0:00/2:49
TRANSCRIPT
Impeachment Trial Highlights: Surprising Arguments in Questioning Phase
Senators questioned the House impeachment managers and President Trump’s legal team. Trump’s lawyers argued that anything a president did to win re-election could be “in the public interest.”
- “What you see is a president who identifies the state as being himself.” “Senator Lee asks of counsel for the president: ‘Isn’t it the president’s place, certainly more than the place of career civil servants, to conduct foreign policy?’” “If staffers disagree with him, that does not mean that the president is doing something wrong.” “There is in fact overwhelming evidence that the president withheld the military aid directly to get a personal political benefit to help his individual political campaign.” “And if you say you can’t hold a president accountable in an election year, where they’re trying to cheat in that election, then you are giving them carte blanche. So all quid pros are not the same. Some are legitimate and some are corrupt. And you don’t need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which.” “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest, 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 impeachment.” “The president cannot defy the agencies within the executive branch that are subordinate to him. It is only they who can defy the president’s determinations of policy. And the House managers are held to a standard of proving proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of what would be a cognizable impeachable offense. Here, they have failed in their burden of proof.” “Just as the president doesn’t trust what these witness have to say, the president’s lawyers don’t want to rely on what the chief justice’s rulings might be. I’m not for a moment suggesting they don’t think the chief justice is fair — quite the contrary: They’re afraid he’ll be fair. They’re afraid he’ll make a fair ruling. That should tell you something about the weakness of their position.” “After 31 or 32 times you said you proved every aspect of your case — that’s what you said, well you didn’t, you said he just said he did — well then I don’t think we need any witnesses. Thank you.” “Thank you, counsel.”