Two legal briefs were submitted over the weekend in connection with President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial: one from Democratic House impeachment managers, the other from the president’s legal team. Legal experts Benjamin Wittes and Quinta Jurecic, in an article for The Atlantic, assert that there is an enormous difference between the two: while the House brief is professionally organized, the one from Team Trump is a rambling mess that reads like “the scream of a wounded animal.”
“The House managers’ brief is an organized legal document,” Wittes and Jurecic explain. “It starts with the law, the nature and purposes of Congress’ impeachment power, then walks through the evidence regarding the first article of impeachment, which alleges abuse of power, and seeks to show how the evidence establishes the House’s claim that President Trump is guilty of this offense. It then proceeds to argue that the offense requires his removal from office.”
Wittes and Jurecic go on to explain why the document from Trump’s allies, unlike the House brief, is an embarrassment.
“The White House’s ‘Answer of President Donald J. Trump’ to the articles of impeachment, filed by the president’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow and the White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, does not read like a traditional legal argument at all,” Wittes and Jurecic assert. “It begins with a series of rhetorical flourishes — all of them, to one degree or another, false. The articles of impeachment are ‘a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president,’ the president’s lawyers write — as though the impeachment power were not a constitutional reality every bit as enshrined in the founding document as the quadrennial election of the president.”
Wittes and Jurecic add that according to the Team Trump brief, “The articles are ‘a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election,’ and are ‘constitutionally invalid on their face,’ they write, as though the president’s right to extort foreign leaders for political services were so beyond reasonable question, it is outrageous that anyone might object to it.”
According to Wittes and Jurecic, the Trumpian brief “reads like one of the president’s speeches at his campaign rallies. The language is a little more lawyerly, if only a little. In Sekulow and Cipollone’s hands, Trump’s cries of ‘witch hunt!’ have turned into ‘lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness.’ His allegations that Democrats are a ‘disgrace’ have turned into ‘an affront to the Constitution.’ And Trump’s insistence that there’s a plot to destroy his presidency has become a ‘highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the president (that) began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.’ But the message is unchanged. It’s not a legal argument. It’s a howl of rage.”
Woman allegedly involved in Central Park scandal placed on leave from job: ‘We do not condone racism’
Video circulated on social media on Memorial Day of a woman in Central Park claiming she was calling 911 to falsely claim an "African-American man" was threatening her life.
It reportedly started after he filmed her walking her dog without a leash.
Internet sleuths worked to identify the woman. During the day on Monday, rumors of her identity spread online.
Scientists fight online coronavirus misinformation war
With cat photos and sometimes scathing irony, Mathieu Rebeaud, a Swiss-based researcher in biochemistry, has nearly tripled his Twitter following since the coronavirus pandemic began.
With 14,000 followers, he posts almost daily, giving explanations on the latest scientific research and, in particular, aims to fight misinformation that spreads as fast as the virus itself.
He is among a growing number of doctors, academics and institutions who in recent weeks have adapted and amplified their scientific messaging in hopes of countering what has been termed an infodemic -- a deluge of information, including widespread false claims, which experts say can pose a serious threat to public health.
Ted Cruz doesn’t want people shamed with body bags for going to beach: ‘Please stop the hate’
In early May, Florida attorney Daniel Uhlfelder made news by dressing up as the Grim Reaper in an attempt to scare people from crowding beaches during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Days later, he escalated by laying out body bags on the steps of the Florida capitol building in Tallahassee.
He escalated further on Saturday by announcing he would be handing out body bags to Florida beachgoers and started a fundraiser with the funds going to two progressive Political Action Committees.
The effort caught the eye of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).