Nine New Arguments in the White House Impeachment Response

The White House released its “trial memorandum” in response to impeachment on Monday, and it is a tour de force that lays out clearly why the case against President Donald Trump is not only wrong on the facts, but constitutionally invalid.

The memo makes the familiar point that the only people who spoke directly to the president have said there was no “quid pro quo.” That includes not only Ambassador Gordon Sondland, but also Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), as well as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. All of the other sources, including the so-called “whistleblower,” offered only hearsay that would be inadmissible in any court. There is literally no valid evidence against the president.

But while such arguments are familiar to those who have watched the case closely, some of the arguments are being made clearly and publicly for the first time.

Here are the nine most important new arguments in the memo:

1. It was entirely appropriate for President Trump to ask Ukraine about the Bidens and Burisma. This is an argument that a few House Republicans, and conservative critics, made during the impeachment inquiry. However, we had not seen it so clearly stated until now. Democrats say there was no public interest in Trump’s request, which they claim was purely for personal and political benefit. The memo demonstrates that the inquiry was legitimate. full story

Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssinstagram

Get Updates!



About Rhett October 1151 Articles
Rhett October is a man independent of the nanny state. He sees what is obvious but to many others is a successful deception. He has a crush on Tomi Lahren. Follow him on Twitter @RhettOctober "After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more." -Morpheus