Podcast Summary
Senators ask questions during Trump impeachment trial: Three moderate Republicans initiated the questioning process, focusing on potential witnesses, and the exchange between Senator Cruz and the House managers added tension, but the trial continued.
The impeachment trial of former President Donald J. Trump entered a new phase, where senators were finally able to ask questions to both the House managers and the president's lawyers. This formal process involved writing down questions on small cards and having them read aloud by the chief justice. Notably, three moderate Republican senators, Markey, Murkowski, and Romney, were the first to submit a question, requesting to hear from potential witnesses like John Bolton. This signified the importance of addressing the concerns of senators who are undecided or leaning towards voting with the Democrats, as they could potentially sway the outcome of the trial. During the proceedings, an exchange between Senator Cruz and the House managers caused some tension, but overall, the questioning process continued.
President's actions for political benefit may not lead to impeachment if believed to serve national interest: Alan Dershowitz's argument at the impeachment trial suggests a president's belief in their reelection being in the public interest could justify actions, even involving quid pro quos, that could otherwise lead to impeachment.
Learning from the impeachment trial is that according to Alan Dershowitz, a president's actions for their own political benefit, even if it involves a quid pro quo, cannot lead to impeachment if they believe it serves the national interest. This argument extends beyond the use of quid pro quos in foreign policy and suggests that a president's belief in their reelection being in the public interest makes such actions acceptable. This perspective could potentially set a controversial precedent in the realm of presidential conduct and accountability.
Expanding definition of impeachable offenses: The latest defense in the impeachment trial argues that a president's desire to be re-elected and belief in their abilities cannot be considered corrupt motives for actions that benefit their personal interests and the national interest simultaneously.
Learning from the impeachment trial is that the definition of an impeachable offense for a president may be expanding, according to the arguments presented by the president's legal team. The latest defense, presented by Alan Dershowitz, suggests that a president's desire to be re-elected and belief in their abilities cannot be considered corrupt motives for actions that may benefit their personal interests and the national interest simultaneously. This marks a significant shift from earlier defenses, which denied any inappropriateness or quid pro quo in the president's actions. The implications of this argument for the moderate Republican senators, who have been crucial in determining the outcome of the trial, remain to be seen. The evolving nature of the defense underscores the complexity of the impeachment process and the importance of understanding the nuances of each argument presented.
New Legal Theory in Trump Impeachment Trial Could Impact Outcome: Senators Collins and Murkowski consider not calling witnesses due to Dershowitz's legal theory, which could absolve Trump of wrongdoing if he believed actions were in the country's best interest, potentially changing trial's outcome.
During the impeachment trial, senators like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are considering whether to vote against calling witnesses and quickly acquitting President Trump based on the justifications presented by his defense team. One of these justifications, proposed by Alan Dershowitz, is a legal theory that could potentially absolve the president of any wrongdoing if he believed his actions were in the best interest of the country. If this underlying accusation – that President Trump withheld foreign aid for his own political gain – is not impeachable, then why bother hearing from witnesses or subpoenaing documents that could prove it? Tomorrow, senators will continue questioning for another 8 hours. This new legal theory, if adopted, could significantly impact the outcome of the trial and relieve the senators of the need to consider additional evidence.
