Trump’s Defense Team Calls Impeachment Charges ‘Brazen’ as Democrats Make Legal Case

In a six-page filing formally responding to the impeachment charges, President Trump’s lawyers rejected the case against him as illegitimate and described the effort to remove him as dangerous.

Comments: 102

  1. Think of all the good trump could have done in his term, and in his life, if he had chosen light instead of darkness.

  2. The Walter Cronkite Republican notes that, like the rest of Mr. Trump's political dicourse, his defense will be conducted in Newspeak.

  3. @Gregory West: make that Newtspeak, as in Gingrich's GOPAC thesaurus of defamation against Democrats, to the extent of banning the adjectival form "Democratic" because it sounds too positive.

  4. I think the GOP should respectfully request that Ukraine President Zelensky testify on behalf of the defense if witnesses are allowed at Trump's impeachment trial. If President Zelensky does testify and supports Trump that would bring a quick end to this impeachment with an acquittal. If Zelensky doesn't support Trump, Trump may be removed from office if what he is accused of is an impeachable offense.

  5. What would you expect him to say when Trump has been demonstrated to be perfectly willing to screw over Ukraine for way less?

  6. @NYChap oh please Zelensky Can’t tell the truth he would never go against Trump. No matter what crime is discovered he will not be removed

  7. @NYChap I thought that at first. But then I concluded it doesn't matter what a foreign country's (Zelensky's) take-away was of that phone call. What matters is what our Constitution says is foreign interference.

  8. Taxpayers pay for the services of the White House Counsel, which does not serve as a "personal lawyer" for the president. I am outraged that Pat Cippolone is leading the president's defence on my dime.

  9. @Will McClaren Sadly, we will have to get used to it and it will only get worse from here.

  10. @Will McClaren I am outraged that Donald Trump's sons have gone to several countries hunting while taxpayer's paid for the security. I am outraged that Trump uses his resorts in the US and abroad forcing the military and others to stay, yes, on our dime.

  11. @Will McClaren And I’m outraged that this president continues to withhold documents that most likely show his culpability and the DOJ, Republican party, FBI, and CIA seem unable to turn over. If the president was innocent, he would not need to redact or withhold documents.

  12. Funny - I regard the efforts to keep him as dangerous. Signed, -A voter

  13. Why should anyone trust an investigation of an American citizen that is conducted by a government that the the president himself labeled as corrupt? This impeachment is not about a "perfect" phone call, but rather it is about the president weaponizing the levers of government for his personal ends. Moreover, would Republicans accept President Trump's behavior if he were a Democrat? If no, our republic is in trouble. If yes, our republic is in trouble. There is not a happy ending to this story.

  14. @Andrea J You know, but end it will, and any of us who remember Nixon, there is no telling where the story itself will turn. Not pretty for sure, however, everything will eventually all come out, it has to only by its' own weight. Some may need to be dragged into the light kicking and screaming all the way, like some are doing now on national tv. When the truth and facts are out, the ever essential public opinion will come down hard on removal. The Senate, as usual, will be the last ones to know. Trust that not everyone in a position to offer true evidence in this matter is 'corrupt'. True evidences here is overwhelming already. What is left to investigate anyway?

  15. "would Republicans accept [the loser]'s behavior if he were a Democrat? If no, our republic is in trouble. If yes, our republic is in trouble." Obviously, the trouble arises from asking Republicans such a question. Remove the Republicans—the source of such behavior (and other constitutional problems)—from government, and we can ask Americans instead.

  16. "They also vividly illustrated how the proceeding is almost certain to rekindle feuding over the 2016 election that has barely subsided during Mr. Trump’s tenure..." Well, of course the feuding has barely subsided. In part it's because 45 has made no attempt to reach out to the majority of Americans who voted against him. Indeed, he's seemed to overtly antagonize them. The only reason the feuding would subside at all is we're fatigued from the endless provocations.

  17. @Steve George W. Bush remarked after 9-11, "You are either with us or you're with the terrorists." Fast forward to Trump world. You either are with Trump or you don't matter. Those of us on the other side need to get over the silly notion that Trump is even remotely interested in us in any shape, form, or fashion.

  18. Trump is an illegitimate president put in office through gerrymandering and with the help of Putin who also backed all his loans at Deutsche Bank. Trump worried Obama had an illegitimate birth certificate when in fact his entire election was illegitimate.

  19. You do realize that gerrymandering only applies to house. It has nothing to do with presidential elections.

  20. @Jim It has the ability to put crazy tea party lawbreakers in Congress to support an illegitimate president.

  21. @Jim it has a bunch to do with the electoral college.... you know the people who put tumputin in power

  22. If Republicans could count, they'd see that the "son of Satan" actually LOST the popular vote, so for most Americans, he isn't actually "the chosen one" unless you mean chosen by Putin.

  23. "If Republicans could count"?! They're anti-science[1], and mathematics happens to be "the Queen of the Sciences" (thanks Gauss), ergo they probably deny the very existence of global counting. [1] And even installed Lamar Smith, the guy who gave us the vile SOPA, as their House Science Chair!

  24. Remember that Trump and the Republicans say always to the others exactly what applies to themselves. Deep state, betrayal, brazen, unpatriotic, unlawful, abusive, liars...

  25. What are they afraid of? Too many Senator's involved in the "drug deal?" Lied, bribed and tried. Let it all hang out.

  26. The irony that MLK Holiday is on eve of Impeachment trial. MLK who knew first hand the evil of over imprisonment of Blacks. Today, we have a President who broke the law and Senate Republicans and Trump Lawyers will say this is not Impeachable. Apply same rule to horrendous amounts of blacks--who broke some minor law. If Trump isn't Impeachable --They are not imprisonable

  27. “The articles of impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president,”….. Funny, I thought the Electoral College was doing this without any help.

  28. "Brazen"! Trump's tendency to projection strikes again!

  29. I don’t think the two sides of this issue could be further apart. At least with the Clinton impeachment, thanks to DNA evidence and a transcript of Grand Jury testimony, there was no disagreement about the facts. The disagreement revolves around whether or not the agreed upon transgression warranted impeachment. In today’s situation there is not even agreement on the facts, much less whether impeachment is even legal. The fact that the House bypassed a special prosecutor, did not impanel a Grand Jury, and relied strictly on Democratic support (not even unanimous), Opens the door for the President’s assertion that the action is solely political and not even legal.

  30. What's brazen is the idea that the president is above the law and can do whatever the heck he wants.

  31. @John Mardinly remember that when you get your chance to vote between mcsally and Mark Kelly

  32. The people "freely" chose the president . But the president has committed well documented high crimes which make him unsuitable to lead the country.

  33. I understand we have a few cultural differences but surely not our definitions of right and wrong! The statements of "brazen and unlawful",' constitutionally and legally invalid' and 'driven by malice' resemble Mr. Trump more than any other politician I can recall. President's lawyers claims ' Mr. Trump broke no laws and was acting entirely appropriately' . Really!?! I'm pretty old and can't name one President who has ever done so much to hurt the USA, as Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump is accusing Democrats 'of denying the president his due process rights.' I wonder if Marie Yovanovich, the Ukraine government, the dead twelve year old boy captured by the Seals, the Military he has interfered with and insulted, the ten people he mistakenly targeted feel they were given due process.

  34. Does the GOP actually think he is innocent or are they all just liars and enablers who have no respect for the law? And if it’s the latter, can’t the Democrats file impeachment charges against them for obstruction? Isn’t that what it is?

  35. I can't wait for this administration to be ended. It is a soap opera at this point. Trump is in over his head but the Republicans are ignoring it because they don't want to lose or relinquish power to the Democrats or a third party. Trump should have a muzzle on his face stopping him from saying anything; having his hands handcuffed so he cannot tweet or use any computer; brace his legs to the floor. He should never have been elected. Read the newspapers from other countries. We are a laughing stock. Do any Republicans believe it will be easy to come back from this? Can you imagine Obama or any Democrat being allowed to trample the way Trump has and the Republicans keeping their mouths shut? They would be first in line with a rope and tree. Deplorable.

  36. The president’s lawyers also accused Congress of denying Mr. Trump due process during the impeachment proceedings, --Really Because I remember reading -"Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi invited Donald Trump to testify in front of investigators in the impeachment inquiry ahead of a week that will see several key witnesses appear publicly."(Guardian Nov 2019) Trump wants his side of the story out--that's Easy Subpoena Trump

  37. Trump’s Defense Team Calls Impeachment Charges ‘Brazen’ as Democrats Make Legal Case. “If you have the law, hammer the law. If you have the facts, hammer the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts, hammer the table”. When the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump is over, Mitch McConnell will probably need to have the top of his desk refinished.

  38. How can the White House Counsel act as a lawyer in Trump’s defense? That is not his role. At. All.

  39. A 100 percent political partisan impeachment is indeed dangerous and without merit. As an independent, I see that the Democrats are doing everything they accuse Trump of, and much worse and much more brazenly: THEY are the ones who are trying to influence the 2020 elections they can't win with this “investigation” and impeachment, not Trump who looked into Biden’s affair in Ukraine. Biden is way too fruity to become the Democrats' standard-bearer, he will not run against Trump, he will not influences anything. Most of my most vocal anti-Trump friends have stopped reading and watching the news, especially in impeachment. They despise Trump, but they arrived to despise the Democrats even more. These people will stay home in November 2020. Congratulations Democrats. You did convince people Trump is no saint, but you made people see you as even more despicable.

  40. Trump's response to the Impeachment Charges, i.e.that the filing of those charges is "brazen and unlawful," is just another example of Trump turning around and accusing his accusers of whatever they are accusing him of. We've seen this movie before.

  41. Wouldn’t every defendant love to declare charges against them “invalid on their face” or as Pam Bondi declared, basic trash? But defendants and their supporters aren’t the ones to make that call. The President is impeached. That is a fact. Now it’s the responsibility of the accusers and the accused to air the evidence. If the President is innocent, as he claims, then the evidence should show that. However, discrediting the process that will get at the truth and reveal it to the American people isn’t the way to establish innocence—quite the contrary.

  42. Trump's actions have been brazen his entire adult life. The man seems to have no moral center and is indifferent to the wants and needs of others especially those of our nation. He exploits others as well as our government for financial gain and to serve his personal desires. I fail to understand the hold that he has on his base and the Republicans in Congress. Maybe the answer is that they are much like he is.

  43. The Republican team are going to have a huge challenge painting Trump as a corruption fighter_a knight in shining armor who only distributes money to regimes which have no corruption.In 2018 Duterte of the Philippines got $195 million plus more in military aid.His regime is one of crime and corruption.Unless I missed it , Trump did not call and ask him for a “favor though”.That would be because Duterte had no way to help Trump’s re-election.If Trump fights corruption someone has to prove it-good luck!

  44. The lawyers representing Trump are writing, in clear black and white, statements that contradict established law. They are lying about what is legal versus what is not. Such writing is here in this current statement as well as the response to the House investigation, among other places. Can these lawyers be disbarred? If we could rid this process of everyone acting against etsablished law the outcome sure would look different.

  45. @Mr. SeaMonkey I would hope that there will be petition to these two lawyers respective bars (licensing boards) to disbar each one. It is an ETHICAL violation to misrepresent law or fact. These two lawyers just reenforce stereotypes of sleazy hired legal guns.

  46. When you find out something bad about a candidate, is it so unexpected that you might not to vote for them? Trump was looking for things to discourage voters from voting for Biden but in the process he did some impeachable things we all know about now. That's how campaigns, unlike businesses, are supposed to work. In business, you have to convince people to buy what they do not need or what is bad for them. In politics, you have only to convince the voter that your neighbors and family won't love you if you don't vote like they do.

  47. @Max Does that make Trump's conduct right? Should he be protected from impeachment because he's a flim-flam man? (In reality, he's like a mob bos: "Nice country you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.")

  48. @JJM If his ends justify his means, it makes it right for a lot of his supporters. The question Trump's impeachment is asking is what, for his supporters, constitutes crossing the line. Trump's naysayers aren't really important. Our righteous indignation does not matter. What matters is how the fanatics who back him perceive this and to find out what insights we can use to wedge them away from him. It's only of limited use to remove him from office. We need to find where, within his fans is the weakest link on their chain to him and yank the bejeezus on that one to get them to vote for our side.

  49. The out come of the Impeachment trial of Donald John Trump, whether acquitted or dismissed, has already been decided. But the fallout will be far worse. America will have ten months of debates before they can pass judgment, and for four of them, those debates will be on the hot summer streets of America.

  50. I too worry about the hot hot hotter summer months leading up to the election.

  51. Trump is guilty of the accusations against him. That has already been proven. The issue now is that the Senate and the Constitution itself are on trial

  52. Withholding aid for a temporary period of time is not illegal whatsoever. The aid was discretionary and needed to be delivered over a fiscal year, so Trump could have delayed it for 10 months as long as he delivered it on the 11th month.

  53. @Bobby Williamson Even if you are right--and I suggest that the president can delay aid only for reasons that benefit the nation, not for those that help his personal interests--it is crystal-clear that the reason the aid was released when it was had to do with the hold-up being made public, not with the requirements of the law. This president has never shown respect for the law, except when it benefits him, why would he have done anything different here?

  54. @Bobby Williamson It is called, "Obstructing Congress," and that *is* illegal. Try to set your partisanship aside and face facts.

  55. As a life-long democrat and now a member of that group upset with all sides democrat & republican, allow me to explain why republicans probably see this action as a witch hunt by fellow opposing witches. See this article quote from democrats: [Trump is] “...’posing a serious danger to our constitutional checks and balances’ by ordering administration officials not to testify or turn over documents requested by a House impeachment inquiry...’President Trump’s conduct is the framers’ worst nightmare,’ wrote the seven Democratic managers....” Well now, there you go. Republicans hear this and immediately reflect on the left’s desire to remove one of the key checks and balances written into the U.S. Constitution: The proportional voting system for U.S. President including its add-on: the Electoral College. The New York Times has promoted this change too—in several articles and groups are out there right now, attempting to chisel away at this Constitutional system using alternative means. Quite sneaky! Based on that, President Trump’s actions relative to Ukraine were harmless; so think republicans. Are they wrong? It sure doesn’t look like it. In fact, Ukraine is like white noise on the television after the signal is lost! Is President Trump a bad President? He sure is! But considering what he’s up against and I’m not talking about affordable healthcare, i’m talking about the leftist Bermuda Triangle, he mutates into this thing that in some cases is better than the other thing!

  56. There's only one truly dangerous thing in America and that's Donald Trump.

  57. One of the smartest things that Justice Roberts should do at the beginning is call for a gag order on the major participants. Mr. Trump’s Twitter account should be suspended during this trial. He was offered a chance to participate, he chose not too. Mr.s Sekulow, Dershowitz, Starr, the House managers and Senate members should be barred from any media appearances during this trial as well. I’m not holding my breath that this will happen.

  58. How many Americans are worried about our 2020 elections being cancelled. With Trump, his lawyers, and the GOP playing reality as a 'coup' and illegal activities on behalf of the Democrats, one can only count down to our new reality with a dictator running our country. The GOP has already stated they will acquit Trump. They don't want to call witnesses (unless they can bring Putin and anyone in the Ukraine who did Trump's bidding for him). If they have their way, they will make the trial work about and against the Bidens. They are bringing what's left of our justice system and democracy to it's knees. What a disgrace and waste of the tax payers money. Trump supporters... wake up and watch your tax dollars disappear into Trump's pockets. He has his own interests and profits in mind. He cares nothing about you.

  59. Trump’s Defense Team Calls Impeachment Charges ‘Brazen’ as Democrats Make Legal Case... Thinking, integer, people have come to the conclusion that not removing Trump would be Brazen negligence by the GOP Senate leaving a sick guy as President.

  60. Looking like a nolo plea.

  61. Trump sooo afraid "his side" won't be told he stratospherically lawyers up. Show up. Tell your side to the world Mr. Trump. That's the last thing Trump's lawyers will allow because he will self-incriminate left and right.

  62. Mr. Trump's defense is nonsensical. It is a monarchist view of America--that the president can do anything at all. Accepting that as a serious defense is itself a body blow to the law and the traditions of this nation.

  63. It's painfully ironic that Trump's defense lawyers should use the very word that most people have used to describe Mr. Trump's activities and actions throughout his life up to and including his feigned shock at being impeached. Wonders never cease!

  64. The Trump response to the House impeachment articles is full of bluster and devoid of facts. Trump’s lawyers don’t quote from the specific House articles or the constitution, and yet they loudly, and vaguely proclaim Trump’s innocence.

  65. Trump's defense team is slacking off by not being brazen and bold. An audacious and appropriate response would be to call for dismissal of the Democrat's shoddy incomplete, hasty, legal case devoid of credible evidence for any crimes, leave alone high crimes, before it gets acted upon by the jurors consisting of the 2 parties, the 100 US senators led by Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. If the Democrats are not going to trust Mitch then why do they want to press on? Universally in democratic countries a judge will dismiss a case if prosecution presents does not provide credible evidence to support the charges. A classic case was in 2007 in South Africa when Jacob Zuma who later became a president for a decade faced 700 charges of corruption. and wrong doing. The ill prepared prosecution pressed on in front of the judge asking for more time to gather more evidence and seek more witnesses and the defense requested the judge to dismiss the charges since the prosecution failed to produce credible evidence at the time and the judge stunned South Africa by promptly dismissing the case. That to me was justice even though I did think that Zulu Zuma did not deserve to Zoom which he did and continued with his Zombie behavior. Instead of senators deciding whether to undo the election in 2016, let the people of the USA decide in November 2020 whether the duly elected president Trump should be reelected or sent to Mar a Lago, Florida to enjoy his retirement from politics.

  66. @Girish Kotwal Ordering witnesses not to testify in court is obstruction in any trial. Impeachment is no different.

  67. Where have you been? Mountains of evidence have been forthcoming and even now more is continually being revealed. You main point is without substance.

  68. @Glenn Thomas Our system of justice allows the president certain privileges which are not absolute and can be contested in courts but the hasty eager beavers in the US house of reps did not want to involve the judiciary branch, one of the coequal branches of the government to subpoena that certain people in the administration are brought in as witnesses. Don't cry over spilled milk. Congress had the chance to do their due diligence and they failed. You snooze you lose it is as simple as that.

  69. They argue that a case for impeachment has not been made for the article of Obstruction of Congress but they are denying the same witnesses and testimony that prove the case of obstruction. This can't be what the framers had in mind because they couldn't fathom a need to address a case of Obstruction of Congress by Congress.

  70. @Rick Gage They assumed people would remain true to reason.

  71. Wow, probably $1,000 an hour to come up with the conclusion that the impeachment process might take him out of office and/or hit his reelection in 2020. My dear, that's the whole point of impeachment. That's definitely a strong line of defense :-D If that wasn't a tragedy, that would be hilarious. Unfortunately, this is real world

  72. How in the world can anyone believe Trump was merely ‘working to end corruption in Ukraine’ when he, the most unethical and corrupt president in our history, continues to act corruptly in plain sight in the US? In front of all of us! Even if one wishes to be ignorant enough to overlook the harm he is doing in so many areas, one would have to be truly stupid to believe this defense contention and accept it as having merit. It’s simply a lawyerly way of continuing a pathological ability to lie by an administration that understands its their only way to defend him on just about anything. How they all manage to live with themselves is quite another thing.....

  73. @Wilmington EDTsion Great post! kudos. The things you mention are ones I have myself mentioned in other forums. Good job!

  74. It’s impossible to argue in any coherent way that Trump doesn’t deserve impeachment. Even if it wasn’t the Ukraine dealings, which the GAO has correctly interpreted as a criminal act, there’s the fact he lied about an affair and ordered his lawyer to make cover up payments using campaign funds, a matter that the NY State attorney’s office is currently investigating and which Michael Cohen is already serving prison time for. Of course, that won’t stop the GOP from trying to argue against impeachment. They’re stuck in the sunken cost fallacy. They believe they have sunk so much political and personal capital into Trump that there is no turning back, which is why there is no bottom. Imagine being a Trump supporter, watching these ever descending lows, then coming to the realization that none of it was worth it. That there was no pot-o-gold at the end of the dark tunnel. It would be crushing. It’s much easier to live avoiding cognitive dissonance. Living in denial isn’t a sustainable long term strategy (just look at Venezuela), but it sure does feel nice before everything falls apart. Whether or not Trump gets elected again, his system (or lack thereof) of governance is not a tenable position. Eventually, the compounding errors are going to catch up to the country, and the whole house of cards will come down. It’s just natural law. Pick up a world history book and try to find one empire or nation that survived a guy like Trump... Spoiler alert: you won’t.

  75. @Austin Ouellette Wonderful post to which I agree 100%!

  76. The Republican opposition to calling additional (relevant) witnesses is transparently motivated by their fear that more information concerning Trump's behavior will support the allegations underlying his impeachment by the House. How can anyone defend that and simultaneously claim to be acting on behalf of the Constitution and the American people? Anybody viewing this objectively can only conclude that the GOP itself firmly believes that the available evidence supports the contention that Trump abused his official powers and should be removed from office. If they didn't, they would welcome the testimony of additional witnesses - all of them (Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Giuliani, etc.) being current or former members of the administration, supporters, and party loyalists. The Democrats are not interested in having Trump's enemies testify. They would like to call his fervent allies. This is a Constitutional crisis riddled with nothing less than mind bending absurdity. But behind the apparent madness is the longstanding method of controlling the electorate by keeping it ignorant. For people like McConnell, "less is more". Right minded people can only hope that strategy fails come November.

  77. Trump’s legal defense team called the two impeachment charges against him a “brazen and unlawful attempt to hurt his chances of re-election". Are you kidding me? That's their first public and opening response to these two charges? That's not exactly a new perspective. Frankly, that's the same rhetoric the Republicans have been tooting all along. The House managers got it right when they wrote that “The outcome of these proceedings will determine whether generations to come will enjoy a safe and secure democracy in which the president is not a king.” The problem really comes down to this president parlaying the authority that was bestowed to him for personal gain. He is not above the law and yet, he performs his duties as if he were a king, acting as if he is not accountable to anyone.

  78. Democrat pursuit of impeachment never had anything to do with justice. You don't kick a player out of the game for pass interference (a highly subjective call in football). Democrats have had only one goal, from the beginning, to disrupt a Presidency. Let's be honest, liberals are still angry that Hillary lost...STILL throwing a tantrum. Grow up.

  79. @Raz Where were you during the 8 years of McConnell and other Republicans sabotaging Obama's presidency with obstruction? If you're a reasonable, honest person, I think you will see the fallacy of your argument. This is not about accepting the outcome of a legitimate election, it is about election meddling by a foreign power as the party standing to benefit looks the other way.

  80. @Glenn Thomas Do you even remember what the "meddling" was about? The DNC leadership actively conspired to get Hillary Clinton (with an utterly uninspired campaign) the Democratic nomination in 2016. THIS is what the Russians exposed before the election, and why Wasserman-Schultz (DNC chair) had to resign. It's a shame, because Bernie would have beaten Trump. This is pretty poor behavior, but no Democrat or liberal will even acknowledge that it occurred.

  81. @Raz What comment are you responding to? I was clearly referring to McConnell's obstruction of Obama during the 2 terms of his presidency. I don't even mention Hillary or election meddling. Huh?

  82. The Framers must be shaking their heads in dismay. Their greatest fear for their new nation was foreign influence in politics. If the Senate allows Trump to get away with this then it is open season for the President, on either side of politics, to invite China, Russia and other state and non-state actors, to investigate rivals. Once elections are no longer trusted, we have no democracy.

  83. “The articles of impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president,” Actually this impeachment is an attempt to defend and preserve the right of the people to freely chose their president which right is under attack by Trump on several fronts.

  84. While there may be reasonable argument about Article 1 of the impeachment, Article 2 is a slam dunk. Trump has tried, by any legal or illegal maneuver possible, to block this legitimate and Constitutionally authorized investigation of his activities and behavior. That blocking is not something the Constitution grants a sitting president, it is something that this "imperial" presidency has granted itself. What saddens me the most though, is that Senate members of the Cult of Trump such as Senator McConnell, are fine with that and may perpetrate further violence on our Constitution by being corrupt jurors. History is watching, America...

  85. Every witness, including people who were involved in the extortion, and many potential witnesses who were directed by trump to refuse to testify, knew that this concerted activity was wrong. It was illegal. Republicans deny that this shakedown of the vulnerable Ukraine was an impeachable offense. How, I ask, can any senator refuse to believe that the stonewall by trump was impeachable obstruction of Congress? Trump and his minions are shredding the concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances. They are all blatantly violating their oaths to defend the constitution.

  86. President Trump and his White House errand runners, including his stellar legal team of sanctimonious hypocrites in the Senate impeachment "trial," are yapping the "overturning the 2016 election" mantra well beyond a decent and timely burial. Overturning the 2016 election would hardly produce a Mike Pence presidency, a fate almost as noxious as the presidency we have now. If we follow and accept the White House argument, already given voice by Trump and his acolytes, the precedent to be set is that any calling to account for abuse of office is somehow anti-democratic even though the Constitution makes explicit provision for it. Such a precedent would quickly and conveniently be forgotten if the president were a Democrat. What would the GOP team of solons be crowing if the impeached president were of the other Party? Any guesses?

  87. How dare the NYT describe Alan Dershowitz as a celebrity defense lawyer, making him sound like a Michael Avenatti. He is a Constitutional Legal Scholar who taught in the Harvard Law School. He is a professor emeritus there, an avowed Democrat who is concerned that the Constitution is in great peril over this impeachment that the Democrats have created.

  88. @Kathleen Gee, maybe it is because Dershowitz has represented Claus Von Bülow, OJ Simpson, and has made hundreds of appearances on Fox News and CNN and anywhere else willing to put him on camera. In legal circles, his theories on impeachment are considered a joke. Ask Prof. Tribe, who is THE constitutional scholar from Harvard Law who is NOT a celebrity lawyer.

  89. I recall ACLU defending Nazis in Skokie, reputable lawyers defending Timothy Mc Veigh pro bono, etc. Dershowitz has also been defending all kinds of ..., e.g., O.J. Simpson, Jeffrey Epstein, Mike Tyson and now Trump, "claiming" that his purpose is to defend the Constitution, and, I am guessing, getting paid well. I also saw a video of Dershowitz lighting Hanukah candles in White House with Trump, an illegal-president who has "legally" separated Latino children from their parents, inciting mass murders in a Walmart in El Paso, two synagogues in Pittsburgh and San Diego, etc. Appearing with a despicable individual in a Hanukah event is not defending the Constitution. Dershowitz and a small minority of American Jews (Sheldon Adelson, etc.) claim that Trump has been great for Israel. Good luck trusting the safety and future of Israel and Jewish children to a narcissistic criminal.

  90. The simple fact that Trump is a pathological liar should be an impeachable offense all by itself. He has zero credibility here and around the world.

  91. Is Nunes under investigation yet? What are his criminal exposures for being Trumps bag man?

  92. "The president’s lawyers did not deny any of the core facts underlying Democrats’ charges, conceding what considerable evidence and testimony in the House has shown: that he withheld $391 million in aid and a White House meeting from Ukraine and asked the country’s president to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, Hunter Biden." So, their defense is no defense? As in, so what--what are you gonna do about it?

  93. If you've ever climbed a mountain you know not to look down until your at or near the peak. I think the American people are climbing that mountain now. Don't look back because it will probably make you feel defeated and tired. It may seem unattainable now, but your almost there! Remember your ancestors followed the same trail and after all the struggles, their blood, sweat and tears ; they succeeded beyond seemingly insurmountable odds. You will too!

  94. Whatever method they are using to cope with the burden of being so shameful they have to be dissociating to keep rational thought at bay. This is why Moscow was so upset at Pelosi's delay in transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to him. The time to think allowed evidence to be disseminated and understood for what it is in the public discourse. Thus the idea I have already seen floated in the press by the GOP to run the trial super fast. Like force the DEM's to have to put on their case in 24 consecutive hours. Followed by the defense doing the same. It isn't about being efficient. It is about perpetrating the crime before anyone can take notice of exactly what is going down. Can we call it "Impeachments 11"?

  95. The line of defense for Trump’s lawyers is going to be that what he did is not an impeachable offense . So they don’t dispute the fact that Trump used a vulnerable country to try and extort the release of much needed military funds that legally had to be released in order to force them to announce investigations of Biden for the sole purpose of helping him personally . If that isn’t impeachable then what is ?? Dershowitz says you can’t use Abuse of Power as impeachable offense so in essence he’s saying a president has no limits and he can become a dictator even though the Constitution is predicated on the idea of Democracy with three co equal branches of government. He’s twisting what the spirit of thr Constitution is and the foundation of our country and what the prez swore an oath to protect . I guess a lawyer can try to make any argument he’d like , even if it makes absolutely no sense at all .

  96. Wow, probably $1,000 an hour to come up with the conclusion that the impeachment process might take him out of office and/or hit his reelection in 2020. My dear, that's the whole point of impeachment. That's definitely a strong line of defense :-D If that wasn't a tragedy, that would be hilarious. Unfortunately, this is real world

  97. Here's what I want to know. Are there five Congresswomen or men who can't stomach Trump’s character? Just five people of high moral standards, intelligence and honor? Are there five Republicans who still hold relevant Trump’s flamboyant disregard for truth, his lying, his mob-boss attitude, his highly questionable business and financial practices, his cussing, inability to lead, his rash and impulsive decisions, his secret talks with Putin, his hair-trigger-finger for war, and the hundreds of lawsuits now generated by Trump’s presidency, not to mention two recent international war crimes lawsuits (Iran and Ukraine), and his past 6,500 lawsuits and 6 bankruptcies before he was President? (To say nothing of the rape allegations.) And now this absolute denial of culpability in national and international crime — though all roads lead to Trump — though 8 of his co-conspirators have already been imprisoned, and we’re still counting? Where are five Republicans who will challenge Trump’s fitness for office — who will take a stand against Trump — no mater if friends are complicit in the crimes? I want to see five Republicans brave enough to say, “We, the people, must bring in witnesses! We, the people, must see the documents!” BECAUSE, WE, THE PEOPLE, DEMAND IT! WE THE PEOPLE WANT THE WHOLE TRUTH!

  98. I’m not sure why Congress resets the rules every time there is an impeachment. Trump is either guilty or he isn’t. I’m happy to concede that he is innocent until proven guilty if the White House and the Senate are willing to allow for a full trial. If Trump were to be subjected to a procedure that allows for witnesses and discussion on artifacts along with an impartial conclusion, and he is cleared, then he will have a real advantage in the election. If we follow the McConnell/Graham model of “letting a potentially guilty person go Scot Free because we don’t care about democracy anymore”, then I’d like to think that enough people who previously voted for a Trump will switch their vote with the understanding that he likely really is a criminal.

  99. @Jeff Congress doesn't "reset rules every time there is an impeachment." It's today's GOP Senate that is resetting the rules of their own Impeachment Trial; due to Trump having already been proven guilty by some of his own members who flipped on him, along with what few documents which the Democrats were able to acquire on their own. That since Trump ordered both all his own directly involved witnesses to not testify, along with withholding every single document of evidence from House Democrats; as he said he would do months earlier if the House were to opt to impeach him. It's not ironic for the hypocrites of today's GOP, which still include McConnell for one, had felt the opposite of today when they had Clinton impeached 20 years ago; with the Democrats back then willing without fear to release every single document, and have Clinton himself testify; due to Democrats still being America's true and only patriots.

  100. The only "thing" dangerous to all Americans is the GOP. The only person and combination terrorist on Earth most dangerous to both all of mankind, plus the Earth's environment itself is the GOP's mentally ill and dangerous leader in Donald John Trump; for which the 25th should have been invoked long ago for the later Forever Impeached 45th.

  101. I find it sad that Republicans have no ethics. McConnell is a national disgrace. Clinton was impeached for lying about having sex. Yet Trump exhorted another nation and that's ok? Come clean Republicans.