First question is from Collins, Murkowski & Romney. They ask, if Trump had more than one motive-ie legitimate motives & illegitimate ones-for seeking a “favor” from Zelensky, how should Senators consider that in their deliberations?
This is a deceptively tricky question. We don’t know Trump’s motives because we haven’t heard from witnesses close to him. It highlights the need to hear testimony about what he was thinking from those in his orbit. This, of course, isn’t part of the answer Trump’s lawyers give.
Trump’s answer is that if he had any permissible motive, no matter what additional motives, even corrupt ones, he had, he can’t be convicted. Also, they say abuse of the public trust isn’t impeachable. Hamilton rolls over in his grave.
Schiff, answering the next question, gives the correct answer to this one based on criminal law: if there was any corrupt motive, conviction is proper.
Quick clarification: in criminal law, it’s corrupt intent. Motive isn’t an element of a crime. It’s a little muddier here and folks like me have been using “motive” imprecisely because intent and motive are closely related in this situation.
