The ‘Corrupt Motives’ Doctrine Every President equates his re-election self-interest with the public interest. It isn’t grounds for impeachment.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-corrupt-motives-doctrine-11580343258?mod=opinion_lead_pos2
The questions from Senators in the impeachment trial aren’t plowing much new ground, but they have been useful in underscoring some constitutional principles. To wit, it isn’t legitimate to toss a President from office because the House thinks otherwise legal acts were done with “corrupt motives.”
House managers concede that President Trump broke no laws with any specific actions. Instead, they claim that he abused his power because his motives for asking Ukraine’s President to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden were self-interested—to assist his re-election rather than as Mr. Trump claims to investigate corruption.
More than one Senator teed up the issue, and White House lawyers did an admirable job of explaining the constitutional point. “All elected officials, to some extent, have in mind how their conduct, how their decisions, their policy decisions, will affect the next election,” White House Deputy Counsel Pat Philbin said. “It can’t be a basis for removing a President from office.”
Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard professor and another defense lawyer, elaborated that every politician, every President, tends to equate his re-election interest with the public or national interest. If the House can impeach a President for what it claims are self-interested motives, then majorities will have cause to impeach any future President.
This is one reason, among many, that the Senate should reject the current House articles lest they define impeachment down.
Comments are closed.
