I don’t have access to his impeachment brief, but based on news accounts, here is at least a partial list of his defenses, and my responses:
1. “HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS” REQUIRES A VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE: Based on the debates at the Constitutional Convention, approved allegations in previous impeachments, and common sense, this simply isn’t true. Plenty of actions that would precede a presidential coup would not be violations of criminal statutes; would anyone seriously contend that, say, ordering the AG to prosecute political opponents for frivolous reasons or replacing military leaders with friendly political hacks wouldn’t be grounds for impeachment? In any event, the GAO has concluded that the withholding of funds was, in fact, a violation of law.
2. THE HOUSE PROCESS WAS RIGGED AND INCOMPLETE: The House process was consistent with its role as a grand jury, which is consistent with prevailing legal practices and the literal requirements of the Constitution. If you have a problem with the record created by the House, call witnesses and have a real trial before the Senate.
3. THE PRESIDENT WAS ENTITLED TO WITHHOLD THE FUNDS; HIS INTENT DOESN’T MATTER: Of course it matters. It matters in virtually every criminal statute. Withholding funds for legitimate public purposes is not the same as trying to coerce a foreign government to intervene in your favor in an election.
4. THE PRESIDENT WAS ENTITLED TO PROHIBIT THE DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGED INFORMATION, SO ARTICLE II MUST FAIL: Trump’s blanket direction to refuse to cooperate with the impeachment process went way beyond any legitimate claim of privilege, because the information requested was not a confidential communication involving him.
5. THE FUNDS WERE ULTIMATELY RELEASED, SO NO HARM, NO FOUL: Only because his scheme to coerce Ukraine for his own benefit became public knowledge. Being an inept extortionist isn’t grounds for acquittal.
6. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE DIRECTLY TYING TRUMP TO THE WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS OR THE PRESSURE CAMPAIGN: The record overwhelmingly says otherwise. Again, if the issue is the lack of testimony from Giuliani, Bolton, Mulvaney, or anyone else who was in direct contact with Trump, call them as witnesses and see what happens.
7. THE PRESIDENT WAS GENUINELY CONCERNED ABOUT CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE: Sure. That’s why he used his personal attorney instead of regular government channels to pursue the matter, only showed an interest in the Bidens and the 2016 election, and indicated that the point was to announce an investigation, not to actually do one.