Thread by @JuddLegum

1. GOP Senators have embraced the idea that convicting Trump is unconstitutional because he's not president.

It's at the center of the document filed by Trump's lawyers yesterday.

And it's worth going through in detail.

Because it makes no sense.

popular.info/p/trumps-answer

2. The argument from Trump's lawyers hinges on this language from the Constitution: "[j]udgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor…"

popular.info/p/trumps-answer

3. Trump's lawyers argue that the key word is AND.

They argue that because the constitution says punishments are limited to removal AND disqualification it means you have to be removed before you can be disqualified

They call it a "condition precedent"

popular.info/p/trumps-answer

4. BUT THAT IS NOT HOW THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WORKS.

"And" does not create a condition precedent.

If I ask you what sodas you have and you say Coke AND Dr. Pepper that doesn't mean I can only have Dr. Pepper if I order a Coke first.

popular.info/p/trumps-answer

5. We have a way to establish a condition precedent in English. It involves the words "if" and "then"

So the framers of the constitution could have said IF an official is removed THEN a they can be disqualified

But they didn't

popular.info/p/trumps-answer

popular.info/p/trumps-answer

6. This is all before you get to the fact that the Senate has held an impeachment trial for officials that have left office before.

It's just an embarrassingly weak argument.

But it's what they are going with

popular.info/p/trumps-answer

7. For more legal analysis in plain English and accountability journalism, sign up for the newsletter.

popular.info/subscribe