The 45th President's Answer to Article of Impeachment:

https://threadreaderapp.com ^ | 02 February 2021 | Trump's Defense Team

[Red Badger]

2,567 views Trump War Room Profile picture Trump War Room Follow @TrumpWarRoom Twitter logo 30m, 14 tweets, 3 min read

[The Westerner]

Thanks Badger for copying the document into Free Republic.

[AFreeBird]

Regardless of the true, unaltered vote, the communists in congress certified the tainted ballots of the election and ChiCom Joe Buyden was sworn in as president.

[The Pack Knight]

Can some legal beagle dumb this down a little? Asking for a friend.

There's a little more to it than the other commenters pointed out. Yes, the main thrust is that the Senate lacks jurisdiction, but there are some other important points:

-- Trump denies that he committed any crime.

-- The speech for which Trump was impeached is protected by the 1st Amendment.

-- Conviction would constitute an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

-- As further support for the position that the trial is unconstitutional, they make an argument I haven't seen much: Removal from office is the "prerequisite active remedy," and thus the proceeding is essentially moot. They're basically arguing that the Constitution does not provide for disqualification from office uncoupled from removal from office. It's a clever argument and might be a persuasive one.

-- Finally, and this may be the best point of all: They point out that the House has essentially charged multiple counts in a single article of impeachment. Under Senate rules, an article of impeachment is indivisible and must be voted on in their entirety--you can't vote "guilty" on one part of an article and "not guilty" on another. Trump's lawyers make the correct constitutional objection that this article violates the Constitution's requirement that conviction be by two-thirds vote because it would render any verdict fatally ambiguous. It would be impossible to tell whether two-thirds voted to convict on the same count.

For example: The article basically alleges that Trump committed a crime by saying A and also committed a crime by saying B. It's possible Senators 1 through 33 think Trump is guilty because he said A but not because he said B, while Senators 34 through 67 think Trump is guilty because he said B but not A. If they can vote "guilty" if they believe Trump committed ANY crime made out in the article, then Trump could be convicted even though no 67 Senators agree on whether he committed any particular crime.

That last objection sets up a great closing argument: If you do not believe the managers have proven that Trump is guilty of ALL counts made out in the article of impeachment, you MUST vote "not guilty."

This is great because the name of the game is to give Senators political cover to vote "not guilty."

[wastedyears]

It’s too late. Nothing can change the fact that Biden is the 46th President. There is nothing in the books that can overturn Biden’s swearing in. It’s over for Trump’s Administration. As much as I would love to see something happen to reverse that it can’t be undone at this point.

There's a lot of goings-on that just don't make sense. Trump never said "concede" or "Biden administration/presidency." He is still remaining active. He has not appeared or sounded defeated. Why do you believe he would go quietly into the night?

[pollywog]

I notice that they are saying he is no longer “ President” .. .in quotes.. hmmmmmmmm as if he is quoting what THEY are saying

[NetAddicted]

Bookmarked.

[Madam Theophilus]

“If Congress makes a law ...” Yes, as I wrote, the Supreme Court judges Congressional legislation, whether it is constitutional or not. The Supreme Court cannot act directly on Congressional actions, but only when a case is brought into the court via the legal process within the Judicial branch of government.

However, Congressional impeachment is not a law, not a piece of legislation. It is also not a court that is tied to the Judicial branch of government. It is a special right of Congress granted to it by the Constitution as part of the separation of powers. When the House impeaches and the Senate tries that impeachment it is holding an unique type of court which was established by the framers to be the legislative check on the power of the executive.

The Constitution says Congress has the SOLE power of impeachment, but that impeachment is restricted to those holding office as a means of removing them outside the normal election process due to extreme crimes.

I totally agree with you that what we are seeing now in President Trump’s second impeachment is unconstitutional. However, the Senate did not agree that it is - so here we are.

[Zhang Fei]

[Either (1) the earlier reports about why Trump and his first team parted ways was BS]

---

That’s the media’s modus operandi - to suggest chaos in GOP administrations. Isn’t it so much better if we have an orderly march towards left-wing dictatorship? Trump did help them a little with his random tweets. Dubya helped them by not responding. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.

[pollywog]

I notice that they are saying he is no longer “ President” .. .in quotes.. hmmmmmmmm as if he is quoting what THEY are saying

[pollywog]

sorry for the multiple posts....

[Lod881019]

A case can be made that Biden’s quid pro quo in the Ukraine was never investigated so there if the GOP gets back the house next year they will immediately move to charge Biden the way they did trump and more then likely Biden gets impeached in the house

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Roberts will take part—He has no choice—The Democrats (Obama) has something on him bigtime. I don’t know what it is but its bad. That is my guess. So, at the last minute he will make up a reason and pound the gavel in the Senate.

[CatDancer]

What a great job you did of getting that whole thing up so we could read it! Thank you!

[Diana in Wisconsin]

I hate that Pelosi beotch with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns!

That is all.

[Responsibility2nd]

Your may be right.

I just hope that in some way, Trump will use this scampeachment to get the truth out regarding election fraud.

[Salvavida]

You missed two:

1. the charge for impeachment is moot because he is no longer president, so it’s unconstitutional

2. speech was taken out of context during the phone call with the GA SoS

This is a legal masterpiece. I can’t wait for Viva Frei’s YouTube response.

[gitmo]

Bookmark. I’ll be back in a few hours.

[convoter2016]

As a poster has pointed out, Trump’s term of office ended on January 20, 2021. Because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States didn’t swear him in as President of the United States on that date, Trump is no longer President. There is nothing wrong in admitting he is no longer President. Trump is just admitting that John Roberts didn’t swear him in as President on January 20, 2021.

[dadfly]

i don’t know. pretty weak, imo. language is kinda strange. “admitted in part...” wth. how about we admit nothing...n-o-t-h-i-n-g. because we did nothing wrong.

dear God, please help us. we really need someone with some horse sense defending our populist America First movement and the President. Amen.

[The Mayor]

yep