OVER TWO HOURS OF DETAILED ARGUMENTS IN ONE GRANULAR ARTICLE – Summary, analysis, visuals, graphics and video clips
(All video clips have been repaired to start at designated time.)
Trump defense attorney Pat Cipollone (PC) opened arguments calling for an examination of the record and decisions in the US House of Representatives and rightfully so, as it is the body from which this ongoing coup e’etat effort originates.
Focus was drawn to two facts:
What we intend to do today is go through their record that they established in the House. And we intend to show you some of the evidence that they educed in the House that they decided over their 3 days and 24 hours that they didn’t have enough time or made a decision not to show you.
They’re asking you not only to overturn the results of the last the election, but as I’ve said before, they’re asking you to remove President Trump from the ballot in an election that’s occurring in approximately 9 months.
Ask yourself, why didn’t I see that in the first three days? They had it. It came out of their process. Why didn’t they show that to the Senate?
Because as House managers, really their goal should be to give you all of the facts because they’re asking you to do something very, very consequential, and I would submit to you, to use a word that Mr. Schiff used a lot, very, very dangerous.
Today, this year and forever into our future, they’re asking you to do something that no Senate has ever done. And they’re asking you to do it with no evidence.
PC establishes the transcript of the call as the crux of the issue and denotes the Democrats’ exclusion of ‘burden sharing’ in their arguments despite it being a feature of the call.
PC establishes President Trump’s strong record of confronting Russia and supporting Ukraine, which will be supported by evidence.
PC establishes that the omission of exculpatory evidence as it relates to ‘burden sharing’ is emblematic of their entire presentation.
But today, we are going to confront them on the merits of their argument. Now they have the burden of proof (pause) and they have not come close to meeting it.
For all of their talk about election interference, that they’re here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history and we can’t allow that to happen. It would violate our Constitution; it would violate our history; it would violate our obligations to the future; and most importantly, it would the sacred trust that the American people have placed in you (Senate) and have placed in them. The American people decide elections. They have one coming up in 9 months.
Trump attorney Michael Purpura (MP) took over from PC and opened with this clip from House Intelligence Chairman and Democrat House impeachment manager Adam Schiff (cued to view from 18:32 – 20:14),
TRUMP ATTORNEY MICHAEL PURPURA OPENED WITH A CLIP FROM ADAM SCHIFF – CUED TO PLAY FROM 18:32 – 20:14.
MP simply states, “That’s fake. That’s not the real call. That’s not the evidence here. That’s not the transcript that Mr. Cipollone just referenced.”
The most important piece of evidence we have in the case (pause) and before you is the one we began with nearly 4 months ago. The actual transcript of the July 25, 2019 telephone call between President Trump and President Zelensky. The real transcript. If that were the only evidence we had, it would be enough to show that the Democrats’ entire theory is completely unfounded.
MP then outlines the constructive and fabricated aspects of the House managers’ flimsy case, as characterized by bluster and innuendo; including selective leaks, closed-door examination of handpicked witnesses and staged public hearings. MP used this to frame “6 key facts that have not and will not change:“
- The call transcript shows no link between investigations and security assistance or a presidential meeting. (per visual)
- “Ukrainians repeated have said there was no quid pro quo, and they felt no pressure.” (per visual)
- “Ukraine did not know security assistance was paused until more that a month after the call.” (per visual)
- “None of the Democrats’ witnesses say President Trump linked investigations to security assistance or a meeting.” (per visual)
- “Ukraine announced no investigations and still received security assistance and a presidential meeting.” (per visual)
- “President Trump strengthened US support for Ukraine.” (per visual)
MP then outlines factual omissions by the House impeachment managers including obvious exculpatory and exonerating evidence benefiting President Trump. First, MP outlines what was discussed on the call:
- Call transcript reflects two ‘core’ issues raised by President Trump pertaining to foreign aid: ‘burden sharing’ and ‘corruption.’
- ‘Burden sharing’ is outlined as the financial obligation of allied nations to contribute to Ukrainian aid (the US contributes disproportionately.)
- ‘Corruption’ is framed within Ukraine as a result of the fall of the former USSR as it’s described as a conduit for widespread global corruption.
- Corruption is further extended into foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election with the President’s objective of asking Zelensky to get the “bottom of all forms of foreign interference in an American presidential election.”
- Outlined the President’s forewarning to Zelensky about surrounding himself with many of the same corrupt people as his predecessor; including the termination of a corrupt prosecutor (germane to then VP Joe Biden.)
MP continues by outlining the factual omissions by the House impeachment managers as introduced above:
- No discussion of the “paused security assistance on the July 25 call.”
- Misquote of the Javelin anti-tank missile allocations to Ukraine as an effort to misconstrue the President’s actual intent since the Javelin missiles were NOT a part of the Ukrainian security assistance at the root of the matter (in other words, using an orange as plucked from an apple tree.)
- Former Ambassador Marie Yavanovich and NSC Senior Director Tim Morrison were quoted factually demonstrating the previous point – that the Javelin missile sales were NOT part of the paused security assistance (critical and intentionally conflation of facts – misleading!)
- Outlines how the President was asking Zelensky to help ‘us’ THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and NOT ‘us’ THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION in redressing American election interference.
- Outlines that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s concerns were deep POLICY concerns, which stands alone from the crux of the Democrats actual argument.
- Outlines constitutional provisions that elected leaders ‘make’ foreign policy while those in service work to ‘implement’ said foreign policy.
- Outlined other call witnesses contradicting Vindman’s account: Lt. General and former national security adviser Keith Kellogg, “I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call. I had and have no concerns.”
- Identifies Jennifer Williams (works for Kellogg) and (aforementioned) Tim Morrison as two other contradictory witnesses. Williams would eventually contradict herself (problems with the call now but told precisely no one (for 2 months) at the time of the call.) Kellogg was quoted as saying, “[Ms. Williams] never reported any personal or professional concerns to me, her direct supervisor, regarding the call.“
- Outlines that Morrison, Lt. Col. Vindman’s “boss,” only reported the call for the purpose of expressing concern about “leaks” and “how it would play out in Washington’s polarized environment” (Morrison.) “I want to be clear, Mr. Morrison testified, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.” (SEE LINKED CLIP BELOW, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY A MONTAGE OF SIMILAR OTHER CLIPS OF MORRISON’S SAME TESTIMONY.)
- States, “Significantly, the Ukrainian government never raised any questions about the July 25 call.”
- Cites Ambassador Kurt Volker, who was not on the call but regularly speaks with Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials, denying any quid pro quo in “no way, shape or form.”
- Cites 3 separate occasions where President Zelensky confirms the complete absence of any quid pro quo from President Trump. Zelensky, “No, you heard that we had good phone call. It was normal, we spoke about many things. I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed me.)
- Cites top Ukraine official Andriy Yermak, “We never had that feeling. We had a clear understanding that the aid has been frozen. We honestly said, ‘Okay, that’s bad, what’s going on here.’ We were told that they would figure it out. And after a certain amount of time, the aid was unfrozen. We did not have the feeling that this aid was connected to any one specific issue.”
- Orates about the constructive quality of the Democrats “evidence” in the sense that it’s all rooted in their perception of implications that they infer as factual evidence. In other words, laundering the narrative into fact sets and pretending to know apparent implicit intent – inside the minds of others, I might add – where there is no evidence to support such.
SCHIFF QUESTIONING MORRISON RELEVANT TO POINT 9 ABOVE (OMISSIONS BY DEMOCRATS.) CUED TO PLAY FROM 36:16 – 37:05.
AMBASSADOR VOLKER TESTIMONY RELEVANT TO POINT 11 ABOVE (OMISSIONS BY DEMOCRATS). CUED TO PLAY FROM 38:11 – 38:34.
MP continues laying a foundational piece to the President’s defense that’s better to see and hear than read.
MIKE PURPURA OUTLINING FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENT TO TRUMP DEFENSE. CUED TO PLAY FROM 40:26 – 41:04.
MP continues to offer exculpatory evidence in support of the July 25 call transcript.
MP then presented further testimony of four individuals.
TESTIMONY FROM FOUR WITNESSES: KURT VOLKER, WILLIAM TAYLOR, TIM MORRISON AND GEORGE KENT. CUED TO PLAY FROM 42:26 – 43:29.
MP cites that in meetings with the Ukrainians on July 9, July 10, July 25, July 26 and August 27, there was no mention of any security assistance holds.
In follow-up to the Politico article, MP offers this visual depicting relevant texts between Volker and Yermak; THE RELEVANT POINT BEING that as soon as the Ukrainians learned of the security assistance hold, they immediately reached-out and asked about it.
MP galvanizes the point describing the “flurry” of security assistance “activity” that followed the 28 Aug 19 Politico piece; calling it “common sense” that is “fatal” to the House’s case.
MP cites Deputy Assistant Director of Defense Laura Cooper’s as contradictory to the House’s attempt to “muddy the waters,”
MP cites Catherine Croft, one of Volker’s advisers, as claiming that the Ukrainians learned of the security assistance freeze before the Politico piece, but when asked when she heard about it from Ukrainian officials, she could not remember and had not notes on it.
MP cites Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s 09 Sep 19 interaction with President Trump whereby Trump replied to a relevant question with, “I want nothing, I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo.”
MP cites Senator Ron Johnson’s 31 Aug 19 questioning of Trump about related quid pro quo whereby he replied, “No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?”
TESTIMONY FROM AMBASSADOR GORDON SONDLAND. CUED TO PLAY FROM 51:18 – 52:02.
MORE FROM SONDLAND. CUED TO PLAY FROM 52:30 – 53:05.
MORE FROM SONDLAND. CUED TO PLAY FROM 53:10 – 53:32.
More testimony from Undersecretary of State David Hale, Kent and Volker.
HALE, KENT AND VOLKER. CUED TO PLAY FROM 55:20 – 56:02.
Mr. Purpura then yielded to attorney Jay Sekulow (JS.)
JS orates on examining impeachment through the President’s lens and takes it all back to ‘Crossfire Hurricane’ and the Mueller appointment.
JS’s oration on the Mueller report is must see.
DEFENSE COUNSEL JAY SEKULOW’S MUST SEE ORATION ON THE MUELLER REPORT. CUED TO PLAY 57:58 – 59:51.
JS then moved counterarguments against claims by Schiff:
- Disagreeing with the President’s position on foreign intelligence matters is in no way an impeachable offense.
- Schiff and Nadler, as chairs of the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees, respectively, should “really know this” germane to point one (speaks to my notion of intent in the Democrats’ exit strategy I outlined in my last ARTICLE.)
JS moved to FISC abuses and the fact that the only material they receive is “on trust” by members of the ‘intelligence community;’ with “the presumption that they would be acting in good faith.”
JS cites the FISC’s scathing 17 Dec 19 order in response to the OIG’s findings in their investigation of impropriety on part of the FBI. Sekulow’s word are worthy and he follows-up with a second order declassified only days before.
JAY SEKULOW ON THE 17 DEC 19 FISC ORDER IN RESPONSE OIG REPORT ON CROSSFIRE HURRICANE. CUED TO PLAY FROM 1:02:23 – 1:03:53.
JS then transitioned to the meat and potatoes of today’s work – correcting the record citing instances and summarizing the House manager’s ‘straw man argument’ in outlining the false Russia/Ukraine dichotomy germane to election interference. In support, JS cited evidence of a letter from Democrats to Yuri Lutsenko, the Prosecutor General (equivalent to the US Attorney General) of Ukraine asking him to cooperate with the Mueller investigation (Senators Bob Menendez, Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin.)
JS’s moves to testimony by Fiona Hill that, again, was also withheld by the Democrats. JS’s own words are worthy.
JAY SEKULOW ON FIONA HILL. CUED TO PLAY FROM 1:07:32 – 1:08:20.
JS continues with comments overarching the entire impeachment that are worthy.
JAY SEKULOW ON IMPEACHMENT. CUED TO PLAY FROM 1:08:49 – 1:09:41.
JS then moved into a recapitulation of his colleague’s earlier testimony with additional anecdotal evidence; focusing on ‘burden sharing’ and ‘corruption;’ including more corroboration from Hill.
Importantly, JS cites a notation in Hill’s deposition transcript related to a 20 Jun 17 (2017 – critical!) message from President Trump to former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko regarding ongoing Ukrainian corruption. That occurred in their first meeting; in the White House. JS gives further support based on similar statements from Morrison and Croft. JS’s broader point here was that essentially every witness agreed that Ukrainian corruption should be and was a US priority.
JS then moves on to TIMING as it relates to Morrison, who was concerned about whether Zelensky would be a genuine reformer who could actually achieve a majority for his party. Further he cites that the anti-corruption court in Ukraine did not commence its work until 05 Sep 19, which is only 4 months ago.
JS then confronts House Manager Jason Crow regarding his assertion that President Trump was only interested in Ukraine aid, which is a patently false statement. He cited similar instances in Afghanistan, South Korea, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatamala, Lebanon and Pakistan. JS cited Hale, Hill and Vokler as making similar statements in their testimony.
JS’s comments regarding Ambassador Taylor’s remarks are worthy. He also cites Ambassador Yovanovitch’s agreement germane to the broader strengthening of Ukraine via the President’s policies.
JAY SEKULOW ON AMBASSADORS TAYLOR AND YOVANOVITCH. CUED TO PLAY FROM 1:22:34 – 1:23:03.
JS continued with more anecdotal evidence (Jeffries, Hill, Yovanovitch, Morrison, etc.) about broader positions on corruption in Ukraine. Specifically, that eliminating corruption in Ukraine was “one of, if not the central goal” of US foreign policy in the nation (Hill.)
JS then moved to Schiff’s comments about “our Ukrainian ally” and circled back to this quote.
Mr. Sekulow then yielded to Deputy White House Counsel Patrick Philbin (PP) to address two issues: 1) obstruction related to issued subpoenas and 2) due process issues.
PP opens by focusing on Jeffries’ allegations related to the obstruction charge in Article II of the impeachment and specifically, the perceived refusal to cooperate with the investigation, subpoenas, etc. He refutes the assertion that Trump’s counsel failed to cite the legal predicate for such refusals, which they most certainly did and in complete fashion.
PP outlines how every step that the President’s counsel took was informed by an opinion from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, meaning that every step undertaken was not only predicated in the law, but affirmed by the DOJ BEFORE the step was actually taken – critical.
PP cites the 08 Oct 19 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi whereby the President’s counsel advised the House that if committee oversight reverted back to regular order (recall, Pelosi changed House rules, committee rules and impeachment rules; at the same general time that whistleblower rules were also changed) they stand ready to engage.
PP then clarified the factual context of how the President utilized ‘executive privilege’ traditionally and legally.
PP returns to the invalidity of the House subpoenas because they weren’t supported by a vote from the House to authorize Manager Schiff’s committees to exercise the power of impeachment and to issue compulsory process. PP refuted Jeffries claims of no precedent for a preceding House vote to support the authorized House subpoenas. PP flatly said, “those statements simply aren’t accurate,” and cited legal precedent supporting his argument. He further bolsters the position digging into a minutia of Constitutional authority and more legal precedent. Moreover, he further extends the argument citing aspects of previous impeachments.
PP further explains how the House resolution vote is a necessary step to meeting obligations, or in other words, you simply can’t start investigating without the vote first. That’s the crux of it. No vote, no compulsory process. No compulsory process, no obstruction for refusal to cooperate. It’s that simple. Obviously the reference is to the participation of the FULL HOUSE, which the Democrats intentionally circumvented, and to said unconstitutional circumvention. Checks and balances, folks.
On due process, PP outlines Nadler’s invitation letter to the President’s counsel for the President to participate in the process and dismantles the previous suggestion that ‘due process‘ is simply a privilege in the context of an impeachment. That is patently untrue. PP then moves down a road of Nadler contradictory statements on due process from a 2016 quote and Clinton impeachment quote. PP the cited House rules precluding due process for the President until after the third round of hearings.
PP moves on to written correspondence between Nadler and White House counsel depicting exchanges and questions from the President’s team about due process, witness testimony, etc. Nadler never replied to the questions submitted in the President’s response.
PP details a chronology of how the impeachment process unfolded as a predetermined decision as demonstrated by Pelosi’s order to Nadler to draft the articles in the Judiciary Committee. Ergo, the President could elect to participate in an impeachment completely devoid of due process -OR- he could refuse to participate in such a process based on legal, constitutional and substantive grounds. If he participates, he’s screwed. If he doesn’t, he’s screwed. By refusing to participate in a highly partisan and completely slanted impeachment, Trump opens the window for obstruction charges (just like the Mueller investigation was an obstruction trap!)
DO YOU KNOW WHAT AN IMPEACHMENT TRAP LOOKS LIKE? Answer – re-read the previous paragraph. That is the precise construct for an impeachment trap. It’s rooted in damned if you do and damned if you don’t and it’s rigged top to bottom and side to side.
PP then focuses on the cross-examination aspect of the President’s preclusion from due process and the ramifications of that circumstance.
PP moved on to the whistleblower (presumably Eric Ciaramella) and his political bias as reflected in the OIG report, the details about which are still classified and unknown. He then referenced the whistleblower’s ties to the Bidens before moving to this exceptional clip.
ADAM SCHIFF ON THE WHISTLEBLOWER. CUED TO PLAY FROM 1:49:19 – 1:49:30.
PP then confronts Schiff’s assertion that he did not conspire with the whistleblower previously. Watch.
ADAM SCHIFF ON THE WHISTLEBLOWER. CUED TO PLAY FROM 1:50:00 – 1:50:14.
PP then verifies Schiff’s statement as being “not truthful.” Schiff’s ever-changing position on the whistleblower, as the one in charge, renders him a fact witness on the matter.
PP characterizes Schiff’s position as being one rooted in inference, perception and interpretation; but devoid of factual evidence. He then presents this Schiff clip.
SCHIFF CLAIMING TO HAVE FACTUAL EVIDENCE IN MARCH OF 2017. CUED TO PLAY FROM 1:52:02 – 1:52:43.
Mr. Philbin closed by characterizing the totality of the House’s evidence as not being evidence at all but rather inference, opinion, etc. He then yielded back to Mr. Cipollone for closing remarks.
Mr. Cipollone’s closing remarks are worthy in full.
PAT CIPOLLONE’S FULL CLOSING REMARKS. CUED TO PLAY FROM 1:54-29 – END.
CONCLUSION: This article outlines the framework for the President’s defense as a granular summary start to finish. Expect the next steps in the proceedings to eviscerate the Democrats’ entire case before moving to matters pertaining to additional witnesses, additional evidence, etc. or perhaps a vote on the articles. We’ll be wiser with a little more time to digest more information.
Before we go, consider this. NO MATTER WHAT THE NINCOMPOOPS IN THE MSM AND ON THE LEFT HAVE TO SAY, as it relates to additional witness testimony and evidence, these drunk bastards are standing on a three-legged stool. For it is the HOUSE that shall bear the SOLE responsibility for the impeachment of any official and it is the SENATE that shall bear the SOLE responsibility for serving as the court for that trial. Ergo, the SENATE shall have NO RESPONSIBILITY to produce a single grain of any evidence of any kind. Prosecutors do that – not courts.
Other related articles include:
[…] you missed the hearing or just care to review, THIS provides as thorough and informative of a summary and analysis as you’ll find anywhere; […]
[…] THIS provides the most accurate and thorough synopsis and analysis of Trump’s opening arguments you’ll find. Importantly, it touches on the impeachment trap being placed in front of the President. […]
[…] SUPPORT ARTICLES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 […]
[…] JAN 20: ARTICLE: Trump defense’s opening arguments – granular […]