It's more nuanced than that. This question is implying that the act itself, investigating Biden/Burisma, is not illegal unless the intent is corrupt. Robbing a bank is an illegal act regardless of intent. An example is a pardon. It is not illegal for Trump to issue a pardon. It may be impeachable if he issues a pardon in order to protect himself. (may be) Or how about a drone strike? It's not illegal for Trump to order a drone strike on an American citizen overseas (Obama doctrine) but would certainly seem to be impeachable if he did it to a political enemy.
While I suspect the question is being asked to give the suggestion that these so-called independent-thinking republicans are somewhat interested in right versus wrong... in honesty seem rather pointless at this late stage in the white washing, er, trial...
I haven't given such a longwinded "no" to a question, since I was 6yrs old and the only answer I could think of was the dog did it, but we didn't own a dog.
I didn't understand this statement when it was made earlier, but just read the following piece that explains what was actually said. https://reason.com/2020/01/29/dersh...ed-the-national-interest-will-suffer-greatly/ excerpt: "Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," said Alan Dershowitz. "And mostly, you're right, your election is in the public interest. And 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 an impeachment." The retired Harvard lawyer drew a parallel to former President Abraham Lincoln, who, during the Civil War, relieved troops from the battlefield so they could go to Indiana and vote for the Republican party. "He believed that his own election was essential to victory in the Civil War. Every president believes that," Dershowitz said, arguing that Trump's push to have his political foes investigated by a foreign country was copacetic because it pertained to the 2020 race. "That's why it's so dangerous to try to psychoanalyze a president, to try to get into the intricacies of the human mind," Dershowitz continued, arguing that any efforts by Trump to bolster his likelihood of winning in 2020 were motivated by a desire to protect the U.S. "If you want to balance what's in the public interest with what's in your party's electoral interests, your own electoral interests, it's impossible to discern." Dershowitz describes Trump's train of thought as follows: "'I want to be elected, I think I'm a great president, I think I'm the greatest president there ever was, and if I'm not elected the national interest will suffer greatly.'"
I think that argument does not hold water because trump only wanted the investigation announced by Ukraine. The announcement and not the investigation is what he wanted from Zelensky
Killing all his political opponents is also an act that greatly increases.. wait, no, would ensure his re-election. Since Trump believes he is acting for the best interest of the US, that's not an impeachable offense.
This is an incredibly ridiculous argument. What follows from this reasoning is that as long as a president thinks that what he is doing will help him get re-elected, and thinks that him getting re-elected is in the national interest, then he can literally do anything. That is obviously not true. Also in that snippet, Dershowitz cautions against psychoanalysis of the president, then proceeds to psychoanalyze him by taking us through his train of thought. It is embarrassing that any rational human would come up with or support this argument.
Since we are in this new world where telling lies is acceptable, even in a senate trial with the chief justice presiding... Never mind the video of mulvaney saying it...
I think it is a dangerous precedent to set, it's basically that of a dictator or ruler, that as long as you think what you are doing is best for the country, then it cannot be impeachable. It would follow then that Trump can do anything he wants, as long as he thinks it is in the best interest of the country and it becomes a really slippery slow from there. Comparing it to something Lincoln did is dishonest for me. Lincoln lived in extraordinary times, when there was a civil war and people were being held as slaves and basically the identity of this country was still being built.
Agreed. Seems to be an incomparable analogy there by Trump's lawyer. 1. Impeachment, in major part, is about popular opinion. I doubt you can talk about popular opinions during a civil war. You stick with your tribe if you care to live. 2. They didn't have mail in ballots back in those days. (I assume) I'd really like to hear how Trump supporters honestly feel about this. Are they ok with president openly putting his personal interests above equitable moral standards (not to mention national security interests). Are they ok with American political body and society being publicly shown to be a banana republic where laws don't seem to apply to the rich and the powerful? And witnesses claiming direct knowledge are not interviewed for a case where president's fate hangs in balance. I'll have to ask my Trump supporting father, but I don't think he cares.
I think they are okay with it, at least a good portion of them are. Enough of them don't care and so the GOP senators won't budge. Won't see witnesses, continue the cover up, set an entirely new precedent for impeachment that they will in the future dearly regret. There really is nothing stopping the next president from abusing his power now, or the one after, and the one after. Trump has written the blueprint on how to get it done. It is at a point right now that any right wing GOP figure (Like Bolton) that dares try to go against Trump are being openly threatened.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...elieve-they-have-the-votes-to-block-witnesses GOP senators believe they have the votes to block witnesses It was clear to Senate Republicans on Wednesday after a morning meeting between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that the question of having additional witnesses is settled, and the Senate will vote Friday to wrap up the impeachment trial of President Trump. There was no discussion of witnesses at a Senate GOP lunch meeting Wednesday, which was held a couple hours after McConnell and Murkowski met for about 20 to 30 minutes. That was seen as a sign by several senators that Democrats will fail to convince four Republicans to join them in calling for witnesses. Without a vote to hear from witnesses, the trial could end as soon as Friday. (more at link)
More poll results (latest Ipsos/Reuters): 57% All registered voters believe trump is guilty of abuse of power (also 57% of Independent voters) 55% All registered voters believe trump is guilty of obstruction of justice (52% of Independent voters) 55% responded "I’m increasingly convinced that Trump has done something wrong" (53% of Independent voters) 49% "I'm increasingly convinced that Trump has done something impeachable,and should be removed from office" (43% of Independent voters) https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default..._political_impeachment_tracker_01_29_2020.pdf
I believe this would be a bad political mistake for Republicans. I suppose they can say November is a long time away.
