While the prosecution and defense fight over whether to call further witnesses, senators must not forget the core question at issue in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump: Is it acceptable for a president to wield his power to direct foreign policy to scare up a corruption investigation against a domestic opponent, using as leverage congressionally authorized military aid to an ally?
While the prosecution and defense fight over whether to call further witnesses, senators must not forget the core question at issue in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump: Is it acceptable for a president to wield his power to direct foreign policy to scare up a corruption investigation against a domestic opponent, using as leverage congressionally authorized military aid to an ally?
Answering “yes” would give Trump and his successors wide latitude, by hook or by crook, to invite other governments to attack political foes.
Last week, Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz argued, at odds with the founders’ clear statements to the contrary, that only actual crimes (not “abuse of power”) should be considered impeachable. Wednesday, he went further: Because all politicians thinks their reelection is “in the public interest,” a president pursuing a foreign policy — even one specifically crafted to injure a political opponent — must be given a wide berth.
In Dershowitz’s words: “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
Under that logic, a president couldn’t be impeached if, say, he aided and abetted a foreign government (Britain’s MI5? Israel’s Mossad? Russia’s GRU?) spying on a political foe visiting that country.
The slope isn’t slippery, it’s vertical. Every senator voting to block more witnesses in a rush to acquit Trump is endorsing this argument — and inviting future presidents to do the same and worse.
— New York Daily News
