as senators arrived members of the
public reminded them of their solemn
duty to honor their oath to be impartial
during one of the most bitterly divided
moments in US history just the third
time ever the Senate has been asked to
remove a sitting president from office
remember Donald Trump has already been
impeached for abusing the power of his
office and obstructing Congress but few
believe there's any chance the
republican-controlled Senate will vote
to force him out
can we still put fairness
even-handedness and historical precedent
ahead of the partisan passions of the
day certainly not if the rules that
Republicans are hoping to pass today are
anything to go by late last night they
released a resolution setting out plans
for the trial both sides will be given
just 24 hours over two days to make
their case ensuring key arguments could
be buried late at night then senators
get 16 hours only to question but those
questions must be in writing they're not
allowed to speak during the trial and
crucially they'll be given a vote as to
whether or not to allow fresh evidence
and witnesses to appear it almost seems
that the resolution was written in the
White House not in the Senate it asks
the Senate to sprint through the trial
as fast as possible
and makes getting evidence as hard as
possible as Republican senators were
busy trying to cut the trial to a
minimum so the president's lawyers in
the White House urged them to dismiss
the trial immediately on day one saying
the whole process was rigged and not
just agreeing with the president's
argument but actually repeating it that
he had done nothing wrong and that the
whole impeachment process was nothing
more than bitter Democrats trying to
undo the results of the last election
and where was the president as this
historic trial began in Davos of course
at a meeting of the global elite he's so
desperate to keep onside he trotted out
the standard patter but the impeachment
trial is happening whether he likes it
or not
Senate will convene as a court of
impeachment the president's aim now to
shut it down as quickly and painlessly
as possible so ongoing right now in the
Senate there is a row about the rules of
the trial if they manage to agree that
then we will move to opening arguments
we'll hear first from the impeachment
managers from the Democrat side who will
lay out the arguments against the
president then we will move to White
House lawyers who will seek to defend
Donald Trump and that will be the really
interesting moment because thus far the
real only defense that we've heard has
been to criticize the process it's all
rigged it's a hoax we've heard that time
and time again but this is the show me
don't tell me moment what is there
line-by-line defense to all the evidence
we've heard against Donald Trump other
than to simply state that he has done
nothing wrong after that the next big
blow up will be the issue as to whether
or not we hear from witnesses we're told
that will require yet another vote in
the Senators for in the Senate rather if
that vote passes and it's a big if then
the witnesses will first be deposed
behind closed doors if the vote does not
pass then we could see this trial be
wrapped up by the end of next week which
is of course exactly what Donald Trump
wants thanks Siobhan will joining me now
via the Internet is Alan Dershowitz the
famed defense attorney and author of the
book the case against impeaching Trump
released in 2018 he'll be speaking in
president Trump's defense on the Senate
floor
mr. dorit's if you could just set out
first why in your view there are no
grounds for impeachment Ahnold Trump
because the Constitution sets out the
only grounds for impeachment that's
treason
nobody has accused him of treason
bribery that's not one of the charges or
are the high crimes and misdemeanors and
the high crimes and misdemeanors have to
be akin to treason and bribery
none of the framers would have dreamed
of allowing abuse of authority or abuse
of power to be a criteria because they
were very worried about vague criteria
that could be weaponized by political
opponents about half of the American
presidents over time have been accused
of abusing their power one way or
another so I think neither of the
charges that are the basis for the
impeachment satisfy the constitutional
criteria
he's accused of pressuring the Ukrainian
president did dig up dirt on his
political rival don't you think the
public would expect that to be punished
well there are a lot of ways of
punishing that you don't vote from the
next time the elect comes around or you
could have a denture of him but just
because the American public wants in pub
punished doesn't mean that it's an
impeachable offense impeachment is very
very rigidly restricted in the
Constitution of the United States
rejected broader British terms for
example maladministration was a term
that you used in Britain to impeach but
that was objected to by the framers and
explicitly turned down as a ground for
treatment they would have done the same
thing with abuse of power or with
obstruction of Congress so the question
is not what we think it's what the
framers of the Constitution thought well
isn't the Constitution quite general on
this point of high crimes and
misdemeanors though I mean just give us
an example in your view of something
that would a specific example of
something that would constitute that
very easy what they charged Richard
Nixon with he was charged with paying
hush money to potential witnesses he was
charged with erasing tapes he was
charged with telling his administrators
this his assistance to lie to the FBI
those were all impeach evil offenses
those are all high crimes on the other
hand of President Clinton was charged in
the crime perjury but it was a low crime
not a hard cry Klein so I think he was
improperly impeached but Nixon was
properly subject to impeachment he knew
it mess where he resigned
what do you think that if the Democrats
had framed the argument in a different
way they might have succeeded in
impeaching well they didn't have the
evidence to come up with bribery or
treason or any other high crimes if they
did believe me they would have impeached
on those grounds though because they
didn't have the hard evidence to come up
with impeachable grounds they came up
with these vague open-ended general
grounds so no I don't think they would
have been able to come up with an
impeachable offense I don't think the
president has committed an offense but
we don't have to reach that because the
issue is whether he's charged with an
impeachable if I give you an example
let's assume person is charged with a
crime of dishonesty and then they have a
whole list of things that show how this
honesty was immediately you'd move to
dismiss the indictment this dishonesty
is not a crime it's a stick but it's not
a crime the same thing here they're just
not in fee chable offenses so we don't
reach the issue of what the underlying
allegations are do you think the public
would agree with that assessment when
you say there that you know dishonesty
isn't a crime do you think they would
expect the president to be held to a
higher standard on that well nothing
could be less relevant than what the
public would think about what should be
an impeachable offense what's relevant
is what the framers and those who wrote
the Constitution and ratified Authority
I think a lot of people would hate Trump
with any thickness in a beautiful
offense and a lot of people who hated
Barack Obama with anything he did would
be in a fecal offense eat knew was
charged with a hour by Congress and
there were hearings about the abuses of
power in the Obama administration but
they did not rise to the level of him be
chable offenses what happens now because
if Donald Trump he said repeatedly this
is a witch-hunt
if he believes that should he do you
think appear as a witness to try and
Scotch those claims well I've been
practicing criminal law for almost 55
years I don't think I've ever had a
defendant appear as a witness that's
just not what you do when the burden of
proof is on the other side you allow the
other side to then it's then you
callenge it but it's very rare for a
person accused or defendant to
testify I would recommend in this case
Alan Dershowitz thank you very much for
joining us well that is it for now from
Davos back tomorrow but over now to John
in London Thank You Kathy well now to
get a sense of what Democrats make of
the opening moves in president Trump's
impeachment trial I mean speaking to
Sheila jackson-lee Democrat
congresswoman for Texas I put it to her
the professor dose of it says it's not
an impeachable case in the first place
oh let me let me disabuse you and
completely completely reject that
interpretation
I worked extensively as a member of the
Judiciary Committee on the question of
abuse for commentary purposes Alexander
Hamilton said that impeachment is the
process for the public man who has
violated the public trust there is no
doubt that the Constitution in its
language of high crimes and misdemeanors
at the time it was written included the
abuse of power there's something called
constitutional crimes why because the
Constitution is the law of the land
you can violate it and you will have
perpetrated a constitutional crime such
as the abuse of your authority the
president by illegally jeopardizing our
national security by undermining the
acts of the Congress legally as
indicated by the General Accounting
Office that the president violated the
law broke the law by asking a foreign
entity to intrude and involve itself in
our 2020 elections as unfortunately
happened in 2016 and then the constant
pattern of obstructing the investigation
by blocking any of his members or all of
his members who didn't come voluntarily
of his cabinet and his OMB director
Acting OMB director former ambassador
our constitutional violations and they
are impeachable the issue surely now is
that the Republicans
I'm gonna try and ramrod this thing
through at the speed of light and try to
prevent you putting any of the points
you've put to us well I would say to you
it's gonna be the American people who
overwhelmingly desire a fair and
impartial trial and over 53% on 53%
believe the president should be
convicted and removed we're going to do
our job we're going to present the
evidence we're going to continue to
educate the American people we're going
to ask them should this be the new norm
when the president seeks to have the
elections the very sacred elections
presidential elections interfered with
by asking a foreign entity to
investigate and to announce an
investigation of a potential opponent
congresswoman Jackson Lee thank you very
much indeed
for talking with us thank you thank you