Dershowitz acknowledges flip-flop on 1998 comments in Clinton impeachment
Dershowitz acknowledged his changing position on whether a president can be impeached for "criminal-like conduct."
Dershowitz argued in 1998 during the Clinton impeachment that a president doesn't have to commit a "technical crime," such as abuse of power, in order for it rise to an impeachable offense. However, he has said in Trump's defense that the framers intended for impeachable conduct to mean "criminal-like conduct."
He said in 1998: "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime."
However, on Monday he said that he had not done his research and was unaware of past scholarly arguments.
"During the Clinton impeachment, I stated in an interview that I did not think that a technical crime was required, but that I did think that abusing trust could be considered — I said that," he said. "At that time, I had not done the extensive research on that issue because it was irrelevant to the Clinton case, and I was not fully aware of the compelling counterarguments. So I simply accepted the academic consensus on an issue that was not on the front burner at the time."
Dershowitz argues that Congress is substituting 'its own judgment' for the Constitution
Dershowitz argued that the articles of impeachment are not "constitutionally authorized criteria for impeachment."
Dershowitz, who has been a frequent defender of the president on cable news, claimed that the framers of the Constitution would not have considered the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress impeachable because they are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, as treason and bribery are.
"For Congress to ignore the specific words of the Constitution itself and substitute its own judgment would be for Congress to do what it is accusing the president of doing," he said.
He said that he argued in favor of the rights of presidents in past impeachments, such as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and said he would have argued in favor of the rights of Hillary Clinton if she were president and impeached by a Republican Congress.
"I stand against the application and misapplication of the constitutional criteria in every case and against any president without regard to whether I support his or her policies," he said.
As Trump's other defense lawyers have argued that the president had a right to look into corruption into Ukraine and did not tie investigations into the Bidens to withholding military aid, Dershowitz is arguing that the charges themselves are not legitimate because they are not what the founders thought of as impeachable offenses.
ANALYSIS: Bolton pits Trump against Senate GOP's majority
It's going to hurt Senate Republicans more than they thought it would to give President Donald Trump the cover he wants in his impeachment trial.
Former national security adviser John Bolton's allegation that Trump linked U.S. aid for Ukraine to political investigations — the same charge at the heart of the impeachment trial — puts Republican senators in tight re-election fights, the GOP leaders who hope to keep their majority and assorted moderates all in the position of recalculating how much impeachment-related risk they are willing to accept, and how much should be shouldered by the president.
"Bolton's thumb has tilted the scale," said Dan Eberhart, a major GOP fundraiser for Senate candidates and a Trump supporter. "Protecting the president has become an even harder decision for Republican senators."
Read more here.
Dershowitz takes over, presenting constitutional argument against impeachment
Alan Dershowitz, the famed defense attorney whose clients included financier Jeffrey Epstein, kicked off his presentation by noting that he would be making the same constitutional argument against impeachment even if the president were Hillary Clinton and not Donald Trump.
He added that he voted for Clinton in 2016, before beginning his argument that in order to impeach a president, a crime must be committed — "abuse of power" alone is not enough.
Dershowitz argued the opposite in 1998, during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, which Democrats now prosecuting the case against Trump noted days earlier. "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime. If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses greater danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime," Dershowitz said at the time.
Trump lawyer suggests Ukraine call wasn't quite perfect
Robert Ray made a point in his speech that Trump could have most likely avoided impeachment if he had gone through proper channels in “attempting to spur action by a foreign government in coordinating law enforcement efforts with our government.”
“While the president certainly enjoys the power to do otherwise, there is a consequence to that action as we have now witnessed. After all, that is why we are all here,” Ray said.
The trial resumes with Robert Ray
At 18:56:07 the trial resumed.
Sekulow said that Robert Ray will speak, and then Alan Dershowitz will conclude their arguments for today. Dershowitz will be the final speaker for the WH defense today. We should expect them to go straight through to the end without a break.
For dinner Republicans had Chick-fil-a, and Democrats had Thai food.
Schiff says 'of course' Dems weren't behind Bolton leak
Schiff made a brief statement rebutting some of the claims the president's lawyers just made in the past two hours.
He spent some time rebutting the claims having to do with Hunter Biden and Rudy Giuliani. He mentioned Bolton and said he hopes we will hear from him and he added that there seems to be a “real shift” from Senate Republicans in terms of witnesses.
"At the end of the day, the senators cannot hide from a relevant witness who will come forward," Schiff said.
Schiff also responded to allegations from Rep. Mark Meadows that House Democrats were involved in leaking the Bolton manuscript by saying "of course not."
What's next for Trump's defense
The trial has paused for a brief dinner break. In the meantime, here's the latest on Trump's defense team:
What to watch for tonight
Alan Dershowitz appears to have arrived on the Hill, an indication he will likely deliver his presentation after the dinner break. It’s possible the defense team goes a little into Tuesday as we haven’t seen some of the expected presenters yet (like Robert Ray), but based on our most recent timing guidance, it is very unlikely to be a long day. We continue to work sources for timing guidance and will advise when we know more. If the defense arguments drip into tomorrow, Hill team advises the rules allow the senator Q&A session to begin once the defense team wraps.
What the president is saying today
Asked about the manuscript and the chances Bolton is called to testify, the president said: “Well, I haven't seen a manuscript. But I can tell you nothing was ever said to John Bolton, but I have not seen a manuscript. I guess he's writing a book, I have not seen it.” And when asked about the allegations, the president said simply: “False!”
What the Bolton world is saying today
One of his aides is denying any coordination “with The New York Times or anyone else regarding the appearance of information about his book, THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENED, at online booksellers. Any assertion to the contrary is unfounded speculation,” per Sarah Tinsley.
What if the White House were to try to stop Bolton from testifying?
If the Senate votes to hear John Bolton's testimony and issue a subpoena, the White House could fight such a move in court. How would that work?
Probably not very well. Here's why.
In the usual fights between Congress and the White House, Congress demands the testimony of an administration official and the White House says no, claiming executive privilege. In such a situation nothing happens — there's no testimony — unless a judge orders the official to testify. So Congress waits while the issue grinds its way through the courts: Without a court ruling, there's no testimony.
But Bolton is not an administration official, and he has said he would testify if subpoenaed by the Senate. So he would be free to do that unless a court blocks it. The legal process, again, would take time. So this is the opposite scenario: Without a court ruling, he's free to testify.
There's potentially a bigger issue. In 1992, a federal judge from Mississippi, Walter Nixon, was impeached and convicted for lying to a grand jury that was investigating bribery. Nixon challenged his Senate conviction, arguing that the Senate improperly heard the witnesses in committee instead of on the Senate floor. He said that violated the Constitution's requirement that the Senate must "try" all impeachments. No witnesses on the floor, he said, means no trial.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously tossed his case out, ruling that the courts cannot second-guess how the Senate conducts impeachments because the Senate has the "sole power" to try them. The courts "were not chosen to have any role in impeachments," the ruling said. Letting the courts into the process would "expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos."
For that reason, federal courts might be reluctant to entertain any lawsuits challenging Senate impeachment proceedings
'Debunked,' 'discredited,' 'a fountain of falsehoods': Biden campaign, citing newspapers, slams Trump team's attack
Andrew Bates, the Biden campaign's rapid response director, slammed the argument Pam Bond delivered Monday on the Senate floor, saying in a statement: "We didn't realize that Breitbart was expanding into Ted Talk knockoffs. Here on planet Earth, the conspiracy theory that Bondi repeated has been conclusively refuted. The New York Times calls it 'debunked,' The Wall Street Journal calls it 'discredited,' the AP calls it 'incorrect,' and The Washington Post fact checker calls is 'a fountain of falsehoods.' The diplomat that Trump himself appointed to lead his Ukraine policy has blasted it as 'self serving' and 'not credible.' Joe Biden was instrumental to a bipartisan and international anti-corruption victory. It's no surprise that such a thing is anathema to President Trump."