The Unasked Question

There is one question I wish at least one senator would have asked during the Trump trial yesterday.  I know it wouldn't have been -- not for what the question was asking, but because it's not how questions could be asked.  But I still wish someone would have asked, and if there were complaints about it would have replied, "Hey, this is what I want to know.  And I'm a senator, I have the right to ask it."

The question would have been --

"Do any of the Trump lawyers who is not Alan Dershowitz agree with Professor Dershowitz's interpretation of what is impeachable, and if so, can you please explain why you think that is so?"

The question occurred to me before today's Q&A session when Mr. Dershowitz made his mind-numbing reply that pretty much said a president can do anything he wants as long as he thinks it will help him win and him winning is in the public interest.  It rose to Question #1 after hearing Dershowitz.  

By the way, I think senators should feel comfortable asking the question because I heard Ari Melber discussing the Dershowitz Contention that abuse of power was not impeachable earlier yesterday morning with another Trump lawyer, Robert Ray -- who didn't fully agree with his fellow co-counsel.

That said, knowing that the question might not be permissible under Senate rules, I have a backup question for the senator to ask instead.  It would be one than even Alan Dershowitz would be allowed to answer --

"Professor Dershowitz contended that if a president believed any of his actions would help him win an election that those actions would therefore be in the public interest, since his winning was in the public interest.  Does this hold for whoever his opponent was, if that opponent -- whatever their party affiliation, no matter how small the party -- similarly believed his or her winning was in the public interest?  Or is this right to do pretty much anything to win only available to a sitting president, since only a sitting president can be impeached?  If only for the sitting president, though, doesn't that give the president a huge advantage in the campaign and make the election profoundly unfair at its foundation?  And if the right is allowed to even a candidate running for president --any candidate -- would that right be applicable to any candidate running for any office, who believed that their winning the race was in the public interest?  If not, why not?  Why would it only pertain to people running in the general election for U.S. President?"

And if that question is too long, I offer a third option.

"Professor Dershowitz, are you willing to take a drug test?"