Donald Trump’s Attorneys Give The Former President’s Response to Impeachment Article On Incitement Of Insurrection

Posted by on February 3, 2021 3:03 pm
Tags:
Categories: NATIONAL HEADLINES

President Donald Trump, or should I remind everyone, especially Democrats, that he is now in reality “former” President Donald Trump, as he has not been in office since noon on January 20, 2021.  He is now a private citizen.

On Monday, the former president’s attorneys Bruce Castor and David Schoen responded to the Article of Impeachment scammed against him by the United States House of Woke Representatives.  I say scam because there was not a single hearing, there were no witnesses called, and the then-president was not allowed to respond to the accusations being made against him.  And the most important part is the House had no evidence to prove the allegations made in the Article.

Basically, the argument sums up to “The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President
because he holds no public office from which he can be removed…”

Read their response below:

ANSWER OF PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP, 45TH PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, TO ARTICLE I: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION
To: The Honorable, the Members of the Unites States Senate:
The 45th President of the United States, Donald John Trump, through his
counsel Bruce L. Castor, Jr., and David Schoen hereby responds to the Article
of Impeachment lodged against him by the United States House of
Representatives by breaking the allegations out into 8 Averments and,
Respectfully Represents:

1. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ‘shall have
the sole Power of Impeachment’ and that the President ‘shall be removed from
Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.’”

Answer 1:
Admitted in part, denied in part as not relevant to any matter properly
before the Senate. It is admitted that the Constitutional provision at
Averment 1 is accurately reproduced. It is denied that the quoted provision
currently applies to the 45th President of the United States since he is no longer
“President.” The constitutional provision requires that a person actually hold
office to be impeached. Since the 45th President is no longer “President,” the
clause ‘shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for…’ is impossible for
the Senate to accomplish, and thus the current proceeding before the Senate is
void ab initio as a legal nullity that runs patently contrary to the plain language
of the Constitution. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution states “[j]udgment in
cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and
disqualification to hold and enjoy an office of honor…” (emphasis added). Since
removal from office by the Senate of the President is a condition precedent
which must occur before, and jointly with, “disqualification” to hold future
office, the fact that the Senate presently is unable to remove from office the 45th
President whose term has expired, means that Averment 1 is therefore
irrelevant to any matter before the Senate.

2. Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits
any person who has ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion against’ the United
States from ‘hold[ing] any office…under the United States’.

Answer 2:
Admitted in part, denied in part, and denied as not relevant to any matter
properly before the Senate. It is admitted that phrases from Section 3 of the
14th Amendment to the Constitution are correctly replicated in Averment 2. It
is denied that the 45th President engaged in insurrection or rebellion against
the United States. The 45th President believes and therefore avers that as a
private citizen, the Senate has no jurisdiction over his ability to hold office and
for the Senate to take action on this averment would constitute a Bill of
Attainder in violation of Art. I, Sec. 9. Cl. 3 of the United States Constitution.
The 45th President asks the Senate to dismiss Averment 2 relating to the 14th
Amendment as moot.

3. In his conduct while President of the United States – and in violation of
his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to
take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Answer 3:
Denied, and irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate. It is
denied that the 45th President of the United States ever engaged in a violation
of his oath of office. To the contrary, at all times, Donald J. Trump fully and
faithfully executed his duties as President of the United States, and at all times
acted to the best of his ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States, while never engaging in any high Crimes or
Misdemeanors. Since the 45th President is no longer “President,” the clause
‘shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for…’ referenced at Averment 1
above is impossible, and the current proceeding before the Senate is void ab
initio as a legal nullity patently contrary to the plain language of the
Constitution. As the present proceedings are moot and thus a nullity since the
45th President cannot be removed from an office he no longer occupies,
Averment 3 is irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.

4. Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by
inciting violence against the Government of the United States, in that:
On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the
House of Representatives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a
joint session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College. In the
months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false
statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of
widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or
certified by State or Federal officials.

Answer 4:
Admitted in part, denied in part, and denied as irrelevant to any matter
properly before the Senate. It is admitted that on January 6, 2021 a joint
session of Congress met with the Vice President, the House and the Senate, to
count the votes of the Electoral College. It is admitted that after the November
election, the 45th President exercised his First Amendment right under the
Constitution to express his belief that the election results were suspect, since
with very few exceptions, under the convenient guise of Covid-19 pandemic
“safeguards” states election laws and procedures were changed by local
politicians or judges without the necessary approvals from state legislatures.
Insufficient evidence exists upon which a reasonable jurist could conclude that
the 45th President’s statements were accurate or not, and he therefore denies
they were false. Like all Americans, the 45th President is protected by the First
Amendment. Indeed, he believes, and therefore avers, that the United States is
unique on Earth in that its governing documents, the Constitution and Bill of
Rights, specifically and intentionally protect unpopular speech from
government retaliation. If the First Amendment protected only speech the
government deemed popular in current American culture, it would be no
protection at all. Since the 45th President is no longer “President,” the
Constitutional clause at Averment 1 above ‘shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for…’ is impossible since the 45th President does not hold office
and the current proceeding before the Senate is void ab initio as a legal nullity
rendering Averment 4 irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.

5. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump,
addressed a crowd at the Capitol ellipse in Washington DC. There, he reiterated
false claims that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.”

Answer 5:
Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that President Trump
addressed a crowd at the Capitol ellipse on January 6, 2021 as is his right
under the First Amendment to the Constitution and expressed his opinion that
the election results were suspect, as is contained in the full recording of the
speech. To the extent Averment 5 alleges his opinion is factually in error, the
45th President denies this allegation.

6. He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged – and
foreseeably resulted in – lawless action at then Capitol, such as: “if you don’t
fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Thus, incited by
President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to,
among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional
duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached
and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel,
menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional
personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious act.

Answer 6:
Admitted in Part, denied in part. It is admitted that persons unlawfully
breached and vandalized the Capitol, that people were injured and killed, and
that law enforcement is currently investigating and prosecuting those who were
responsible. “Seditious acts” is a term of art with a legal meaning and the use
of that phrase in the article of impeachment is thus denied in the context in
which it was used. It is denied that President Trump incited the crowd to
engage in destructive behavior. It is denied that the phrase “if you don’t fight
like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore” had anything to do with
the action at the Capitol as it was clearly about the need to fight for election
security in general, as evidenced by the recording of the speech. It is denied
that President Trump intended to interfere with the counting of Electoral votes.
As is customary, Members of Congress challenged electoral vote submissions
by state under a process written into Congressional rules allowing for the
respective Houses of Congress to debate whether a state’s submitted electoral
votes should be counted. In 2017, Democratic Members of Congress
repeatedly challenged the electoral votes submitted from states where President
Trump prevailed. In 2021, Republican Members of Congress challenged the
electoral votes submitted from states where President Biden prevailed. The
purpose of the Joint Sessions of Congress in 2017 and on January 6, 2021 was
for Members of Congress to fulfill their duty to be certain the Electoral College
votes were properly submitted, and any challenges thereto properly addressed
under Congressional rules. Congress’ duty, therefore, was not just to certify
the presidential election. Its duty was to first determine whether certification of
the presidential election vote was warranted and permissible under its rules.

7. “President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior
efforts to subvert the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential
Election. Those prior efforts, included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during
which President Trump urged the secretary of state Georgia, Brad
Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential
election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.

Answer 7:
Admitted in part. Denied in part. Denied as irrelevant to any matter
properly before the Senate. It is admitted that President Trump spoke on the
telephone with Secretary Raffensperger and multiple other parties, including
several attorneys for both parties, on January 2, 2021. Secretary Raffensperger
or someone at his direction surreptitiously recorded the call and subsequently
made it public. The recording accurately reflects the content of the
conversation. It is denied President Trump made any effort to subvert the
certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election. It is denied that the
word “find” was inappropriate in context, as President Trump was expressing
his opinion that if the evidence was carefully examined one would “find that
you have many that aren’t even signed and you have many that are forgeries.”
It is denied that President Trump threatened Secretary Raffensperger. It is
denied that President Trump acted improperly in that telephone call in any
way. Since the 45th President is no longer “President,” the Constitutional
clause from Averment 1 above ‘shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for…’ is impossible since the 45th President does not hold office rendering the
current proceeding before the Senate is void ab initio as a legal nullity making
Averment 7 irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.

8. “In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the
United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity
of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and
imperiled a coequal branch Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as
President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Answer 8:
Denied, and denied as irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.
It is denied that President Trump ever endangered the security of the United
States and its institutions of Government. It is denied he threatened the
integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of
power, and imperiled a coequal branch Government. It is denied he betrayed
his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Rather, the 45th President of the United States performed admirably in his role
as president, at all times doing what he thought was in the best interests of the
American people. The 45th President believes and therefore avers that in the
United States, the people choose their President, and that he was properly
chosen in 2016 and sworn into office in 2017, serving his term to the best of
his ability in comportment with his oath of office. Since the 45th President is
no longer “President,” the Constitutional clause at Averment 1 above ‘shall be
removed from Office on Impeachment for…’ is impossible for the Senate to
accomplish since the 45th President does not hold office, meaning the current
proceeding before the Senate is void ab initio as a legal nullity rendering
Averment 8 irrelevant to any matter properly before the Senate.
To the extent there are factual allegations made against the 45th President of
the United States contained in Article I that are not specifically addressed
above, said allegations are denied and strict proof at time of hearing is
demanded.

Legal Defenses
To: The Honorable, the Members of the Unites States Senate:

The 45th President of the United States, Donald John Trump, through his
counsel Bruce L. Castor, Jr., and David Schoen hereby avers that the Article of
Impeachment lodged against him by the United States House of
Representatives is facially and substantively flawed, and otherwise
unconstitutional, and must be dismissed with prejudice. In support thereof,
the 45th President,

Respectfully Represents:

1. The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President
because he holds no public office from which he can be removed, and the
Constitution limits the authority of the Senate in cases of impeachment to
removal from office as the prerequisite active remedy allowed the Senate under
our Constitution.

2. The Senate of the United States lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President
because he holds no public office from which he can be removed rendering the
Article of Impeachment moot and a non-justiciable question.

3. Should the Senate act on the Article of Impeachment initiated in the
House of Representatives, it will have passed a Bill of Attainder in violation of
Article 1, Sec. 9. Cl. 3 of the United States Constitution.

4. The Article of Impeachment misconstrues protected speech and fails to
meet the constitutional standard for any impeachable offense.

5. The House of Representatives deprived the 45th President of due process
of law in rushing to issue the Article of Impeachment by ignoring it own
procedures and precedents going back to the mid-19th century. The lack of due
process included, but was not limited to, its failure to conduct any meaningful
committee review or other investigation, engage in any full and fair
consideration of evidence in support of the Article, as well as the failure to
conduct any full and fair discussion by allowing the 45th President’s positions
to be heard in the House Chamber. No exigent circumstances under the law
were present excusing the House of Representatives’ rush to judgment. The
House of Representatives’ action, in depriving the 45th President of due process
of law, created a special category of citizenship for a single individual: the 45th
President of the United States. Should this body not act in favor of the 45th
President, the precedent set by the House of Representatives would become
that such persons as the 45th President similarly situated no longer enjoy the
rights of all American citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The actions by
the House make clear that in their opinion the 45th President does not enjoy
the protections of liberty upon which this great Nation was founded, where free
speech, and indeed, free political speech form the backbone of all American
liberties. None of the traditional reasons permitting the government to act in
such haste (i.e exigent circumstances) were present. The House had no reason
to rush its proceedings, disregard its own precedents and procedures, engage
in zero committee or other investigation, and fail to grant the accused his
“opportunity to be heard” in person or through counsel – all basic tenets of due
process of law. There was no exigency, as evidenced by the fact that the House
waited until after the end of the President’s term to even send the articles over
and there was thus no legal or moral reason for the House to act as it did.
Political hatred has no place in the administration of justice anywhere in
America, especially in the Congress of the United States.

6. The Article of Impeachment violates the 45th President’s right to free
speech and thought guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution.

7. The Article is constitutionally flawed in that it charges multiple instances
of allegedly impeachable conduct in a single article. By charging multiple
alleged wrongs in one article, the House of Representatives has made it
impossible to guarantee compliance with the Constitutional mandate in Article
1, Sec. 3, Cl. 6 that permits a conviction only by at least two-thirds of the
members. The House charge fails by interweaving differing allegations rather
than breaking them out into counts of alleged individual instances of
misconduct. Rule XXIII of the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate
When Sitting on Impeachment Trials provides, in pertinent part, that an article
of impeachment shall not be divisible thereon. Because the Article at issue
here alleges multiple wrongs in the single article, it would be impossible to
know if two-thirds of the members agreed on the entire article, or just on parts,
as the basis for vote to convict. The House failed to adhere to strict Senate
rules and, instead, chose to make the Article as broad as possible intentionally
in the hope that some Senators might agree with parts, and other Senators
agree with other parts, but that when these groups of senators were added
together, the House might achieve the appearance of two thirds in agreement,
when those two thirds of members, in reality, did not concur on the same
allegations interwoven into an over-broad article designed for just such a
purpose. Such behavior on the part of the House of Representatives may have
a less nefarious reason, in the alternative, and simply be a by-product of the
haste in which the House unnecessarily acted while depriving the 45th
President of the United States of his American right to due process of law. The
45th President of the United States believes and therefore avers that the defect
in the drafting of the Article requires that Senators be instructed that if two
thirds of them fail to find any portion of the Article lacking in evidence
sufficient for conviction, then the entire Article fails and should be dismissed.

8. The Chief Justice of the United States is not set to preside over the
proceedings contemplated by the Senate, as he would be constitutionally
required to do if the House was seeking to have the president removed from
office under Art. I, Sec 3, Cl. 6 of the United States Constitution. Once the 45th
President’s term expired, and the House chose to allow jurisdiction to lapse on
the Article of Impeachment, the constitutional mandate for the Chief Justice to
preside at all impeachments involving the President evidently disappeared, and
he was replaced by a partisan Senator who will purportedly also act as a juror
while ruling on certain issues. The House actions thus were designed to
ensure that Chief Justice John Roberts would not preside over the proceedings,
which effectively creates the additional appearance of bias with the proceedings
now being supervised by a partisan member of the Senate with a long history of
public remarks adverse to the 45th President. The 45th President believes and
therefore avers that this action of the House of Representatives, additionally,
violated his right to due process of law because the House, effectively,
maneuvered an ally in the Senate into the judge’s chair.

WHEREFORE, Donald John Trump, 45th President of the United States
respectfully requests the Honorable Members of the Senate of the United States
dismiss Article I: Incitement of Insurrection against him as moot, and thus in
violation of the Constitution, because the Senate lacks jurisdiction to remove
from office a man who does not hold office. In the alternative, the 45th
President respectfully requests the Senate acquit him on the merits of the
allegations raised in the article of impeachment.

The post Donald Trump’s Attorneys Give The Former President’s Response to Impeachment Article On Incitement Of Insurrection appeared first on DJHJ Media.