President Trump Legal Team Respond to Impeachment Trial Motion – Trial Memorandum (pdf)….

The lawyers representing President Trump and lawyers representing the Office of the Presidency collectively file a response briefing, a trial memorandum, to the Senate (full pdf below).  The 170-page rebuttal to the House articles is HERE and embedded below:

The Articles of Impeachment now before the Senate are an affront to the Constitution and to our democratic institutions. The Articles themselves—and the rigged process that brought them here—are a brazenly political act by House Democrats that must be rejected.

They debase the grave power of impeachment and disdain the solemn responsibility that power entails. Anyone having the most basic respect for the sovereign will of the American people would shudder at the enormity of casting a vote to impeach a duly elected President.

By contrast, upon tallying their votes, House Democrats jeered until they were scolded into silence by the Speaker. The process that brought the articles here violated every precedent and every principle of fairness followed in impeachment inquiries for more than 150 years.

Even so, all that House Democrats have succeeded in proving is that the President did absolutely nothing wrong. All of this is a dangerous perversion of the Constitution that the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn.

[LINK to Trial Memorandum]

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Dem Hypocrisy, Election 2020, Impeachment, Legislation, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

253 Responses to President Trump Legal Team Respond to Impeachment Trial Motion – Trial Memorandum (pdf)….

  1. WeThePeople2016 says:

    Liked by 7 people

  2. Before diving into the boring legalese of “standards,” the authors of this document summed it up very nicely on pp.12-13:

    The Senate should speedily reject these deficient Articles of Impeachment and acquit the President. The only threat to the Constitution that House Democrats have brought to light is their own degradation of the impeachment process and trampling of the separation of powers. Their fixation on damaging the President has trivialized the momentous act of impeachment, debased the standards of impeachable conduct, and perverted the power of impeachment by turning it into a partisan, election-year political tool. The consequences of accepting House Democrats’ diluted standards for impeachment would reverberate far beyond this election year and do lasting damage to our Republic. As Senator Lyman Trumbull, one of the seven Republican Senators who crossed the aisle to vote against wrongfully convicting President Andrew Johnson, explained: “Once [we] set the example of impeaching a President for what, when the excitement of the hour shall have subsided, will be regarded as insufficient causes . . . no future President will be safe . . . . [A]nd what then becomes of the checks and balances of the Constitution, so carefully devised and so vital to its perpetuity? They are all gone.” It is the solemn duty of this body to be the bulwark of the Constitution protecting against exactly this result.

    I think that this pretty-well sums up the true import of this “novel” attack upon our Constitutional Order which has been inflicted upon all of us since 2015. Whether or not “may you live in interesting times” is or is not a curse, it certainly means that it’s an interesting time in which to be a US Senator. 🙄

    Liked by 6 people

    • P.S.: … and if you care to review “a presentation of every argument I have ever made here, far more eruditely than I ever could have made here (“INAL™!!”), I refer you to pp.13-21. (And, “read on!” It just goes downhill [for the Democrats, at least …] from there.)

      Liked by 1 person

      • P.P.S: Also please-enjoy the fact that the authors specifically reference the words of “these very same actors” when they were pontificating about the impeachment of a Democratic(!!) President:

        Nadler: “[w]e must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat . . . .” Biden: “to remove a duly elected president will unavoidably harm our constitutional structure” and “[r]emoving the President from office without compelling evidence would be historically anti-democratic.”

        “Uhh… what’s that again?” However, throughout this document we find plenty more of these absurdities. “Oh, what a tangled (and, ‘ROTFLMAO’) web we weave …”

        Liked by 2 people

        • IGiveUp says:

          Somehow I think the Dems are thinking more of Clinton and not of Andrew Johnson. I was in favor of Clinton getting impeached and removed because I detested him. I would have been in favor of the same for Obama. Luckily, in these instances, I wasn’t in charge. Were Nadler and Biden right that Clinton lying about BJ’s shouldn’t have risen to the level of impeachable? Much of what we do sucks because our nation is made up of two people and we detest each other. This marriage needs to end.

          Liked by 1 person

          • IGiveUp says:

            A house divided cannot stand. Decisively win, or split. Sick and tired of the bickering. Has taken up too much of my entire life.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Regardless of what Bill Clinton did or did not do with his trousers, he did commit obstruction of justice as defined by the actual statute. (Versus the non-valid versions invented by Lawfare and put into Volume 2 of the Mueller Report.) The Senate did not choose to convict him, but the Articles that had been presented to them were Constitutionally valid. In this case, however, they are not. This is exactly the situation that our Founders foresaw – and outlawed. This is exactly what vexes English practice, where “maladministration” is a valid cause for removal.


    • Rick says:

      Nice section. I read about a quarter of the briefing but did not get that far. There’s a lot of duplicate material there and frankly I lost my patience with it. But here’s my thought, why have a judge at all if he’s not going to enforce and guard the Constitution? The decision to dismiss should come from him by a motion from the defense. This decision does not belong in the hands of the Senate, it belongs in the hands of a Constitutional referee.

      If our inept Senators do not vote to dismiss this sham, our republic is screwed.

      Here’s another thought. If the Senators fail to dismiss, the repercussions will extend well beyond a neutered President. The newly accepted standard will serve to tie up the Senate in Perpetuity, as the dems real objective here may be to stall judicial hearings…

      Liked by 2 people

  3. i agree very easy to read and understand for the average person.kinda funny the dems said they wanted to make their case so the average person would not get confused,their brief was a nightmare to read.


  4. franuche says:

    Maybe 3 republican senators will even read Trump’s lawyer’s response briefing. They’ll muddle along according to their own preconceived notions.


  5. Bryan Alexander says:

    At some point, I hope the President’s legal team addresses the investigation of Hunter Biden in this manner:

    If you are troubled by President Trump asking President Zelinsky to look into BUrisma and Hunter Biden, how would you feel if Dick Cheney had given the exact same speech and done the exact same thing that Joe Biden had done……and President Trump ignored it and did not take any action when brought to his attention? You would be incensed and would be screaming “COVERUP!”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Peppurr says:

    I have FOX on in the background as I read here. Tucker had Matt Gaetz on and if I heard right, he said the only reason this impeachment continues is to prevent Bernie from getting the nomination. They want Biden. Did I hear this right?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Zorro says:

      What D candidate represents the greatest risk of corruption exposure? Hiding Joe as their candidate and possibly president minimizes the risk.


  7. Magabear says:

    This “trial” should be over by about Thursday. Should being the key word. The “kill” switch should be switched on as soon as both sides make their cases. Actually, in a really fair world, it should be switched on tomorrow.


  8. jaem says:

    Anyone else notice the House Brief goes on for pages and pages without citation to a single Supreme Court decision? Anyone familiar with legal briefs understands the implication – The RATS don’t law. They are spinning facts. Chief Justice Roberts must be speechless. Compare the RATS’ brief with the GOP’s responses- this is a legal slam dunk.


    • The House Brief “goes on and on” without ever once citing any section of the United States Code. Where the Constitution clearly mandates that the accused “shall still face indictment, trial, conviction and punishment, according to Law,” this could never happen here. The substance is simply, “he is guilty of the offense of being offensive to us, because we say so.” Unconstitutional.


  9. To my way of thinking … “this is, finally, the very first time” that the very-tortured thinking of the career politicians of the House of Representatives, endlessly egged-on by “Lawfare, Inc.,” has finally been subjected to scrutiny by any legislative body other than themselves.

    “Lawfare, Inc.” of course has tried to tilt the scales in favor of a “re-do in the Senate.” In fact, they spent four weeks “post-urgency” trying to tilt those scales. The only problem being, of course, that hundreds of millions of people, “not just fifty-one,” watched them do it.

    Well, if you actually grind through this document up to the point where it really does repeat itself, you will definitely see evidence that … “the next few days in the US Senate promise to be most interesting, indeed.” (And, like the Founders, I choose to have faith in them.)


  10. LIG says:

    Just finished reading the 101 pages and the Transcript of that perfect call. That was on the t-shirts given at the Rupp arena rally- “ read the transcript”. This memorandum was the Beast! It puts all his arguments in the record. I’m in the building industry and I understood it completely. Burned the d rat swamp down. Bring it on ! I made a new friend at the bowling alley this morning. She moved from California and her stories made me mad. Blue collar builds Americans foundation. MAGA. USA a better place for all Americans with my VSGDJT.


  11. Mike in AZ says:

    Great read. Shreds the issues with facts. Citations are in order. Stark contrast to the Articles of Impeachment.

    Quoting Dr Krieger from Archer. “Stop, my penis can only get so erect”


  12. seasidemommy says:

    Remember the entire exercise is to collapse and destroy our Republic and Constitution, it is not about Trump. We the people are in a battle for our very nation.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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