WASHINGTON _ Republicans are increasingly optimistic they will be able to end President Donald Trump's impeachment trial without hearing from additional witnesses, such as former national security adviser John Bolton.
Midway through a second day of questioning House prosecutors and White House lawyers, Republicans were indicating that a final vote on whether to acquit or convict Trump could occur Friday.
"Let's face it, we're down to just a few senators on each side that are grappling with whether they need more information," said Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind. "I think at this point we're getting close to judgment day, which means you have to vote eventually to either commit or acquit."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has been one of the president's most aggressive attack dogs throughout the proceedings, said it could be clear as soon as Thursday night.
"I've never been more optimistic that we're in a good spot," Graham said. "I'm in the room, and I'm becoming more optimistic _ but we'll probably know tonight or tomorrow."
The House voted to impeach Trump in December for two articles: first, abuse of power for withholding military aid and a coveted White House meeting unless Ukraine announced investigations into his Democratic rivals; and second, obstruction of Congress for preventing federal employees and agencies from complying with subpoenas for testimony and documents during the House investigation.
On Thursday, questions went back and forth between Republicans and Democrats, read aloud by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The House managers and the White House have spent six days laying out their respective cases as the Senate weighs whether to acquit Trump or to convict him and remove him from office.
For much of the week the question has lingered: Will four Republicans join Democrats to vote in favor of subpoenaing witnesses?
Thursday's questioning was one of the last chances for senators to sway a dwindling pool of moderate and vulnerable colleagues on whether to call witnesses in the trial.
Of the four votes needed, just Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Mitt Romney, R-Utah, have said they support hearing from witnesses. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, a third potential vote for witnesses, and a handful of others have remained coy about their positions.
If the Senate chooses to not hear from witnesses, it will be the first time a presidential impeachment trial does not include witnesses. The previous impeachments both included new witnesses who did not testify as part of the House investigation.
On Friday, the Senate will hear up to another four hours of arguments about the need for witnesses, and then may deliberate behind closed doors for an unlimited amount of time before holding a vote on whether to call witnesses. Accomplishing all that on Friday could be a tall order.
Democrats maintained that while swaying enough Republicans remains an uphill battle, they too are optimistic they will get the votes necessary to call witnesses, such as Bolton, who has said he will comply with a Senate subpoena. Trump has indicated he will try to block Bolton from testifying.
"I listened for some glimmer of hope from the Republican side, certainly from the three that we're watching most closely," Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., said. "The questions asked and style of the questions led us to believe that they are still open-minded on the issue."
If the vote on witnesses fails, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., could move for an immediate vote on acquittal or conviction Friday, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said. "I think it's time to vote. I'm ready to vote and I'm ready to vote now."
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., hinted that procedural moves were possible Friday to draw out the trial if Democrats don't win the witness vote.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., outlined a possible tactic to reporters, saying he plans to introduce a resolution, after the vote on witnesses, that would effectively force Roberts to take a position. If Republicans vote down that proposal, he said, they'd be on the record that they "were not willing to let the chief justice of the United States make this determination."
Repeatedly Thursday's questions devolved into personal back and forths, rarely resulting in new information.
Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul tried for the second time to force a question including the name of a whistleblower to be read aloud Thursday, but was rejected.
"The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said after reading the question to himself. He then placed the card to the side.
Roberts also reportedly refused to read Paul's question Wednesday behind closed doors because it included the whistleblower's name. Thursday's attempt was the first time Paul tried to push the issue publicly on the Senate floor.
During the questioning period of the trial, the chief justice reads aloud the questions posed in writing by senators. Including the name in a question would put Roberts in the position of outing the whistleblower.
Paul read his question to reporters afterward. It asked whether a person identified by some as a whistleblower may have conspired with a colleague, who is now a staffer for Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., to bring Trump down.
Some Republicans have repeatedly pushed for the whistleblower, whose complaint launched the House impeachment investigation, to be called as a witness and several questions Wednesday were aimed at eliciting new information about the whistleblower and whether the person worked for Vice President Joe Biden, as some conservative outlets have claimed.
Later in the day, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., on behalf of himself and a group of more than a dozen Republican senators, asked Paul's question in a different way. He asked about an alleged meeting of NSC staffers several weeks into the Trump administration in which the individuals purportedly said they would try to "'take out the president.'" The question claimed that the intelligence committee then hired one of those individuals, asking what role he had played. It did not use the purported name of the whistleblower, and Roberts read it out loud.
Schiff answered that he was "appalled" at the attempted "smearing" of congressional staff, and identification of the whistleblower.
"Our system relies on it," Schiff said of whistleblower protections. "When you jeopardize that, in trying to out them this way, you are not threatening just this whistleblower, but this entire system."
One Trump lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, attempted Thursday morning to walk back a standout argument from Wednesday's questioning that drew widespread derision from Democrats.
"If a president does something that he thinks will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," Dershowitz said on the Senate floor.
Dershowitz tweeted Thursday morning that cable news outlets misconstrued what he was trying to say.
"They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his reelection was in the national interest, he can do anything. I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest." He added in a second tweet that he meant a president should not be impeached if he has mixed motives for his behavior.
Democrats jumped on his argument, dismissing his walk-back.
That logic "would unleash a monster, more aptly, it would unleash a monarch," Schumer told reporters Thursday.
