."

@RepAdamSchiff One by one, @RepAdamSchiff shreds the arguments Trump's defense will bring in the remainder of the trial:

@RepAdamSchiff "So when you see that 8-page diatribe from White House counsel saying, 'we should have been able to have a resolution in the House or we should have been able to have this'...What they really mean is, Donald Trump had the right to control his own impeachment proceeding."

@RepAdamSchiff "When they say the process is unfair, what they really mean is: 'Don't look at what the president did. For god's sake, don't look at what the president did.'"

@RepAdamSchiff Trump's defenders will claim that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.
What they really mean is: "Presidents have a constitutional right to abuse their power, and how dare the House of Representatives charge a president with abusing his power."
That's ridiculous at best.

@RepAdamSchiff Schiff explains what Trump's defenders mean when they attack the whistleblower: "But for the whistleblower, the president would not have been caught."

@RepAdamSchiff "Whether you like the president or you dislike the president is immaterial. It's all about the constitution and his misconduct. If it meets the standard of impeachable conduct as we have proved...what matters is whether he is a danger to the country because he will do it again."

@RepAdamSchiff "Another defense because what they hope to achieve in the senate trial is what they couldn't achieve through their scheme. If they couldn't get Ukraine to smear the Bidens, they want to use this trial to do it instead."

@RepAdamSchiff They'll mount every after-the-fact rationalization of Trump's behavior.
Every document we've seen—and likely every document we haven't—shows how false those rationalizations are.

@RepAdamSchiff "Now, I expect you'll hear the argument, Obama did it. Obama did it. That may take several different forms but the form I'm referring to is, 'Obama also withheld aid!'
"Honestly, I think that argument is an insult to our intelligence."

@RepAdamSchiff "When you hear them say, 'Ukraine felt no pressure,' and their proof is because the Ukraine president doesn't want to call the president of the United States a bad name, you'll know why. Because they need America."

@RepAdamSchiff "You'll also hear the the defense, 'The president said there was no quid pro quo!'
"That doesn't hold up in any court in the land. It shouldn't hold up here."

@RepAdamSchiff "Because someone is caught, because a scheme is thwarted, doesn't make that scheme any less criminal and corrupt. You get no pass when you get caught."

@RepAdamSchiff "I expect one of the defenses you'll see is they'll play you certain testimony from the House where [they] ask questions like, 'Did the president ever say he was bribing Ukraine?" As if "You are not allowed to consider anything except for a televised confession by the president."

@RepAdamSchiff "So what do all these defenses mean? What do they mean? What do they mean collectively when you add them all up? What they mean is under Article II, the president can do whatever he wants."

@RepAdamSchiff .@RepAdamSchiff speaks on the importance—and rarity—of moral courage:

@RepAdamSchiff "My views, as heartfelt as they are, reflect the views of my constituents. But what happens when our heartfelt views of right and wrong are in conflict with the popular opinion of our constituents?"
That is when moral courage becomes necessary.

@RepAdamSchiff "Now, soon, members of this body will face the most momentous of decisions. Not as I said at the outset between guilt and innocence but a far more foundational issue. Should there be a fair trial?"

@RepAdamSchiff "The American people do not agree on much but they will not forgive being deprived of the truth, and certainly not because it took a backseat to expediency."

@RepAdamSchiff "We can do a lifetime's work...But for a single decision we may be remembered. I believe this may be one of those moments, a moment we never thought we would see. A moment when our democracy was gravely threatened, and not from out but from within."

@RepAdamSchiff "Trial by telephone. Is that what we have here? Trial by telephone? Someone on the other end of the phone dictating what this trial should look like?"