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:
counselBruce L.Castor, Jr., and David Schoen hereby responds to the Article
of Impeachmentlodged against him by the United States House of
Representatives by breaking the allegations out into 8 Averments and,
1. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ‘shall have
the sole Power of Impeachment’and that the President ‘shallbe removed from
Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of,Treason, Bribery,or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.’”
Answer 1:
Admittedinpart,denied in part as notrelevant to any matterproperly
before the Senate. Itis admitted that the Constitutionalprovision at
Averment 1 is accurately reproduced. Itis denied that the quoted provision
currently applies to the 45th Presidentof the UnitedStates since he is no longer
“President.” The constitutional provisionrequires that a person actually hold
office to be impeached. Since the 45th Presidentis no longer “President,” the
clause ‘shallbe removed from Office on Impeachment for…’ is impossible for
The 45th Presidentof the UnitedStates,Donald John Trump,through his
INTHE SENATE
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respectfully Represents:
1 

the Senate to accomplish,and thus the current proceeding before the Senate is
void ab initio as a legalnullity that runs patently contrary to the plainlanguage
of the Constitution.Article I,Section3 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
removalfrom office by the Senate of the Presidentis 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 Constitutionprohibits
any person who has ‘engaged ininsurrectionor rebellionagainst’ the United
States from ‘hold[ing] any office…under the United States’.
Answer 2:
Admittedinpart,denied in part,and denied as notrelevant to any matter
properly before the Senate. Itis admitted that phrases from Section 3 of the
14th Amendment to the Constitution are correctly replicated inAverment 2. It
is denied that the 45th President engaged in insurrectionor rebellion against
the United States. The 45th Presidentbelieves 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 Billof
Attainder in violation of Art. I,Sec. 9. Cl. 3 of the UnitedStates Constitution.
2 

The 45th Presidentasks the Senate to dismiss Averment 2 relating to the 14th
Amendment as moot.
3. Inhis conduct while Presidentof the UnitedStates – 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
Constitutionof the UnitedStates,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. Itis
denied that the 45th Presidentof the UnitedStates ever engaged in a violation
of his oath of office. To the contrary, at alltimes, Donald J. Trump fully and
faithfully executed his duties as President of the United States, and at alltimes
acted to the best of his ability to preserve,protect and defend the Constitution
of the UnitedStates, 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 Impeachmentfor…’ referenced at Averment 1
above is impossible,and the current proceeding before the Senate is void ab
initio as a legalnullity 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.
3 

4. Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by
inciting violence against the Governmentof the UnitedStates, in that:
Constitutionof the UnitedStates,the Vice Presidentof the UnitedStates, the
House of Representatives,and the Senate met at the UnitedStates Capitol for a
joint session of Congress to count the votes of the ElectoralCollege. Inthe
months preceding the Joint Session,PresidentTrump repeatedly issued false
statements asserting that the Presidentialelectionresults were the product of
widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or
certified by State or Federal officials.
Answer 4:
Admittedinpart,denied in part,and denied as irrelevantto any matter
properly before the Senate. Itis admitted that on January 6,2021a joint
session of Congress met with the Vice President,the House and the Senate, to
count the votes of the ElectoralCollege. Itis admitted that after the November
election, the 45th Presidentexercised his FirstAmendmentright under the
Constitutionto express his belief that the electionresults 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.
Insufficientevidence 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
On January 6,2021, pursuantto the 12th Amendment to the
4 

Amendment. Indeed,he believes, and therefore avers, that the United States is
unique onEarth 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 incurrent American culture,itwould be no
protection at all. Since the 45th Presidentis no longer “President,” the
Constitutional clause at Averment 1 above ‘shall be removed from Office on
Impeachmentfor…’ 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
renderingAverment 4 irrelevantto any matter properly before the Senate.
5. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced,PresidentTrump,
addressed a crowd at the Capitol ellipse inWashingtonDC. There,he re￾iterated false claims that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.”
Answer 5:
Admittedinpart,denied in part. Itis admitted that PresidentTrump
addressed a crowd at the Capitol ellipse on January 6, 2021as 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 inerror, the
45th President denies this allegation.
5 

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 hellyou’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 Presidentialelection, unlawfully breached
and vandalized the Capitol,injured and killed law enforcementpersonnel,
menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President,and Congressional
personnel,and engaged inother violent, deadly,destructive, and seditious act.
Answer 6:
AdmittedinPart,denied in part. Itis 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 impeachmentis thus denied in the context in
which itwas used. Itis denied that PresidentTrump incited the crowd to
engage in destructive behavior.Itis denied that the phrase “if you don’t fight
like hellyou’re not going to have a country anymore” had anything to do with
the actionat the Capitolas itwas clearly about the need to fight for election
security in general,as evidenced by the recording of the speech. Itis denied
that President Trump intended to interfere with the counting of Electoral votes.
As is customary, Members of Congress challenged electoralvote submissions
by state under a process written intoCongressionalrules allowing for the
6 

respective Houses of Congress to debate whether a state’s submitted electoral
votes should be counted. In2017,Democratic Members of Congress
repeatedly challenged the electoral votes submitted from states where President
Trump prevailed. In2021,RepublicanMembers of Congress challenged the
electoralvotes 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 ElectoralCollege
votes were properly submitted,and any challenges thereto properly addressed
under Congressionalrules. Congress’duty,therefore,was not just to certify
the presidentialelection. Its duty was to first determine whether certification of
the presidentialelection vote was warranted and permissible under its rules.
7. “President Trump’s conduct on January 6,2021, followed his prior
efforts to subvert the certificationof 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 GeorgiaPresidential
election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.
Answer 7:
Admittedinpart. Deniedinpart. Deniedas irrelevant to any matter
properly before the Senate. Itis admitted that PresidentTrump spoke on the
telephone with Secretary Raffensperger and multiple other parties, including
several attorneys for both parties, on January 2, 2021. Secretary Raffensperger
7 

or someone at his directionsurreptitiously recorded the call and subsequently
made it public.The recording accurately reflects the content of the
conversation. Itis denied President Trump made any effort to subvert the
certification of the results of the 2020 Presidentialelection. Itis denied that the
word “find” was inappropriate in context, as PresidentTrump was expressing
his opinionthat 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.”
Itis denied that President Trump threatened Secretary Raffensperger.Itis
denied that PresidentTrump 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, PresidentTrump gravely endangered the security of the
UnitedStates and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity
of the democratic system, interfered with the peacefultransition of power,and
imperiled a coequalbranch Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as
President,to the manifest injury of the people of the UnitedStates.
Answer 8:
Denied, and deniedas irrelevant to any matterproperly before the Senate.
Itis denied that President Trump ever endangered the security of the United
States and its institutions of Government. Itis denied he threatened the
8 

integrity of the democratic system, interferedwith the peaceful transition of
power, and imperiled a coequalbranch Government. Itis denied he betrayed
his trust as President,to the manifestinjury of the people of the UnitedStates.
Rather,the 45th President of the United States performed admirably in his role
as president,at alltimes doing what he thought was inthe best interests of the
American people. The 45th Presidentbelieves and therefore avers that in the
UnitedStates, the people choose their President,and that he was properly
chosen in 2016 and sworn intooffice in 2017,serving his term to the best of
his ability in comportmentwith his oath of office. Since the 45th President is
no longer “President,” the Constitutionalclause at Averment 1 above ‘shallbe
removed from Office on Impeachmentfor…’ 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 legalnullity 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 inArticle I that are not specifically addressed
above,said allegations are deniedand strict proof at time of hearing is
demanded.
To: The Honorable,the Members of the Unites States Senate:
counselBruce L.Castor, Jr., and David Schoenhereby avers that the Article of
Impeachmentlodged against him by the UnitedStates House of
The 45th Presidentof the UnitedStates,Donald John Trump,through his
Legal Defenses
9 

Representatives is facially and substantively flawed, and otherwise
unconstitutional,and must be dismissed with prejudice. Insupport thereof,
the 45th President,
1. The Senate of the UnitedStates lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President
because he holds no public office from which he can be removed,and the
Constitutionlimits the authority of the Senate in cases of impeachmentto
removalfrom office as the prerequisite active remedy allowed the Senate under
our Constitution.
2. The Senate of the UnitedStates lacks jurisdiction over the 45th President
because he holds no public office from which he can be removed rendering the
Article of Impeachmentmoot and a non-justiciable question.
3. Should the Senate act on the Article of Impeachmentinitiated in the
House of Representatives,it will have passed a Bill of Attainder in violation of
Article 1,Sec. 9. Cl. 3 of the UnitedStates Constitution.
4. The Article of Impeachmentmisconstrues protected speech and fails to
meet the constitutionalstandard for any impeachable offense.
5. The House of Representativesdeprived the 45th Presidentof due process
of law in rushing to issue the Article of Impeachmentby 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
Respectfully Represents:
10 

considerationof evidence in support of the Article, as well as the failure to
conduct any full and fair discussionby 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, indepriving 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 infavor 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 allAmerican citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The actions by
the House make clear that in their opinion the 45th Presidentdoes not enjoy
the protections of liberty upon which this great Nationwas founded,where free
speech, and indeed, free political speech form the backbone of all American
liberties. None of the traditionalreasons 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
inzero committee or other investigation,and fail to grant the accused his
“opportunity to be heard” in person or through counsel – allbasic 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 moralreasonfor the House to act as itdid.
Politicalhatred has no place in the administrationof justice anywhere in
America,especially inthe Congress of the United States.
11 

6. The Article of Impeachmentviolates the 45th President’s right to free
speech and thought guaranteed under the FirstAmendment to the United
States Constitution.
7. The Article is constitutionally flawed in that itcharges multiple instances
of allegedly impeachable conduct in a single article. By charging multiple
alleged wrongs in one article, the House of Representativeshas made it
impossible to guarantee compliance with the Constitutionalmandate inArticle
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 intocounts of alleged individualinstances of
misconduct. Rule XXIII of the Rules of Procedure andPractice in the Senate
When Sitting on ImpeachmentTrials provides, in pertinent part, that an article
of impeachmentshallnot be divisible thereon. Because the Article at issue
here alleges multiple wrongs inthe single article, itwould 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
inthe 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 inagreement,
when those two thirds of members,in reality,did not concur on the same
allegations interwoven intoan over-broad article designed for just such a
12 

purpose. Such behavior on the part of the House of Representativesmay have
a less nefarious reason, in the alternative,and simply be a by-productof 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
inthe 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 UnitedStates 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 presidentremoved from
office under Art. I,Sec 3, Cl. 6 of the UnitedStates Constitution. Once the 45th
President’s term expired, and the House chose to allow jurisdiction to lapse on
the Article of Impeachment,the constitutionalmandate for the Chief Justice to
preside at all impeachments involving the Presidentevidently disappeared,and
he was replaced by a partisanSenator 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 Presidentbelieves and
therefore avers that this action of the House of Representatives,additionally,
13 

violated his right to due process of law because the House,effectively,
maneuvered an ally inthe Senate intothe judge’s chair.
respectfully requests the Honorable Members of the Senate of the United States
dismiss Article I:Incitementof Insurrectionagainst 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. Inthe alternative,the 45th
President respectfully requests the Senate acquit him on the merits of the
allegations raised in the article of impeachment.
Date: February 2, 2021
WHEREFORE,Donald John Trump,45th Presidentof the UnitedStates
RespectfullySubmitted,
__________________________
Bruce L. Castor, Jr.
David Schoen
Counsel to the 45th
President of the United States
14 