Thread by @jedshug

BRIBERY THREAD:
100% CLEAR.
The House alleged felony bribery in Article I.

The Trump lawyers are dense and/or in bad faith, so let's do this step by explicit step.

Here's the bribery statute 18 USC 201:
A. Corrupt
B. Demand/Seek
C. Anything of value
D. For Official Act:

2/ Now read Article I, Abuse of Power:
Trump:
A. Corruptly
B. Demanded/Sought
C. A thing of value
(announce Biden investigation, investigate 2016 server conspiracy theory for 2020 personal benefit)
D. For official acts
($391M in Arms and official state visit)

3/ In past impeachments and now, the Articles are not meant to dig into legal analysis. They summarize the CONDUCT, the ACTS.
The House Report is where you find the application of law to acts.
Analyze the content of the Articles and the Report.
Dersh just argued about titles.

4/ It would be like an English professor arguing which books are better than others because their titles are better.

First, some examples from past impeachments:
Nixon Article 2, passed by House Judiciary 28 to 10.
1. NO TITLE.
2. Crimes are not explicitly named or titled:

5/ Here is Nixon Article 3, no crimes are specified, nor any statute.
No title. This is common practice. The point is to read the articles and the Report to understand these facts PLUS the law.

The Trump impeachment article I is far more clear than Nixon's articles.

6/ I've noted before the House Judiciary Report is explicit about:
1. CONSTITUTIONAL BRIBERY
2. CRIMINAL BRIBERY
Element by element, p. 118-126.
Read it here:
docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/…

7. The Report first starts with Constitutional Bribery to show that Trump violated the "Bribery" reference in the original Constitution, the original public meaning of bribery in 1787-89:

8. Then the Report explains CRIMINAL BRIBERY element-by-element, exactly how the concise Article I, Abuse of Power, summarized these details elemet-by-element:

9. @AlanDersh was so misleading.
He relied heavily on @nikobowie's 2018 article, but didn't understand when Bowie clarified his argument:

Impeachment requires crimes, but they can be COMMON LAW crimes, not just statutory crimes.

That's a big deal.
nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opi…

@AlanDersh @nikobowie 10/ See @nikobowie's op-ed (attached).
He clarified his article to explain that his historical sources understood that impeachment included common law crimes.
And Niko explained clearly how common law crimes, tho not enforceable in courts, could apply in Congress.

@AlanDersh @nikobowie 11/ So here is the truly sad part of what @AlanDersh has become. He argued against Niko, "The Supreme Court ruled that federal court can't enforce common law crimes."
He was either unable or unwilling to read Niko's two clear sentences in a short op-ed that clearly explained:

@AlanDersh @nikobowie 12/ Bowie cited Hudson, the same case Dersh misunderstood tonight:
SCOTUS "observed that Congress has never passed a law giving fed courts jurisdiction to hear common-law crimes. But in making this observation, it cast no doubt on Congress’s power to punish a common-law crime."

@AlanDersh @nikobowie 13/ Here's the key part of Hudson (1812).
Bowie is right: The Supreme Court said *federal courts* have no inherent power to enforce common law crimes.
But 1. Congress could've given them that power.
2. Congress can rely on common law crimes
like ABUSE OF POWER in impeachment.

@AlanDersh @nikobowie 14/14 (FIN)
I made some of these points earlier in @slate:
If the Senate won't hold a real trial, then NY state prosecutors can.
On federal bribery/state extortion conspiracy, among other crimes.

And they can subpoena Bolton etc.

https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/1221898293715881985?s=20

@AlanDersh @nikobowie @Slate PS: Exhibit 15: Team Trump is wrong & hypocritical on requiring statutory crimes.

Starr & Ray yesterday: Abuse of power & invoking privilege are so not impeachable.

Starr & Ray, 1998: Grounds for Clinton Impeachment:
*Abuse of authority
*Invoking privilege
*Lying to public