RUSH: Yesterday, the first question… When I heard the first question that was asked by Susan Collins on behalf of herself and Murkowski and Romney, I just want to remind you what I said about it…
RUSH ARCHIVE: Now, that is perfectly clear to me, that you can’t take politics out of this, and that everybody in politics calculates how whatever their political actions are, how that’s gonna impact their reelection or their campaign or their polling data or their fundraising or whatever else. Their job approval numbers. You can’t separate the two. The House managers would like you to believe that (impression) “there is some unique area where everything is perfect, and nobody does anything for any personal gain whatsoever — and Trump violated it. Everything Trump does is for personal gain, and that’s putting himself ahead of the office,” and so forth. These guys have nuked that. I mean, after I hear this answer, I said, “That’s the case.” I mean, it should end the case. Shut it down.
RUSH: Exactly, and the question basically was: Can the president engage in foreign policy or executing the policies of the United States with multiple objectives? Can he be doing good for the country and helping himself? I mean, every politician plans on being reelected. Every politician lets their voters know what bills they supported and opposed. Every politician runs ads to let their voters know why they should reelect ’em. The House managers wanted to make it look like, “For the president to be pure, he must oppose what he wants for the country.”
No! “It must hurt the president! The only way we can judge him to be decent and fair is if he does things that actually harm himself.” That’s what they’re actually advocating. It’s perverse — and the answer to that question was: Yes, the president can have multiple motives while implementing American foreign policy — and some of the multiple motives can include helping himself. There’s nothing criminal about it. There’s nothing impeachable about it.
I thought the answer to the question ends the case. It takes away everything the Democrats are trying to make their case out of. So last night on The Ingraham Angle on the Fox News Channel she had the former Whitewater independent counsel, Robert Ray, on. Question: “Did you get the sense that this very methodical, mostly unemotional but comprehensive performance by Patrick Philbin swayed any of the wobblers one way or another?”
RAY: The most important question that was asked and who asked it was significant. It was Senator Sue Collins, it was Senator Murkowski, and it was Senator Romney together. And the question was, “What are we supposed to do with a case involving mixed motive? The president’s motive to have burden sharing among Europeans in connection with aid to Ukraine, anti-corruption efforts, and then what this impeachment is about.” The answer back, I think, was significant. In a case of mixed motives where all three of those things are there, you would never be able to show by clear and in mistakable evidence no matter how many witnesses you had that that was ever going to be sufficient to prove corrupt intent.
RUSH: And I just wanted to share that with you ’cause my instincts on this were just right on the money. That question and answer I think — intellectually and legally — effectively puts the kibosh on this. Now, it didn’t politically, of course, because the question-and-answer session lasts for 16 hours. We’re into the second eight-hour phase of it today. But the point that a president can be missing motives, have multiple objectives in doing his job is just slam-dunk common sense, and it sure as hell is not impeachable.