Pumalag ang defense team ni US President Donald Trump sa naging rebelasyon ng dating national security adviser na si John Bolton kaugnay sa isyu ng Ukraine.

Bago ito, lumutang ang tinaguriang “bombshell” report ng New York Times kung saan personal na sinabi ni Trump kay Bolton na kanya raw gigipitin ang military aid ng Amerika sa Ukraine hanggang sa mapapayag itong imbestigahan si dating Vice President Joe Biden, na isa sa mga potensyal na karibal nito sa 2020 presidential elections.

Sa pahayag ng constitutional law expert at Trump attorney na si Alan Dershowitz sa harap ng Senado ng Amerika, kahit na totoo ang sinasabi ni Bolton ay hindi raw ibig sabihin na katumbas na agad ito ng pag-abuso sa kapangyarihan.

“Even if a president, any president, were to demand a quid pro quo as a condition to sending aid to a foreign country, obviously a highly disputed manner in this case, that would not by itself constitute an abuse of power,” wika ni Dershowitz.

“Quid pro quo alone is not a basis for abuse of power,” dagdag nito. “It’s part of the way that foreign policy has been operated by presidents since the beginning of time. The claim that foreign policy decisions can be deemed abuses of power based on subjective opinions about mixed or sole motives, that the president was interested only in helping himself, demonstrates the dangers of employing the vague subjective and malleable phrase of abuse of power as a constitutional criteria for the removal of a president. Now it follows, it follows from this that if a president, any president were to have done what the Times reported about the content of the Bolton manuscript, that would not constitute an impeachable offense.”

Ayon naman sa lead defense counsel ni Trump na si Jay Sekulow, ang plano ng mga Democrats na patalsikin ang pangulo dahil sa pagkakaiba-iba sa polisiya ay magdadala lamang umano ng panganib sa constitutional framework ng Amerika.

Wala rin aniyang nilalabag na batas si Trump sa pagbawi ng ayuda sa Ukraine.

“It is our position, as the president’s counsel, that the president was at all times acting under his constitutional authority, under his legal authority, international interest, and pursuant to his oath of office,” ani Sekulow. “Asking a foreign leader to get to the bottom of an issue of corruption is not a violation of the oath.”

“I think that is what this is really about, is deep policy concerns, deep policy differences. We live in a constitutional republic where you have deep policy concerns and deep differences. That should not be the basis of impeachment. If the bar of impeachment has now reached that level, then for the sake of the republic, the danger that puts not just this body, but our entire constitutional framework in, is unimaginable.”