Impeachment Filing: Defense Brief

Here’s the full defense brief President’s Trumps lawyers filed in the Senate today:

https://www.scribd.com/document/443624381/Trial-Memorandum-of-President-Donald-J-Trump#from_embed

Looks to me like the president’s lawyers are following Richard Epstein’s advice as given in the Hoover Institution video I shared here a couple of days ago, based on the entertainingly strong language in the executive summary.

33 thoughts on “Impeachment Filing: Defense Brief

  1. The executive summary attacked the process of the House, but did not support the actions of the a president.

    Since the fix is in for the Mitch “trial”, there is no reason to defend Trump’s actions. They are indefensible.

    Yet, we now have so much more information about Ukraine, Russian money, Rudy “G” and his gang, and just a huge pile os stuff that may very well come back and bite the Republicans in the butt. Acquittal or no acquittal.

    Your boy is safe, the country may not be.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “but did not support the actions of the a president.”

      It doesn’t have to. A legal defense only has to demonstrate reasonable doubt.

      RE: “Since the fix is in…”

      You have said the fix is in repeatedly, but I don’t think you can stand behind the claim. To substantiate the assertion you must show:

      a. The Senate process is unfair or illegal in some way; and

      b. The president has no valid defense.

      If you can’t prove either of these things, your repetition of the idea that the fix is in amounts to mere slander.

      Like

      1. The fix is in and you know precisely what I mean. McConnell has already said he has made up his mind after consulting with Trump.

        Slander? How about the truth.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. He didn’t see ANY of the several times where McConnell stated he was working in concert with and at the behest of the White House or when he stated, unequivocally, in the Capital Rotunda, that he was not an impartial juror.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. As far as I can tell, support for Trump is unwavering for his fans, truth be damned.

            Some think he is sent from God. Others are sure he pulled us out of the recession. He’s keeping out the Mexicans. (Except, of course, the ones that worked illegally for his resorts until exposed.) He hates Obama and Hillary. He is adored by a certain demographic that is worried about demographics. He cut a deal with China to buy what they were buying before the tariffs. So he “stuck it” to Xi. And he stuck it to NATO, Iran, the Kurds…

            So what we have is a holy man who gives the middle finger to everyone.

            What’s not to love?

            In a sense, he might be the best thing to happen for America. A wake up call that he is the kind of president we get if we are not paying attention. That, and the danger of a cult-like following that borders on Jim Jones style loyalty. proving that “exceptionalism” is a two-edged sword.

            IMHO, naturally.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “McConnell has already said he has made up his mind after consulting with Trump.”

        There’s nothing wrong with that. Agreeing with the defense doesn’t make the Senate process unfair, illegal or corrupt in any way.

        Moreover, if the defense is a valid one, then it is perfectly legitimate to agree with it.

        So, no, you are not speaking truth with your slander.

        Like

          1. Definition of slander (from Merriam-webster.com)
            1: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another’s reputation
            2: a false and defamatory oral statement about a person

            Neither of which is what Len did.

            Like

          2. RE: “Neither of which is what Len did.”

            Mr. Rothman’s use of the phrase “the fix is in” does both, as shown in my comments, which is why I called him on it.

            Like

          3. That phrase is indicative of the entire process from the GOP standpoint. Just because you don’t like the turn of phrase Mr. Rothman used is no reason to accuse him of slander. And your accusation is baseless.

            Like

          4. RE: “Just because you don’t like the turn of phrase Mr. Rothman used…”

            You are in over your head, Mr. Green.

            Like

          5. RE: “I’m way above and beyond you, Mr. Roberts.”

            I don’t doubt it. Must be hard to breathe in outer space.

            Like

  2. I agree with those who believe that . . . if witnesses aren’t allowed, it’s not a trial but rather, a cover-up.

    Makes sense from what I’ve seen and heard.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “I agree with those who believe that . . . if witnesses aren’t allowed, it’s not a trial but rather, a cover-up.”

      As matters currently stand, witnesses are allowed. They may or may not be needed, but there’s nothing (yet) to prevent them.

      Like

  3. I can’t buy that because the witness issue hasn’t been settled. McConnell has only said they will debate witnesses later. If he’s talking about ‘later’ as in after both sides have already gone through their 24-hour lay-out of evidence – that would seem to be crazy.

    Mitch (and ‘djt’) are being too cagey re:witnesses.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “If he’s talking about ‘later’ as in after both sides have already gone through their 24-hour lay-out of evidence – that would seem to be crazy.”

      The witnesses can’t testify when the lawyers are speaking. Same thing happens in a standard trial. First the lawyers present opening arguments, then they present their cases.

      Like

      1. RE: “It is called discovery.”

        Discovery will occur as the trial proceeds, if needed. Unlike a standard trial, the jury will vote publicly for the elements of discovery the jury wants.

        Like

        1. Another difference between an impeachment trial and a standard trial. Yet you keep trying to compare the two. And when your comparison falls apart, you bail on it or try to flip your script.

          Like

          1. “I made ONE comparison.” And I ran with it. Sorry if you don’t like what I did, but sir, YOU opened the door. I can extend whatever I please, no matter how you feel about it.

            Like

          2. RE: “but sir, YOU opened the door.”

            And you ran with it. That was your mistake, because the Senate rules as given don’t require “discovery” in the manner you speculate about.

            Like

          3. Because the “Senate” rules appear to be written by the White House, for the White House and begs the question: If the man is innocent, and evidence has shown he is NOT, then provide the documents and witnesses to exonerate (not acquit) him?

            Like

  4. From the beginning, Mr McConnell indicated that he intended to handle this case precisely the way they handled the Clinton impeachment — and that is what he is doing.

    Mr Schumer and most other Dems know this; however, they have to pretend that they do not and try to convince the ill-informed that “it’s not fair.”

    Like

    1. But in actuality, McConnell has changed the rules to suit Trump. Listen to Schumer’s rebuttal of McConnell’s proposed rules. The spirit of 1999 may be there, but not the intent.

      Like

      1. Dems’ and the fakestream media’s petty and trifling hair-splitting contests are beyond tired and worn-out.

        Both sides will get the same number of hours they were given to make their cases during Mr Clinton’s trial and Mr McConnell even acquiesced to allow for those hours to be spread over one more day. Moreover, the vote for witnesses will also occur at the mid-point — EXACTLY the same way it did for Mr Clinton.

        The Senate really needs to step up to the plate and dispose of this hoax without further delay. For if shampeachment drags on too long, a very dangerous precedent will be established.

        Like

    2. RE: “Mr Schumer and most other Dems know this; however, they have to pretend that they do not and try to convince the ill-informed that ‘it’s not fair.'”

      “That’s not fair” is what children say. The rules in 1999 were fair by all accounts. Pretending that the same rules today are not fair is the reasoning of a child, or a liar.

      Like

      1. Back in 2016, when Dems decided to impeach Mr Trump, they knew that the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Clearly then, they did not do it to remove him.

        I conclude that the primary reason they voted to impeach was to soothe their emotions.

        Like

        1. From an interview with Chris Cuomo, when asked about comments by Rich Lowry, a conservative commentator, in August 2015 (“By Trump’s own account, he’s the baddest, smartest thing going, except if you ask him a challenging question, in which case he kicks and screams and demands to know how anyone could treat him so unfairly.” Lowry crowned Trump “the most fabulous whiner in all of American politics.”) Mr. Trump stated “I am the most fabulous whiner,” Trump conceded. “I keep whining and whining until I win.”

          Maybe the Dems have decided to use whining to win?

          ““That’s not fair” is what children say. The rules in 1999 were fair by all accounts. Pretending that the same rules today are not fair is the reasoning of a child, or a liar.” So which is Mr. Trump; a child or a liar?

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s