STREAMING NOW: Watch Now

Trump's team held back the big guns

President Donald Trump's legal team opened its defense Saturday by focusing mainly on pushing back against the two articles of impeachment levied against him: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Posted: Jan 25, 2020 6:14 PM
Updated: Jan 25, 2020 6:31 PM

Editor's note: Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor, is a CNN legal analyst and a Rutgers University scholar. The opinions expressed in this commentary belong to the author. View more opinions at CNN.

(CNN) -- President Donald Trump's legal team opened its defense Saturday by focusing -- mainly -- on pushing back against the two articles of impeachment levied against him: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who led the team, maintained a calm, measured demeanor -- in marked contrast to the accusatory, aggrieved tone he and his colleagues adopted during last week's highly charged procedural debate.

Don't be lulled by the legalistic veneer offered by Trump's team on Saturday. They're already spinning deception, and likely setting the table for more inflammatory attacks to come. The arguments Trump's lawyers advanced Saturday largely fall flat, running the gamut from marginally convincing (at best) to transparently flimsy, outright misleading and disingenuous.

Here's a rundown of the primary arguments we heard from the Trump legal team on day one of its three-day opening presentation.

Argument 1. The Ukrainians didn't know about the freeze on aid and felt 'no pressure' from Trump.
On the first point, there is compelling evidence that the Ukrainians knew of the freeze on nearly $400 million in foreign aid as early as late July 2019.

As for the second point, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated publicly he felt "no pressure." But of course he said that -- he had to. What was he going to do? Publicly announce he feared Trump, potentially alienating the leader of the world's most powerful country as Ukraine struggles to establish democracy and fend off Russia?

I've prosecuted more extortion cases than I can remember and, in my experience, victims almost never say they felt pressure -- precisely because they fear the consequences of standing up to the extorter.

Zelensky later hinted at this, stating, "But you have to understand. We're at war. If you're our strategic partner, then you can't go blocking anything for us." Indeed, the withheld aid comprised nearly 10% of Ukraine's entire military budget, while that nation was at war with a neighboring power, Russia. It is misleading and disingenuous of Trump's attorneys to cling to this patently ridiculous defense.

Argument 2. Trump is an intrepid, dedicated, international corruption-buster.
This one relies on sleight of hand. As President, the argument goes, Trump had the right to take steps to prevent corruption in Ukraine, a recipient of foreign aid. Fine -- he would have been within his right to fight corruption. But that's simply not what happened.

In fact, Trump pushed Zelensky for two, and only two, investigations -- one on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, and another into a discredited theory that Ukraine, not Russia interfered in the 2016 election. And the evidence makes clear that Trump seemed to care less about the actual investigations than the public announcement of investigations -- which would serve his own political goals, and not actually combat corruption.

Tellingly, Trump has a dismal record on fighting corruption, and has repeatedly tried to cut spending on anti-corruption programs in Ukraine and other countries. When asked in October 2019 to name any corruption case he had ever pushed for beyond those involving his political opponents, Trump responded: "We'd have to look."

Over three months later, he's still looking.

Argument 3. Evidence of the corrupt exchange (or 'quid pro quo') was largely speculative and based on presumption.
This argument has some merit. Indeed, much of the evidence introduced in the House was based on the presumptions -- usually reasonable and well-founded and based on experience, but presumptions nonetheless -- from witnesses including former US Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, Alexander Vindman, a top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, and US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland.

But, first, that argument ignores firsthand evidence including, most importantly, the damning rough transcript of the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky in which Trump stated, "I would like you to do us a favor though..."

Second, the "no direct evidence" claim underscores the need to hear from witnesses who would have firsthand knowledge of Trump's intent, including former national security adviser John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, who heads the Office of Management and Budget and serves as Trump's chief of staff.

Trump's defense team made other arguments, too. Here's the lightning round:

--They're trying to overturn the election: No, the Constitution provides for both elections and impeachment to remove corrupt officials from office

--Schiff ran an unfair, secret process: No, the process afforded Trump ample due process

--Trump was unfairly investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller and was cleared: To the extent Mueller is even relevant at all here, he found that the Trump campaign welcomed, encouraged and "expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts"

--What about the whistleblower? Irrelevant, and in any event, the whistleblower described Trump's July 25 call with Zelensky with remarkable accuracy.

Notably absent from Saturday's presentation were some of the more inflammatory, dramatic arguments that seem likely to spark the most controversy. We haven't seen appearances from constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz or former independent counsel Ken Starr yet.

No laughable, disproven arguments that impeachment must be based on a statutory crime (though that likely will come when Dershowitz takes the podium) have been introduced so far. There haven't been any assaults on the Bidens (for now). Those fireworks may be coming on Monday and Tuesday, but for now the defense has kept its powder dry. For now.

California Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 3543340

Reported Deaths: 49888
CountyCasesDeaths
Los Angeles118349620069
Riverside2885413695
San Bernardino2850812651
Orange2598573848
San Diego2578053218
Santa Clara1095061747
Kern102137786
Fresno945841397
Sacramento926211446
Alameda797961200
Ventura76947805
San Joaquin662901042
Contra Costa61865653
Stanislaus55487937
Tulare47680731
Monterey42016323
San Mateo38552502
San Francisco33947394
Santa Barbara31630398
Solano29882161
Merced28749393
Sonoma27845295
Imperial26840587
Kings21916218
Placer19661231
San Luis Obispo19500221
Madera15325201
Santa Cruz14516174
Marin13083197
Yolo12689185
Shasta10950172
Butte10855158
El Dorado906995
Napa895068
Sutter881896
San Benito572358
Yuba571936
Lassen559419
Tehama506852
Tuolumne392959
Nevada390974
Mendocino379043
Amador343840
Humboldt313633
Lake310740
Glenn220723
Colusa212513
Calaveras190225
Siskiyou172013
Inyo127835
Mono12084
Del Norte9765
Plumas6516
Modoc4504
Mariposa3937
Trinity3525
Sierra990
Alpine800
Unassigned00
Chico
Clear
55° wxIcon
Hi: 64° Lo: 39°
Feels Like: 55°
Oroville
Clear
56° wxIcon
Hi: 65° Lo: 49°
Feels Like: 56°
Chico
Clear
55° wxIcon
Hi: 57° Lo: 44°
Feels Like: 55°
Red Bluff
Clear
58° wxIcon
Hi: 38° Lo: 16°
Feels Like: 58°
Red Bluff
Clear
58° wxIcon
Hi: 59° Lo: 46°
Feels Like: 58°
Chico
Clear
55° wxIcon
Hi: 64° Lo: 48°
Feels Like: 55°
Strong wind continues to blow through the valley this afternoon, and will last through the evening. Thursday will still be a fairly breezy day, but the wind won't be as strong and our temperatures will be warmer. More wind is coming Friday and Saturday.
KHSL Severe
KHSL Radar
KHSL Temperatures

Community Events