Trump's Defense: January 25, 2020
President Trump’s lawyers had their first chance to defend him on Saturday, January 25, 2020. They questioned the Speaker of the House’s authority to conduct a press conference to announce impeachment before she conducted a vote in the House of Representatives to authorize the impeachment. They explained Trump’s refusal to participate in the first two rounds of questioning where Trump was denied his Constitutional due process rights to confront witnesses, call his own witnesses and have counsel to defend him. They cited U.S. v. Rumley, a 1953 case where the U.S. Supreme Court declared that a subcommittee had no authority to investigate attempts to influence public opinion. They also cited Goldberg v. Kelly, a 1970 U. S. Supreme Court case where cross-examination was declared an integral part of constitutional due process, a right that Trump was denied during the secret basement hearings where testimony was screened by Schiff.
They also played video clips of Schiff who said in March of 2017 that there was “more than circumstantial evidence” of Russian collusion, the public would later find that the Mueller report expended 32 million in taxpayer dollars and found no collusion. They compared this to Schiff’s similar statement about the evidence he obtained from the elusive whistleblower. They also compared Schiff’s statements about the need for unfiltered testimony from the whistleblower with his later statements against the need for such unfiltered testimony. They accused Schiff of having a reason not to want an inquiry into the evidence obtained from the whistleblower who they suspect worked with Biden on Ukrainian matters. The transcript with the whistleblower has remained a secret, Trump’s attorneys contend that it should be made available to the taxpayers who pay the bills for all these investigations.
They referenced multiple facts that collapse the case against Trump that were kept hidden such as Trump’s decision not to go to Poland because he wanted to assist Americans during the hurricane. They also included context statements from the conversation with the Ukrainian president that show Trump’s clear intention to fight corruption. They also contend that Trump cannot be guilty of whatever Schiff thinks is going on in Trump’s head, they will need more than that. Hard and fast evidence is something that Schiff does not have. Mere assumptions about what President Trump was thinking will not suffice to overturn an election.