Deleted Tweets From Jerry Dickinson, D-Pa.

Trump’s xenophobic and racist assault is a continuation of a long game strategy to stoke status resentment and fear in this great country. https://t.co/jpJWrjM9OC

Trump’s order of military force against Iran’s Maj. Soleimani was likely an “act of war,” which is unlawful because Congress did not declare war with Iran nor did the President consult and deliberate with Congress before ordering action.

(5) And finally, again, avoiding any language that would invoke the federal criminal code was smart by @RepJerryNadler @RepAdamSchiff @SpeakerPelosi and others. Republicans will want to argue that President Trump’s actions did not constitute a federal crime, such as “bribery.”

(4) The resolution clearly and concisely unpacks the evidence gathered by @RepAdamSchiff and his Intelligence Committee to fully understand the depth and breadth of “abuse of power” by President Trump.

(3) Ok, I’ve had a moment, after a very long (but productive!) law faculty meeting today, to re-read the Articles of Impeachment. It’s clear @RepJerryNadler narrowly focused the charges and drafted the language of the resolution to be easily digestible...

(2) This was likely purposely done to shield the resolution from attack that Trump’s actions did not conform with or satisfy federal crimes. Instead, they narrowly focused on “abuse of power” to fit the text and history of Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution.

Here is the Articles of Impeachment resolution. I haven’t had time to fully digest from a legal standpoint, but my initial observation is that the House omitted language such as “bribery” and “extortion” to describe the President’s actions. https://t.co/xsFho5mrud

(13) On that note, given the extreme hyper-partisanship in Congress right now, it is possible a vote for or against impeachment falls along party lines. Just read how Republicans are responding right now to Pelosi's call for an inquiry. A divided House vote on party lines is...

(1) If House sends Bill of Impeachment to Senate for trial, expect Senate Republicans to play "constitutional hardball." Example #1 Justice Roberts presides over trial and makes procedural rulings, including admissibility of evidence. Senate, however, may reverse Roberts's ruling

(2) by majority vote of Senators. Problem? Republicans could conceivably reverse all rulings on admissible evidence by Roberts that Republicans deem adverse to President Trump.

(3) Example #2 Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, refuses to convene a trial in the Senate after House votes to impeach President Trump. This would be a similar (but not exact) constitutional hardball tactic McConnell used in Merrick Garland nomination.

House Republicans and the White House want a vote to "authorize" an impeachment inquiry. DO NOT be fooled by this political tactic. The House is under no constitutional or legal obligation to vote on a resolution to begin impeachment proceedings.

Republicans continue to defend President Trump in impeachment inquiry, saying his actions with Ukraine did not violate a federal criminal statute. Let me be clear: the Constitution predated the federal criminal code. Founders did not intend for “impeachable offenses” to be...

Old-school Democrat in Pittsburgh faces primary challenge from young black progressive https://t.co/N0wais4vzi

Constitutional Hardball 101: 2002 Senate Dems filibuster Bush judicial nominees. 2016 Senate Repubs refuse hearing on Garland. 2017 Senate Repubs kill filibuster on SCOTUS nominees to elevate Gorsuch. House Democrats, ball is in your court. What's your move on impeachment?

We are fortunate to have a so many courageous women running in Allegheny County. @AlleghenyDems endorsement decisions underscore why we need reject the status quo and forge a new pathway to more inclusive and transformational politics.

@AlleghenyDems As a party, Democrats should be uplifting and empowering historically marginalized candidates, not shutting them out. I'm proud to stand in solidarity with @SummerForPA @jessicalbenham @emily4pa20 in their fight to bring real change and progress to our region.

As a law professor teaching constitutional law, among other subjects, I constantly get asked why is the impeachment of President Trump necessary. Why, the naysayers, ask are Democrats unfairly targeting President Trump and attempting to remove him from office?

(14) bad news. Why? Well, a divided House vote on impeachment (say, all Republicans nay and all Dems yea) gives off the impression of party allegiance and motives, instead of reasoned and evidentiary determinations of wrong doing. As a result, Pelosi, Nadler and co. are going...

As a con law professor, I respect the Constitution. Trump doesn't. Article II gives Trump power to adjourn Congress only if the House and Senate disagree on a date to end the current session. But Congress already agreed to Jan 3, 2021. You're wrong Trump! https://t.co/zWGI0dr2nu

Trump’s xenophobic and racist assault is a continuation of a long game strategy to stoke status resentment and fear in this great country. https://t.co/jpJWrjM9OC

Trump’s order of military force against Iran’s Maj. Soleimani was likely an “act of war,” which is unlawful because Congress did not declare war with Iran nor did the President consult and deliberate with Congress before ordering action.

(5) And finally, again, avoiding any language that would invoke the federal criminal code was smart by @RepJerryNadler @RepAdamSchiff @SpeakerPelosi and others. Republicans will want to argue that President Trump’s actions did not constitute a federal crime, such as “bribery.”

(4) The resolution clearly and concisely unpacks the evidence gathered by @RepAdamSchiff and his Intelligence Committee to fully understand the depth and breadth of “abuse of power” by President Trump.

(3) Ok, I’ve had a moment, after a very long (but productive!) law faculty meeting today, to re-read the Articles of Impeachment. It’s clear @RepJerryNadler narrowly focused the charges and drafted the language of the resolution to be easily digestible...

(2) This was likely purposely done to shield the resolution from attack that Trump’s actions did not conform with or satisfy federal crimes. Instead, they narrowly focused on “abuse of power” to fit the text and history of Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution.

Here is the Articles of Impeachment resolution. I haven’t had time to fully digest from a legal standpoint, but my initial observation is that the House omitted language such as “bribery” and “extortion” to describe the President’s actions. https://t.co/xsFho5mrud

(13) On that note, given the extreme hyper-partisanship in Congress right now, it is possible a vote for or against impeachment falls along party lines. Just read how Republicans are responding right now to Pelosi's call for an inquiry. A divided House vote on party lines is...

(1) If House sends Bill of Impeachment to Senate for trial, expect Senate Republicans to play "constitutional hardball." Example #1 Justice Roberts presides over trial and makes procedural rulings, including admissibility of evidence. Senate, however, may reverse Roberts's ruling

(2) by majority vote of Senators. Problem? Republicans could conceivably reverse all rulings on admissible evidence by Roberts that Republicans deem adverse to President Trump.

(3) Example #2 Senate Republicans, led by McConnell, refuses to convene a trial in the Senate after House votes to impeach President Trump. This would be a similar (but not exact) constitutional hardball tactic McConnell used in Merrick Garland nomination.

House Republicans and the White House want a vote to "authorize" an impeachment inquiry. DO NOT be fooled by this political tactic. The House is under no constitutional or legal obligation to vote on a resolution to begin impeachment proceedings.

Republicans continue to defend President Trump in impeachment inquiry, saying his actions with Ukraine did not violate a federal criminal statute. Let me be clear: the Constitution predated the federal criminal code. Founders did not intend for “impeachable offenses” to be...

Old-school Democrat in Pittsburgh faces primary challenge from young black progressive https://t.co/N0wais4vzi

Constitutional Hardball 101: 2002 Senate Dems filibuster Bush judicial nominees. 2016 Senate Repubs refuse hearing on Garland. 2017 Senate Repubs kill filibuster on SCOTUS nominees to elevate Gorsuch. House Democrats, ball is in your court. What's your move on impeachment?

We are fortunate to have a so many courageous women running in Allegheny County. @AlleghenyDems endorsement decisions underscore why we need reject the status quo and forge a new pathway to more inclusive and transformational politics.

@AlleghenyDems As a party, Democrats should be uplifting and empowering historically marginalized candidates, not shutting them out. I'm proud to stand in solidarity with @SummerForPA @jessicalbenham @emily4pa20 in their fight to bring real change and progress to our region.

As a law professor teaching constitutional law, among other subjects, I constantly get asked why is the impeachment of President Trump necessary. Why, the naysayers, ask are Democrats unfairly targeting President Trump and attempting to remove him from office?

(14) bad news. Why? Well, a divided House vote on impeachment (say, all Republicans nay and all Dems yea) gives off the impression of party allegiance and motives, instead of reasoned and evidentiary determinations of wrong doing. As a result, Pelosi, Nadler and co. are going...

As a con law professor, I respect the Constitution. Trump doesn't. Article II gives Trump power to adjourn Congress only if the House and Senate disagree on a date to end the current session. But Congress already agreed to Jan 3, 2021. You're wrong Trump! https://t.co/zWGI0dr2nu