White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow, and their whole crew are back to continue the opening arguments in the impeachment defense of Donald Trump. They gave a brief preview on Saturday, which was exactly what you’d expect: lies and attacks. They resume in the wake of reports that former national security adviser John Bolton’s book recounts a conversation with Donald Trump in which Trump explicitly tied military aid to Ukraine investigating his political opponents—exactly what Trump was impeached for—but it’s unlikely that will change the basic lie-and-attack strategy.
Ongoing coverage can be found here.
Starr arguing partisanship and process. That’s because he knows as well as anybody Trump did it, it was a crime, and can’t be defended. “Process” is all this scoundrel has got.
BTW, executive privilege isn’t in the Constitution. Maybe it’s in Starr’s special version of the constitution, but not the real one.
He’s arguing that it’s not obstruction of Congress if the AG says it’s not? Ken Starr, meet John Mitchell and Richard Nixon.
Starr is right that DOJ often advises the WH against steps that would weaken the presidency. But there is no way the career people who have advised multiple admins told them to flatly refuse all subpoenas. I know because they said the opposite when I was there.— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) January 27, 2020
Starr is right that DOJ often advises the WH against steps that would weaken the presidency. But there is no way the career people who have advised multiple admins told them to flatly refuse all subpoenas. I know because they said the opposite when I was there.
Ken Starr in his book, "Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation," on Abuse of Power:"The reaction of the abuse-of-power skeptics âÂÂincluding Republican members of the House-surprised me. This wasnâÂÂt an obscure legal doctrine. This is what had brought Nixon down." pic.twitter.com/xEB83ODnOW— Jesse Lee (@JesseCharlesLee) January 27, 2020
Ken Starr in his book, "Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation," on Abuse of Power:"The reaction of the abuse-of-power skeptics âÂÂincluding Republican members of the House-surprised me. This wasnâÂÂt an obscure legal doctrine. This is what had brought Nixon down." pic.twitter.com/xEB83ODnOW
That was a whole lot of nothing but constitution-like sounding words from Starr, in not coherent order. Once again, the Trump team seems to be phoning it in since they know that they don’t have to have a real defense. McConnell’s already fixed it.
If Jay Sekulow is truly outraged that the House had souvenir impeachment pens, he should ask Ken Starr about the Senate's souvenir impeachment pens from the Clinton trial. https://t.co/RtQiUsxVOe— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) January 27, 2020
If Jay Sekulow is truly outraged that the House had souvenir impeachment pens, he should ask Ken Starr about the Senate's souvenir impeachment pens from the Clinton trial. https://t.co/RtQiUsxVOe
Why yes, Sekulow, no witnesses had first-hand knowledge of Trump withholding the aid for political purposes because Trump wouldn’t let any of those witnesses testify.
This clearly isn’t their aim, but Sekulow and Purpura are making the case for witnesses, every time they talk about the lack of direct fact witnesses in the House’s case. Not that it will sway any Republicans, but they’re not very good lawyers.
Oh boy, we’re getting the “Trump really cared about corruption in Ukraine” line from Purpura.
It’s notable that Trump’s lawyers have apparently changed nothing in their defense to answer to the Bolton revelations. Which suggests that in all their coordination with Mitch McConnell, they know they didn’t need to.
This is such a load of disingenuous bullshit from Purpura. Ukraine got the money, Zelensky got the meeting, Trump really cared about corruption—all of which has been amply refuted by the House witnesses that they are tortuously cherry-picking from.
Oh, and how Zelensky got the meeting? Trump got caught. Zelensky was days away from going on CNN and announcing a Burisma investigation before the whistleblower story broke and Trump had to have the meeting.
Yeah. We’re really getting the Trump liked Ukraine more than Obama argument.
Schumer during break, they’re not making much of a case. “One question looms overhead, ‘if the President did nothing wrong, why is he so afraid of having witnesses?’”