Nope, nothing in the doc says "SOLE CRITERIA." That's a trick he learned from FedSoc, requiring textual fealty.
Almost every "fact" he's stated thus far, is irrelevant.
FOLKS, DERSH JUST GAVE AWAY THE WHOLE GAME. If the Senate, in it's power, is not legally bound to find a crime, THEN A CRIME IS UNNECESSARY.
It has NOTHING TO DO with the finding of a crime. Game set match.
Again, Dersh JUST TOLD YOU that Congress can do just that. You're just supposed to forget that as he continues talking.
#ImpeachmentTrial
He's got no historical evidence that "abuse of power" was specifically excluded by the Framers. Because, of course they excluded no such thing.
Evidence? Lol, it's Derh y'all.
His argument only works if you think there is SPACE between what the House can impeach FOR, and what the Senate can convict for. Which there ISN'T.
One only imagines what new thing he'll research for his next defendant.
Okay peeps, this is an OLD standard of interpretation that says, basically, "tie goes to the defendant."
If we still applied this rule today, we'd have to release more prisoners than I can estimate.
I imagine that Dersh would LIKE to say Impeachment is unconstitutionally vague, but he can't so... lenity.
Maybe, but of import here, Abuse of Power IS ground for impeachment, whether Dersh thinks it's a good idea or not.
Unfortunately for Dersh, @realDonaldTrump actually told us his motive. On the call, he asked for an investigation into his political rivals. Motive established, counselor.
And then he gives a bad analogy, and says quid pro quo alone is not an abuse of power.
... this is just wrong.
He's wrong, because tying a quid pro quo to FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE, is the abuse of power.
#ImpeachmentTrial
International election interference: clearly an abuse of power.
He's got nothing here. He keeps saying it together as if repetition makes it so, but he's got no quote or, PRECEDENT, saying that abuse of power is not impeachable.
Again, he hasn't come CLOSE to establishing that using any legal means: precedents, texts, nothing. He's using the word "implicit" to serve the function of "take my word for it."
YEAH BUT, he's not being impeach FOR A TWEET now is he, Dersh.
Slippery slope arguments deserve C's.
You'll notice that this is the first time he's mentioned the obstruction charge. He doesn't even have an argument for obstruction, he's just roping it in there.
My four year old asks me to do this all the time.
YES. HE'S A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY. He would be making the arguments ON BEHALF OF THE ALLEGED CRIMINAL.
This is such a dumb argument.
Literally, EVERYTHING he said after that was an dedicated attempt to obscure that torpedo he took to his own argument almost as soon as he began it.
Thanks for listening.