@CourthouseNews We also hear a birthday wish for Chief Justice Roberts today following prayer. Now the pledge of allegiance and away we go.
@CourthouseNews FYI:
@CourthouseNews We have 22 hours and 5 minutes remaining for WH defense team to make their case.
Jay Sekulow begins.
He says the pattern formed on Saturday will be how they move ahead: "We deal with transcript evidence, publicly available information, we do not deal with speculation...
Jay Sekulow begins.
He says the pattern formed on Saturday will be how they move ahead: "We deal with transcript evidence, publicly available information, we do not deal with speculation...
Sekulow continues... "[we do not deal with] allegations that are not based on evidentiary standards at all and we are going to highlight some of those very facts we talked about very quickly on Saturday."
ICYMI: courthousenews.com/trumps-defense…
ICYMI: courthousenews.com/trumps-defense…
Sekulow says he wants to home in on the July 25 transcript.
"I want to keep coming back to facts, facts that are undisputed," he says.
Trump was clear on his points, he adds, but "so was Zelensky."
"I want to keep coming back to facts, facts that are undisputed," he says.
Trump was clear on his points, he adds, but "so was Zelensky."
Sekulow says Zelensky said he felt no pressure. We need to look at what was said, Sekulow adds.
Note: whether Zelensky admits to feeling pressured has little bearing on Trump's obstruction of Congress and little bearing on his violation of Impound Control Act among other issues
Note: whether Zelensky admits to feeling pressured has little bearing on Trump's obstruction of Congress and little bearing on his violation of Impound Control Act among other issues
That violation of the Impound Control Act was an assessment reached by the Government Accountability Office just weeks ago.
Background:
courthousenews.com/independent-au…
Background:
courthousenews.com/independent-au…
And again, for your perusal and reference, the WH released transcript of the July 25 call.
Searchable PDF: documentcloud.org/documents/6551…
Searchable PDF: documentcloud.org/documents/6551…
Everything old is new again.
WH atty Kenn Starr is now in the Senate well and delivering his remarks.
WH atty Kenn Starr is now in the Senate well and delivering his remarks.
Starr begins with a recitation of Article 1 Section 3 of Constitution which states that the Senate "shall have the sole power to try all impeachments" and "when sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation."
Starr says members of the House of representatives do not take an oath in the framework of impeachment.
"The Senate, yes," Starr says. The House, no...and thus each body has unique duties and obligations."
"The Senate, yes," Starr says. The House, no...and thus each body has unique duties and obligations."
Starr says we are "living in the age of impeachment," asking "how did we get here?" He suggests Dems in House have unfairly called for Trump's impeachment repeatedly. He is echoing the arguments and positions from Trump WH that Trump experiences "presidential harassment."
Starr: Like war, impeachment is hell. Or at least, presidential impeachment is hell. Those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment, full well understand presidential impeachment is tantamount to domestic war.
Starr: Thankfully, protected by 1A, a war of words and ideas. It divides a country like nothing else. Those of us who lived through the Clinton impeachment understand that in a deep and personal way.
Starr, after warning against the danger of impeachment and its political"acrimonious" influence for 5 minutes plus, adds: "In contrast, when wisely conducted, it is a vital tool to our country to serve as a check with respect to the federal judiciary."
Starr gave a taste of what is to come. He touched briefly on his perspective over definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. It is the argument oft-heard from WH: no statutory crime was broken, thus impeachment invalid
Pulling back on live tweeting for a few to write the report with my colleagues. Updates coming soon.
STORY WILL UPDATE.
Everything old is new again.
Kenneth Starr, once the independent counsel leading the charge to impeach President Bill Clinton, returned to the Senate Monday to make the case that impeachment is a divisive, overused political weapon.
courthousenews.com/bolton-book-ro…
Everything old is new again.
Kenneth Starr, once the independent counsel leading the charge to impeach President Bill Clinton, returned to the Senate Monday to make the case that impeachment is a divisive, overused political weapon.
courthousenews.com/bolton-book-ro…
WH atty Philbin says whatever the Senate does now related to impeachment will be the "new normal" in the future. Says House failed to conduct a thorough investigation, that the Senate should not be the investigatory body.
If witnesses are allowed to be called now that this in the Senate, Philbin argues, this is a guarantee of more impeachments in the future.
Philbin says he is now going to unpack how Congress abused its own power and disregarded its separation of powers.
Philbin claims because House cmte subpoenas not approved by the House therefore not properly autho'ed.
Some subp's also required sr advisers to testify. Philbin argues this is a violation of precedent and notes Obama/Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Nixon asserted immunity for sr advisers
Some subp's also required sr advisers to testify. Philbin argues this is a violation of precedent and notes Obama/Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Nixon asserted immunity for sr advisers
Philbin now says Trump was not obstructing Congress because he consulted with DOJ/OLC and followed their advice to the letter about the constitutional prerogative of his office and the exec branch when ordering officials not to testify or submit to congressional requests.
Philbin says the House "goaded" the POTUS into impeachment.
WH defense presenting arguments on Bidens that have been debunked pretty thoroughly. In the spirit of not propagating further disinformation, I refer you here: politifact.com/truth-o-meter/…
If you want to watch: c-span.org/video/?468552-…
UPDATING.
While we're talking about what the American people like:
projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval…
projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval…
We have a 45 minute dinner break now.
From @FiveThirtyEight, Trump's approval ratings:
Week of 1/24-26 YouGov - Approve: 43%; Disapprove: 51%
Week of 1/22-26 Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion - Approve 50%, Disapprove 49%
Week of 1/23-25 Morning Consult - Approve 42%, Disapprove 54%
Week of 1/24-26 YouGov - Approve: 43%; Disapprove: 51%
Week of 1/22-26 Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion - Approve 50%, Disapprove 49%
Week of 1/23-25 Morning Consult - Approve 42%, Disapprove 54%
@FiveThirtyEight We are back, I'll have an updated story to post shortly. Live-tweets coming back at ya!
@FiveThirtyEight Robert Ray, another Trump defense attorney is speaking from the floor. Senators now hearing another process argument, again on how evidence produced against a POTUS for impeachment must be irrefutably either/or high crimes and misdemeanors.
@FiveThirtyEight Ray also draws on impchmt proceedings from the Clinton trial. Ray cites floor proceedings that quoting Pres. G. Ford who said "To remove [a president] in midterm - it has been tried only twice and never done - would indeed, require crimes of the magnitude of treason & bribery."
The following line where Ray found this Ford quote presents another interesting point.
"The Sen. must ask here whether the conduct charged against Pres. Clinton, would in its nature, be inconsistent w/a decision to allow him to continue to perform the duties of his office...
"The Sen. must ask here whether the conduct charged against Pres. Clinton, would in its nature, be inconsistent w/a decision to allow him to continue to perform the duties of his office...
(continued) "...just as you would ask, if you had a judge before you or another civil officer before you, whether the charges are similarly inconsistent with the notion that he or should be allowed to perform those duties.
You can find this exchange in the free Senate Floor Proceedings for Bill Clinton Vol II available here:
govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CD…
govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CD…
WH atty Robert Ray now arguing that the offer dangled before Zelesnky to visit WH is not and never would be an impeachable because essentially, a WH visit is not a formal policy maneuver, therefore not an abuse of power.
Says Zelensky never pressured, quid pro quo doesn't apply
Says Zelensky never pressured, quid pro quo doesn't apply
@CourthouseNews .@AlanDersh now speaking from the floor on the Constitutional aspects of this impeachment. He argues that the House was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that abuse of power and obstruction of congress occurred.
@CourthouseNews @AlanDersh Dershowitz says the criteria is not what "should be" impeachable but what the Framers "actually chose" and "what they expressly and implicitly rejected." He says he will answer: Would Framers accept abuse of power and obstruction of Congress as governing criteria for impeachment?
@CourthouseNews @AlanDersh Dersh says Johnson was accused of a "hateful" approach toward Congress and denying that the legislation of Congress was obligatory to him, but he emphasizes this was seen as non-criminal.
There's that criminality argument again.
There's that criminality argument again.
@CourthouseNews @AlanDersh Andrew Johnson's lawyer argued that he didn't violate articles of impeachment but even if he did, they did not charge impeachable offenses.
"That's what I'm arguing to you now," Dershowitz says.
"That's what I'm arguing to you now," Dershowitz says.
@CourthouseNews @AlanDersh Side note: Dershowitz offered perhaps one of the greatest undersells on a human being I've ever heard - and that's saying a lot given my job - but he encapsulated Napoleon as one of the "greatest competitors" in the field of war.
That's one way to describe him!
That's one way to describe him!
@CourthouseNews @AlanDersh Dersh: "If a president were to receive or give a bribe outside of the U.S. and outside the statute of limitations - he couldn't be prosecuted but he could be impeached because he committed a crime of bribery even though he couldn't technically be accused of it."
Dersh continues: "Or if it was extortion, perjury, obstruction of justice, these could be charged as impeachable offenses though not specified in the Constitution are akin to treason and bribery."
On the argument re: necessity of articles rising to criminal offense in order to be valid, Dersh says, this isn't "legal claptrap." "This premise was accepted by Founders... if this is not accepted by academics today, that shows a weakness of today's academics, not the Founders"
Dersh says even if the Senate concludes a technical crime is not required for impeachment, the question remains if abuse of power and obstruction of Congress constitutes impeachment?
He says existing precedent and what Founders intended would mean they do not.
He says existing precedent and what Founders intended would mean they do not.
Dersh: Abe Lincoln would be accused of abusing his power for suspending writ of habeas corpus!
Dersh then basically lists every president who could be accused of abuse of power tho never impch'd
I literally turn to @AriMelber who summed this up perfectly:
Dersh then basically lists every president who could be accused of abuse of power tho never impch'd
I literally turn to @AriMelber who summed this up perfectly:
@AriMelber Dershowitz on Bolton bombshell before launching into a lecture on the term "maladministration" aka dishonesty, misuse of office:
"Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an impeachable offense.".
cc: @CourthouseNews
"Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an impeachable offense.".
cc: @CourthouseNews
Dershowitz continues re: Bolton revelations, saying "it's clear from the language of the Constitution, you cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using words like quid pro quo or personal benefit."
Dershowitz, impassioned now, "The Founders did not want America to turn into a parliamentary democracy."
Dershowitz abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are "standardless" "It's impossible to put standards on words like that"
It's impossible to know in advance if a given action will be deemed to be on one side of the line or the other, he argues.
It's impossible to know in advance if a given action will be deemed to be on one side of the line or the other, he argues.
Dershowitz says, essentially -- and to some audible laughter from the floor -- if you don't like a president who tweets, find one who doesn't.
Addressing House managers, Dershowitz says, I'm sorry, you picked the wrong articles to impeach upon.
He continues: Dishonesty is simply not a crime.
That indictment would be dismissed because dishonesty is a sin not a crime.
He continues: Dishonesty is simply not a crime.
That indictment would be dismissed because dishonesty is a sin not a crime.
He prepares to close, professes his love of country, love of the Constitution.
He asks senators, voice booming, not to impeach "one man" because of how they personally feel.
It would cause irreparable damage to checks and balances, he argues
He asks senators, voice booming, not to impeach "one man" because of how they personally feel.
It would cause irreparable damage to checks and balances, he argues
The Dershowitz of 1998 might not recognize the Dershowitz of 2020.
Twenty-two years ago, Dershowitz said the only criteria necessary to impeach a president for abuse of power was if he abused the public trust of that office.
Twenty-two years ago, Dershowitz said the only criteria necessary to impeach a president for abuse of power was if he abused the public trust of that office.
Dershowitz said, “if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of President and who abuses trust and poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime,” to impeach them.
On Monday night, Dershowitz heralded a much different message.
On Monday night, Dershowitz heralded a much different message.
Dershowitz of 1998:
Pat Cipollone says we are about to close.
He says as Dershowitz was speaking, he says he was thinking about a Q he would pose to law school students: If they were a U.S. senator sitting in an impeachment trial "passed on purely partisan basis..."
He says as Dershowitz was speaking, he says he was thinking about a Q he would pose to law school students: If they were a U.S. senator sitting in an impeachment trial "passed on purely partisan basis..."
But in true lawyer form, that question has now meandered into a new series of statements criticizing process...
Cipollone says it is instructive to watch videos from last impeachment.
"That's not playing a game of gotcha," he says, "That's paying you a compliment. You were right about those principles. If you won't listen to me, listen to your younger selves."
"That's not playing a game of gotcha," he says, "That's paying you a compliment. You were right about those principles. If you won't listen to me, listen to your younger selves."
Cipollone suggests that the age of impeachment wouldn't be necessary if we didn't live in the age of investigations.
To think! What if we had a transparent White House?!
To think! What if we had a transparent White House?!
And so we end the second day of opening arguments from the White House defense team.
The updated story by myself, @JackRodgersCNS, @MMineiro_CNS and @ByTimRyan will post shortly.
The updated story by myself, @JackRodgersCNS, @MMineiro_CNS and @ByTimRyan will post shortly.
@JackRodgersCNS @MMineiro_CNS @ByTimRyan “So when you open with something everybody in the room knows is false, it’s kind of a long downhill."
STORY UPDATED.
Didn't follow along with today's opening arguments from the White House?
READ:
courthousenews.com/bolton-book-ro…
cc: @CourthouseNews
STORY UPDATED.
Didn't follow along with today's opening arguments from the White House?
READ:
courthousenews.com/bolton-book-ro…
cc: @CourthouseNews
@JackRodgersCNS @MMineiro_CNS @ByTimRyan @CourthouseNews Trial reconvenes tomorrow at 1 P.M.
To those who joined me anew today - thank you! I hope you'll stick around.
To those who stay - thank you! I hope this thread made things more digestible.
To those who joined me anew today - thank you! I hope you'll stick around.
To those who stay - thank you! I hope this thread made things more digestible.
