This is the first official statement of Trump’s defense team. You can read it here.
It’s the same exact nonsense the House Republicans spouted all through the inquiry. Almost like they all used the same talking points.
It’s pure Trump: A rapid, continuous (and exhausting) stream of absurdity and lies. One lie can be managed. A few can be debunked. But stuffing several into each paragraph becomes an effective propaganda technique.
Dip in and see for yourself.
A few examples: Trump claims that impeachment is a “dangerous attack on the right of the people to choose their president” and an attempt to interfere in the 2020 election.
If that was true, the Founders would not have included impeachment and removal of presidents in the Constitution.
Here we also see the House Republican talking point that the Democrats have a ‘reckless obsession’ with impeaching Trump.
In other words, the defense is that Trump isn’t being impeached because he did anything wrong. He’s being impeached because the Democrats hate him.
It’s the same old “I’m the victim” thing. (Kavanaugh also thought he was the victim.) If you think you’re entitled to do and grab whatever you want, and if people try to stop you, you feel like a victim. If laws get in you way, you think the laws are wrong.
Next silly claim: No crimes are alleged.
This could mean that if “bribery” was substituted for “abuse of power” it would be legit.
More likely, it means that none of the behavior described is wrong or worthy of removal.
The next silly claim: The impeachment inquiry was a “lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness.”
Included are the usual complaints, for example, the complaint that Trump was not allowed to confront or cross-examine witnesses. This is silly stuff. Cross-examining witnesses is for the trial. The Constitution gives the trial to the Senate, not the House. The House investigates. Nobody gets to cross examine witnesses during the investigation.
Recall that Trump surrogates have been arguing is that Trump wasn’t allowed to cross-examine witnesses during the impeachment inquiry in the House, so witnesses should be barred from the trial. (Presumably this makes sense to someone.) Shouldn’t Trump then want witnesses at the trial so he can confront them?
Gotta love this one:
Trump answers the Obstruction of Congress allegation by asserting that he showed “unprecedented transparency” by releasing the “transcript” of the call in question (which he continues to insist was perfect.) Hey! He selected something to show!
No surprise: Trump claims that his advisors have “absolute immunity” and can refuse to disclose “internal decision making.” Therefore, he’s not obstructing Congress when he orders people not to testify and turn over evidence:
This means that Republican Senators who acquit will have to argue that
- there wasn’t enough evidence to support the allegations, and
- Trump was justified in withholding evidence
Sure. Riiiight. That makes perfect sense.
I won’t spend any more time on this. Tomorrow I’ll read the House’s trial brief, and Monday Team Trump will submit their Response Brief. We’ll see if that one makes better sense.
