The questioning phase will take place on today and tomorrow, for up to 16 hours total. A vote on whether to hear witnesses in the trial is expected on Friday. With the critical vote looming, Senate Republicans are coalescing around the idea that it is better to risk looking like they ignored relevant evidence than to plunge the Senate into an open-ended inquiry and anger President Trump.
Here’s the official question card Senators will write their questions on during the Q+A period over the next two day. The cards will be given to, and read by, the Chief Justice: pic.twitter.com/kIXISVD1Sv
— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) January 28, 2020
Other impeachment news is rolling in…
BREAKING: House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel says Bolton told him on a Sept. 23 call that “the committee look into the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch” and “strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv.” pic.twitter.com/oAx3fCZx7R
— Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) January 29, 2020
Also, Lev Parnas arrivved on Capital Hill to hear Q&A with the Senators, but apparently wasn’t allowed in.
The best way to sum up this whole debacle is to understand that Senator Schumer’s desire for Lev Parnas to attend the Senate trial apparently cannot be accommodated because Mr. Parnas has an electronic ankle bracelet imposed upon him by the court. You can’t make this up.
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) January 29, 2020
Uh… Lindsay?
Looks like Lindsey Graham is going through some stuff https://t.co/iNlgwmazOU
— Jason McGlothlen (@goddamnedfrank) January 29, 2020
7. Reporter to Lev Parnas: “should Lindsey Graham be worried?”
— Adam Parkhomenko (@AdamParkhomenko) January 29, 2020
Lev Parnas: we are going to talk about that in a little bit pic.twitter.com/WDJYLca7S3
And we’re off.
Questioning period has begun. First question is from Sen. Collins, Murkowski, and Romney.
— Andrew Prokop (@awprokop) January 29, 2020
They ask Trump’s team what they should do if Trump had more than one motive. Suggest he could have been motivated by political interest and pursuit of corruption.
Defense lawyer is, of course, that mixed motive means you must acquit.
Trump attorney again admits at least part, or most, of Trump’s action was to ask for personal political help but because theoretically he also had some public interest in mind then the personal help is fine.
— Greg Mitchell (@GregMitch) January 29, 2020
Schiff responds to the next question, but addresses the first one as well, saying the sole motive was personal (and you need more witnesses to confirm that if you want to know his motivation).
I’m going to post bits and pieces as they strike me.
Schiff notes that if what Trump did is fine, then a president could withhold disaster relief authorized by Congress from a state unless the governor agrees to announce an investigation into the president’s political opponent.
— Eric Columbus (@EricColumbus) January 29, 2020
That’s the America the GOP seems to want.
Trump’s counsel continually claims there is no evidence that the president ever linked aid to investigations.
— The Moscow Project (@moscow_project) January 29, 2020
That’s obviously false. The evidence is actually overwhelming. pic.twitter.com/AaCvfFaUaR
.@SenJohnKennedy asks first q of the other side.
— Cameron Joseph (@cam_joseph) January 29, 2020
.@RepJeffries explains why the House “did not challenge any claims related to executive privilege”—”because, as the president’s own counsel admitted during this trial, the president never raised the question of executive privilege.” pic.twitter.com/jm91cDfwl1
— The Moscow Project (@moscow_project) January 29, 2020
By the way, here are Romney’s questions. They are all good.
Alan Dershowitz now arguing that if the president were to THINK his election were in the public interest, it could not be a corrupt motive
Dershowitz is making a crazy argument. If Trump believes getting another country to manufacture dirt on a political opponent and he thinks its in the public interest for him to be reelected, not his opponent, he can do whatever he wants. That’s just a corrupt argument.
— Joe Lockhart (@joelockhart) January 29, 2020
.@RepZoeLofgren debunks the six “facts” Trump’s lawyers keep citing to claim Trump didn’t do anything wrong. pic.twitter.com/3T5XhWk3DM
— The Moscow Project (@moscow_project) January 29, 2020
Republican questions seem to be repetitive already.
.@RepAdamSchiff: “Now, the argument, ‘Well, if you impeach a president, you are overturning the results of the last election and you’re tearing up the ballots in the next election’—if that were the case, there would be no impeachment clause in the Constitution.” pic.twitter.com/wFH8gLAnPK
— The Moscow Project (@moscow_project) January 29, 2020
Why would that be? What prevents them from conducting normal business during the depositions and any maneuvering in the courts and calling the trial back into session when the witness is ready to testify? https://t.co/zM68YZmCTv
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) January 29, 2020
Why would that be? What prevents them from conducting normal business during the depositions and any maneuvering in the courts and calling the trial back into session when the witness is ready to testify? https://t.co/zM68YZmCTv
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) January 29, 2020
Q: “Isn’t it true that depositions of the Clinton trial were completed in only one day each and isn’t true that the Chief Justice …has the authority to resolve any claims of privilege or other witness issues without any delay?”
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 29, 2020
Jeffries: “Mr. Chief Justice, the answer is yes.”
Hakeem Jeffries: “The Senate, in its history, has had 15 different impeachment trials. In every single trial, there were witnesses. Every single trial. Why should this president be treated differently? Held to a lower standard? At this moment of presidential accountability.”
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 29, 2020
I’ll keep banging this drum until it bursts: Cruz and Graham WERE IN THE SENATE AT THE TIME and never raised the Burisma issue. Not once as far as we can tell. https://t.co/sn8yxKyidL
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) January 29, 2020
By the way, Schiff’s answer to Graham & Cruz is the undoing of Dershowitz’s supposedly enthralling presentation the other day. That Graham & Cruz were dumb enough to give Schiff that forum to wreck it shows that despite their reputations for intelligence, they actually bought it.
— David Waldman-1, of Yorktown LLC™ (@KagroX) January 29, 2020
That Schiff dunked on them is evidence of how Dershowitz’s “magic” would have fared in open debate.
— David Waldman-1, of Yorktown LLC™ (@KagroX) January 29, 2020
If Dershowitz is answering, the Senator is looking for an argument explaining why “if the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Alan Dershowitz is here in the role of Nixon’s ghost. That is his area.
— David Waldman-1, of Yorktown LLC™ (@KagroX) January 29, 2020
A question worth hearing in full, from @SenKamalaHarris: “If the Senate fails to hold the president accountable for misconduct, how would that undermine the integrity of our system of justice?” pic.twitter.com/lNCPHueMNS
— The Moscow Project (@moscow_project) January 29, 2020
Schiff: “If you allow a president to obstruct Congress so completely, in a way that Nixon could never have contemplated nor with the Congress of that day have allowed, you will eviscerate your own oversight capability, not just impeachments.”
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 29, 2020
The fact that President Trump and his legal team do not understand why it violates the Constitution for the president to solicit aid from a foreign power for personal gain does not immunize him from impeachment and removal.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) January 28, 2020
And we’re done for a short break.
At the break, senators Collins and Murkowski sat in their seats chatting for several minutes. As they got up to leave, GOP whip @SenJohnThune wandered over. He said something to Murkowski, who responded “keeps you on your toes.”
— Garrett Haake (@GarrettHaake) January 29, 2020
Intrigue!
We’re back.
Sekulow: “If we get down the road on witnesses let’s be clear… it certainly should not be though tithe the house managers get John bolton and the president’s lawyers get no witnesses”
— Cameron Joseph (@cam_joseph) January 29, 2020
Per source: Rand Paul is not being allowed to ask his question about the origins of the House impeachment. Unclear what the exact question is and what the issue is with it
— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) January 29, 2020
Schiff: “The president says that you can’t believe John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney says you can’t believe John Bolton, well, let the president call Mick Mulvaney … If he’s willing to say publicly, not under oath, that Bolton is wrong, let him come and say that under oath.”
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 29, 2020
Minutes after Bolton gets letter claiming book has classified info, WH lawyers get question abt it.
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) January 29, 2020
Philbin admits NSC got manuscript. WHCO notified it was there.
Am I missing Cipollone’s total absence?
I can’t believe this hasn’t been offered up in response to every Republican insistence that Trump was the only one willing to provide lethal aid. He wasn’t. It was forced on him, and word is that those Javelin missiles are all still warehoused.
So weird how they keep trotting Purpura out to tell the same repeatedly debunked lie https://t.co/r2B0co9Rnb
— The Moscow Project (@moscow_project) January 29, 2020
Jason Crow: “Laura Cooper testified that her staff received two emails … revealing that the Ukrainian embassy was, ‘asking about security assistance’. In fact, counsel for the president brought up these emails just now. So I would propose that the Senate subpoena those emails.”
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 29, 2020
Ooooh….. this is big:
Philbin: “I’m limited to what’s in the record” — meaning the House record.
— Kathryn Watson (@kathrynw5) January 29, 2020
“I can’t point to something in the record that shows President Trump at an earlier time….”
🤔
Philbin is unable to provide the example that Collins and Murkowski sought of any instance of President Trump’s interest in the Bidens/Ukraine that predated the announcement of Biden’s presidential campaign.
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) January 29, 2020
In other words, he can’t answer. But this is making a case to call witnesses.
Philbin continues:
Deputy White House counsel Pat Philbin: “The president, it seems from that, gets information from Rudy Giuliani.”
— Rebecca Ballhaus (@rebeccaballhaus) January 29, 2020
Short answer seems to be: No. Though a lot of references to Giuliani hearing those allegations before Biden entered the race, and reference to how conversations between Giuliani and POTUS are privileged.
To my money, best question so far comes from GOP Sens Collins and Murkowski: Before Joe Biden started running for President, did Trump ever raise the issue of corruption and Biden to Ukraine’s previous president or others?
— Susan Glasser (@sbg1) January 29, 2020
White House counsel: I have nothing for you on that.
Schiff returns to issue about Bolton’s book. He says that Trump’s counsel said they did not get Bolton’s book but they avoided answering whether they were informed about what was IN the book.
Sen. Fischer tries to rescue Philben on Sen. Collins’ question, but Philbin can’t bring himself to really make it work. I guess they were hoping he’d lie and give an earlier date for Trump’s newfound interest in Biden and Burisma.
— David Waldman-1, of Yorktown LLC™ (@KagroX) January 29, 2020
The Bolton book question is brought up again.
WH deputy counsel Philbin: “We assumed Mr. Bolton was going to be disgruntled..” Denies that anyone ever told anyone in WH the book would be politically problematic.
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 29, 2020
As part of his question, Cruz asks Schiff if whistleblower worked with Biden. Schiff says he doesn’t know the identity of the whisteblower. He defended the work of his staff
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 29, 2020