Thread by @ReginaldOhLaw

This is a thread/open letter to:

@DougJones,
@Sen_JoeManchin,
@MittRomney,
@SenatorCollins,
@SenatorSinema

I give you five reasons why you should vote to convict Trump on Wednesday.

A Thread

First, listen to your GOP colleague Senator Lamar Alexander. Even though he voted against witnesses, he fully admitted that there is overwhelming evidence that Trump engaged in wrongdoing.

Alexander admits that the House managers convincingly proved its case that Trump withheld military aid to coerce Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden. Read his statement, read his twitter thread.

Second, Senator Alexander, while acknowledging that Trump committed wrongdoing, claims the misconduct was "inappropriate" but not impeachable.

Here’s why Alexander’s factual conclusion is correct but his legal conclusion is completely wrong.

Once you concede that the factual allegations are true, that you have no choice but to conclude that Trump committed an impeachable offense.

That’s because those facts are proof of the crime of bribery.

When Trump demanded that Ukraine announce an investigation of Biden in exchange for his release of the withheld aid, Trump committed bribery, in the constitutional sense and also arguably in the statutory sense.

And, as we all know, bribery is one of two specific crimes actually listed in the Constitution as an impeachable offense.

Because Trump committed bribery (and arguably extortion), his conduct wasn’t merely “inappropriate." His conduct was criminal or criminal-like. Impeachable.

Third, the GOP and Trump shouldn’t benefit from being able to prevent witnesses from being called at trial.

In law, if a party fails to introduce a relevant witness within his or her control, then the court may instruct the jury to draw an adverse inference from that failure.

In other words, the jury may assume that the witness would have provided damaging testimony to the party.

The same principle should apply in this context. We should infer that any witnesses and documents introduced at trial would’ve produced damaging evidence against Trump.

Fourth, the evidence of corrupt intent is extremely strong. Moreover, there is no credible argument to suggest that Trump had even a mixed motive for withholding aid.

His sole motive was to coerce Ukraine to announce an investigation of Biden. That’s it.

How do we know this?

Because his central defense, that he withheld aid out of concern with Ukraine corruption, actually is a confession, not a legitimate reason.

It's a confession that he had no lawful reason for putting the aid on temporary hold or pause.

Why?

If a president wants to hold up aid because of a POLICY reason (a concern about corruption), the law required him to seek to *permanently* cancel the aid, not to put a temporary hold on it.

The Impoundment Control Act explicitly denies the president the legal authority to temporarily withhold aid for a *policy* reason. He can only put a temporary hold for a pure budgetary reason.

For a policy reason, the only recourse is to send Congress a special message explaining that he wants to rescind or cancel the aid.

He needed to have a budgetary reason, not a policy reason, to justify a temporary hold.

So, what reason did he come up with for a temporary hold?

A policy reason.

Huh?

Arguing that he had a policy reason for temporarily withholding aid is like arguing that he had a legitimate reason to shoot a guy on 5th Avenue because he hated the guy.

That’s not a legitimate reason, that’s a confession.

When we understand that the "corruption" rationale cannot justify his actions, then, what's left?

What other justification does he have for a temporary hold? None.

All we're left with his is corrupt intent to solicit a bribe from Ukraine.

And finally, the fifth reason why you should vote to convict-because if it was President Obama being tried for these allegations based on the same evidence, all the GOP senators defending Trump would’ve been leading the charge to convict.

In other words, imagine any other president other than Trump engaging in the same misconduct, and what you think the likely outcome would and should be.

It’s absolutely clear-anyone other than Trump probably would’ve resigned before the Senate trial even began.

I hope this thread has given you food for reasoned, principled thought. Please do the right thing on Wednesday. This nation and the rule of law is counting on all of you.

END