Another Blatant Contradiction in the Trump Impeachment Defense

Another Blatant Contradiction in the Trump Impeachment Defense January 29, 2020

Adam Schiff pointed out yet another contradiction in the defense offered by Trump’s attorneys in the impeachment trial. He did so by digging out the briefs filed in the case over enforcing House subpoenas on Trump aides and White House employees, in which they argued, bizarrely, that the House lacked standing to bring such a suit.

Credit to Nick Youngson

Schiff then read the DOJ’s statement from The Committee on Judiciary vs. Don McGahn:

“Summary of argument: The committee lacks Article III standing to sue to enforce a Congressional subpoena demanding testimony from an individual on matters related to his duties in the executive branch official.”

Since the Trump team believes the House lacked standing, the only way they could get the standing to call witnesses was through an official impeachment inquiry.

“So, here they are,” said Schiff. “The president’s lawyers are this duplicitous, I kid you not, they come into the Senate, which they refer to as a court, and they say the House should have sued in court to enforce subpoenas like John Bolton. And they go to court and they say, ‘the House may not sue in court to compel a witness to testify. That is the legal duplicity of the president’s team. And it’s in black and white. So, that’s basically it. Are we going to get a fair trial or are we not?”

Of course they aren’t getting a fair trial. If the trial were fair, Trump loses. They won’t — can’t — allow that to happen. That’s why they keep making contradictory arguments and lying in their defense.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment