Someone—I imagine @RepAdamSchiff—will point out that Graham has offered *no evidence at all* to establish *what Trump knew or believed about Hunter Biden and when*. Therefore, any evidence about Biden is meaningless—as Graham can't show it actually *motivated* anything Trump did.
@RepAdamSchiff 1/ Notice—to put you inside the mind of at least one former trial lawyer for a moment—Graham has trapped himself here, saying Trump had "good reason" to ask Ukraine to look into the Bidens without acknowledging *he* (or Trump's lawyers) will now have to establish what Trump knew.
@RepAdamSchiff 2/ How, without witnesses—without, that is, Trump or someone familiar with his thinking, like Giuliani or Mulvaney—will Graham establish Trump had *intimate* familiarity with Giuliani's Ukraine investigations...while also distancing Trump from such investigations? It's a paradox.
@RepAdamSchiff 3/ You might say, we can use the July 25 transcript! But that won't help: "There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that....Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution."
See the problem?
See the problem?
@RepAdamSchiff 4/ The problem is if Graham opens the door to the big question being Trump's knowledge of Hunter Biden, not only will we need evidence Trump had a *lot* of info about that topic, but also we'll need to know *where it came from and when* and whether Trump heard contrary evidence.
@RepAdamSchiff 5/ For instance, Giuliani's source for all claims about Hunter Biden, Yuri Lutsenko, recanted *everything* he said about Hunter Biden in June 2019, 45 days before Trump's call with Zelensky. If Graham is going to get into what Trump knew, we have to know—did he know about *that*?
@RepAdamSchiff 6/ Graham has only thought through the Biden evidence as a *political threat*. Neither he nor Trump have considered the factual and evidentiary questions—which quickly become legal and political questions—such evidence will raise. Is Graham ready to tell us what Trump knew when?
@RepAdamSchiff 7/ For instance, even if Graham can show Trump had access to secret oppo research on Hunter—which would make Trump look like part of the Ukraine plot even more than he already does—the second it's established he also knew the research was recanted, he looks corrupt as hell again.
@RepAdamSchiff 8/ IOW, how *exactly* does the argument run, if and when Trump's lawyers explicitly tie information about Hunter Biden to Trump's knowledge of that information and therefore the reasonableness of his actions? How do they answer the "when and from whom did he learn that" question?
@RepAdamSchiff 9/ (I'm putting aside the ridiculousness of the whole argument—as of course Trump had *plenty* of information on Ukrainian corruption having *nothing* to do with Hunter Biden, and despite *that* knowledge he never said word one about, for instance, either Naftogaz or Turboatom.)
@RepAdamSchiff 10/ Trump's comments about Hunter/Joe Biden are *so* vague his lawyers would need to—or his defenders generally—argue that he was reading John Solomon's articles on the subject. But then surely he'd also know Solomon's source recanted everything? And that Giuliani aided Solomon?
@RepAdamSchiff 11/ If Trump's lawyers now claim Trump, through his attorney Giuliani, solicited secret, nonpublic info from foreign nationals that informed his views on Hunter Biden, well, uh, getting that info was a crime... so how will he use that to justify later supposed "policy" decisions?
@RepAdamSchiff 12/ It'd also beg the question—if he and his attorney secretly solicited nonpublic info about the Bidens from Ukraine, but say they did so only out of a *generalized* concern about corruption—which *other* U.S. citizens did they secretly seek such nonpublic info about? Name them.
@RepAdamSchiff 13/ We already know Giuliani anticipates this line of argument becoming a problem. How? Well, his recent public statements have focused on trying to "launder"—make non-illicit—the story of *how he and Trump came to know what they both knew*. So he sees the problem that's coming.
@RepAdamSchiff 14/ Giuliani now says *he never went looking for dirt*—it just *fell in his lap*. But remember, he was passing on his info to Trump (Trump acknowledges getting debriefs) so what Rudy is currently obsessed with is establishing that the Hunter Biden info just fell in *Trump's* lap.
@RepAdamSchiff 15/ Why would Giuliani suddenly be so worried about the events leading to Trump's state-of-mind regarding Hunter/Joe Biden? Because when the question's asked—and it will be—when/how/why/where did Trump get this info that allegedly directed his actions, he needs a "clean" answer.
@RepAdamSchiff 16/ But here's where Graham's gambit and Giuliani's dilemma collide: *Graham* wants to suggest Trump had a *vast* amount of intel on the Bidens (because he just wants to get all that info out, and say it all guided Trump), while *Rudy* wants that aperture to be *very* restricted.
@RepAdamSchiff 17/ So if Graham and Giuliani's stories are to dovetail and be synchronized, Trump must establish—by what testimony or evidence we don't know—that a *vast* amount of *very specific, never subsequently recanted* info about Hunter Biden fell into his lap that he *had* to act upon.
@RepAdamSchiff 18/ That's basically Trump's defense: I acted *only* on Biden-related corruption intel because it's the *only* intel that *fell into my lap*, and once I had it I *had* to act on it. The problem: that runs counter to *all* the facts. But this is the can of worms Graham is opening.
@RepAdamSchiff 19/ OK—you say—what if Graham/Giuliani point to far-flung Hunter Biden reporting and say *that's* what motivated Trump? Well, two problems: then why does Giuliani say it was *nonpublic* info that "fell into his lap," and why didn't Trump act *as soon as* he saw those—old—reports?
@RepAdamSchiff 20/ So there's no way to create a timeline that makes *any* sense in the way Graham/Giuliani need it to—largely because the *only* purpose *ever* of the "Hunter Biden corruption" narrative was to hurt Biden politically. It was *never* intended to work as a *defense* at a *trial*.
@RepAdamSchiff PS/ Media *loves* timelines and "what/when did he know" narratives. They think folks grok them readily—and tune in for them—and they're largely right. My advice to Schiff is, if Graham "goes there," be willing to go there too and tear that silly timeline-less narrative to shreds.
@RepAdamSchiff PS2/ For those looking for a summary of all these far-flung points about evidence: the upshot is, Graham's plan for a fact-based Trump defense *isn't ready for primetime* and *can't be made ready quickly* and is *nothing* any Democrat should fear—whatsoever.
It. Will. *Implode*.
It. Will. *Implode*.
