The Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump
Abuse of Office
I am confused by this argument in Impeachment Trail of President Donald J. Trump: That abuse of office/power is not criminal code. That does not appear to be right. For instance, abuse of office is a criminal violation per US and Texas statutes:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/11.448
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.39.htm
In fact, Ross Margraves, the Chairman of Texas A&M University Board of Regents was convicted of abuse of office by a Texas Jury in 1996. And Texas Court of Appeals ruled on the "mixed motive" matter too -- a subject of conversation in the Impeachment Trial -- saying that the conviction was void. (Margraves was then pardoned by Rick Perry in 2003.) See here:
https://apnews.com/53a2d5fb1d171936be22579add9cd5f5 https://www.myplainview.com/news/article/Aggie-Perry-pardons-former-A-M-regent-convicted-8918100.php
Many thoughtful individuals thought that the conviction was not a reasonable outcome. See here for a presentation of this argument in Texas Monthly:
https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/not-guilty-2/
President Trump is perfectly reasonable to argue that whatever be the facts of the case -- they do not rise to conviction (may be not exemplary conduct, but cannot be removed from office.)
Witnesses
The New York Times claims that John Bolton (ambassador) can personally corroborate the gravamen of the impeachment articles. (https://nyti.ms/30WVxmK) And now the Senators are grappling with the decision: To listen to John Bolton or not as a material witness.
With regard to witnesses, I understand Trump's worry that it may open a Pandora's box. But those odds are small. After all Mitch McConnell has many tools in his hand. Why not go with Bolton testimony? Sure Bolton is going to confirm the gravamen. So, what? The basic argument is that it just does not rise to "conviction" and "mixed motive" is permissible.
By allowing John Bolton as a witness: Senator Mitch McConnell will avoid constant refrain of an unfair trial; President Donald J. Trump can claim complete vindication -- and this does not have to be a sore point in the campaign; and Increases the odds of keeping the Senate Majority (gives cover to several Senators including U.S. Senator Susan Collins who is up for very difficult re-election.
President Donald J. Trump will certainly be acquitted not only be Republicans -- they will be joined at least 2-3 Democratic Senators.
Why not then make it a "fair" outcome for everyone? If I was President Trump, I would agree to (actually want to) have John Bolton testify. The President has already paid the price. For ever history will record that Donald Trump was the only third President to be impeached (nobody has been convicted.) And the injury is already baked in for the elections. (President Donald J. Trump faces a very tough reelection.)
Or alternatively, the Senators have to argue and present convincingly -- as did Alan M. Dershowitz -- that articles presented by the Impeachment are seriously defective and are not under jurisdiction of impeachable offense as articulated by the framers of the Constitution.
Not easy to thread the needle. We teach decision-making all the time. This is an extra-ordinary case-study in decision-making.
Postscript (February 2, 2020):
The motion for additional witnesses and documents failed in the Senate, 49 votes to 51 votes.
Per US House of Representatives Managers, there is a US Court of Appeals (Seventh Circuit) holding that mixed motive is adequate evidence for conviction if one of the motives is corrupt.
Over 100 legal scholars argue that “impeachable conduct does not require proof of any crime.” https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6764-senate-open-letter-crimes-amp/10602bfeeee835fa8947/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
