Trump's brief cites my 2001 article on late impeachment a lot: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-defense-impeachment-trial/3a17fbb266bf3bf5/full.pdf

The article favored late impeachability, but it set out all the evidence I found on both sides--lots for them to use.

But in several places, they misrepresent what I wrote quite badly.

1/4

One odd thing they do is cite me citing other sources instead of just citing those sources (e.g., p.17 & n.47). Another more problematic thing: they suggest that I was endorsing an argument when what I actually did was note that argument--and reject it (e.g., p.21 n.57).

2/4

There are multiple examples of such flat-out misrepresentations. The worst is page 30. They write, "When a President is no longer in office, the objective of an impeachment ceases."79

N.79 starts: "Kalt at 66."

What I actually wrote on 66 (discussion continuing onto 67):

3/4

Again, my article presented all of the evidence I found on both sides, so there was lots for them to use fairly. They didn't have to be disingenuous and misleading like this.

The House managers' brief cited my article a lot too and, to their credit, did so honestly.

4/4