Live political reporting continues in Thursday’s blog:
Summary
The Senate trial has adjourned for the day.
- Today’s question-and-answer session focused on whether or not to call witnesses – especially John Bolton – and the motivations behind Trump’s actions toward Ukraine.
- Over eight hours, senators often lobbed softball questions in order to give their side a chance to reiterate their case for or against removing Donald Trump from office.
- The president’s lawyers contended that the president was right and reasonable to investigate his political rivals, and reiterated their view that nothing short of a statutory crime was grounds for impeaching a president. House managers hit back that the defense’s position ran counter to that of a consensus of legal scholars.
- As the Iowa caucus approaches, Democratic senators who are running for president have had to get creative about how they campaign.
- The trial will resume at 1pm ET tomorrow.
Updated
Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz is now trying another strategy to dissuade senators from indicting the president: He’s arguing removing Donald Trump from office was deepen political divisions.
“Families are broken up, friends won’t speak to each other,” Dershowitz said. “I’m not suggesting that the. impeachment decision by the House has brought that on us —perhaps it’s merely a symptom.”
He urged those who object to Trump’s conduct to “campaign against the president”, noting that Democrats could rid the country of Trump in a mere eight months.
Dershowitz was responding to a softball question from GOP Senators Wicker, McSally and Moran tossed at him: “What specific danger does this impeachment pose to our republic, to its citizens?”
Updated
During a brief recess in the Senate trial, Bernie Sanders called into a campaign event in Iowa.
The event breaks for a call from "Bernard from Brooklyn."
— Lauren Gambino (@laurenegambino) January 30, 2020
"I'm here," Sanders says by phone, "But I wish I was there." https://t.co/mW3lGtnNK1
As the Iowa caucus approaches, Senators Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet have been juggling their “constitutional duty” with their presidential campaigns.
Warren sent her dog to campaign in her stead.
PAWS WHAT YOU’RE DOING and look at this photo of @FirstDogBailey holding down the campaign trail while @ewarren is stuck in DC pic.twitter.com/Js8xIl2lAo
— Samantha Sergi (@SamanthaSergi) January 27, 2020
Writes The Guardian’s Lauren Gambino:
The rules of the trial effectively prohibit double-duty: senators must be in their seats six days a week. No cellphones. And absolutely no talking, archaically but loosely enforced on “pain of imprisonment”.
The situation has forced the Democrats to get creative about how they campaign from hundreds of miles away, in a state where voters famously like to meet their candidates before making a decision.
Updated
Senators took another brief recess before resuming the question and answer session. Most often, senators have been fishing for answers.
Democratic senators have given House managers a chance to reiterate the key arguments they laid out during their opening statement. Republican senators have been giving Trump’s defense team many chances to double down on the Bidens and Burisma.
For instance, Senator Gary Peters, a Democrat of Michigan, asked to House managers: “Does an impeachable abuse of power require that a President’s corrupt plan actually succeed?” and gave Zoe Lofgren a chance to reiterate what the managers have been saying all along — the plan need not have panned out, it’s the intention that’s impeachable.
Right after, GOP Senators Barrasso, Risch, Hawley and Moran asked the president’s counsel, almost rhetorically: “Can the Senate convict the US sitting President of obstruction of Congress for exercising the President’s Constitutional authorities or rights.”
Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz has argued that it was right for Donald Trump to decide to investigate Joe Biden and his family after Biden announced his presidential campaign.
At that point, Biden’s went from being “has-been” to a public figure deserving of scrutiny, Derschowitz said, seemingly leaning into the Democrats’ argument that Trump abused power by asking Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.
If a presidential candidate has a “corrupt” son there’s a “good reason for upping the interest in his son”, Dershowitz said.
Updated
The question of whether or not to call witnesses – especially John Bolton – has, as Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow noted, been “un undercurrent” of today’s impeachment proceedings. Impeachment managers and Trump’s defense have continued to clash over the issue.
The Guardian’s Tom McCarthy notes:
If the Senate votes to call witnesses, Trump’s legal team warned, “that changes the nature and scope of the proceedings” and could lead to court challenges that would draw the trial out.
Adam Schiff, the lead impeachment manager, argued that Roberts, “a perfectly good chief justice”, could make fast rulings that would prevent the testimony of Bolton or others from creating a lengthy detour in the trial.
“They could no longer contest the facts,” Schiff said of Trump’s defense team. “So now they have fallen back on, ‘You shouldn’t hear any further evidence on this subject.’ Think about the precedent you would be setting if you don’t allow witnesses in a trial.”
The relatively fast-paced question period, which allowed five minutes per response to each of 54 questions before the dinner break, came after a week in which the two sides made strictly siloed opening arguments, speaking for multiple days each to lay out their cases to the senators.
Updated
The last two questions have come from presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Sanders asked: “Why should we be expected to believe that anything President Trump says has credibility?” He noted that the media have documented “thousands of lies” from Trump, and forcing Chief Justice John Roberts to read out the tally: “more than 16,200 as of Jan. 20.”
Warren posed a hypothetical: “If Ukrainian president Zelenskiy called President Trump and offered dirt on President Trump’s political rivals in exchange for Trump handing over hundreds of millions in military aid, that would clearly be bribery and an impeachable offense. So why would it be more acceptable and somehow not impeachable for the reverse?”
More on how the impeachment trial is affecting the Democratic primary race:
Updated
Donald Trump’s defense has argued that if senators were to call witnesses, the trial would drag on for too long.
“I want Adam Schiff. I want Hunter Biden. I want Joe Biden. I want the whistleblower,” said Jay Sekulow, the lead attorney defending Trump. “If we get anybody we want, we’ll be here for a very long time.”
He added: “The fact of the matter is, we’re not here to argue witnesses tonight, but obviously it is an undercurrent.”
Lead House manager Adam Schiff, in turn, appealed to the floor: “Don’t be thrown off by this claim that if we call witnesses, we will make you pay.”
Appealing to senators, once again, to consider calling former national security adviser John Bolton as a witness, Schiff added: “I’m no fan of John Bolton but I like him a little more than I used to.”
Senator Doug Jones, a Democrat from Alabama, told reporters during the dinner break that he’s “keeping an open mind to hear all the evidence” in the trial. Jones has been viewed as a potential swing vote on the question of whether to acquit or indict Donald Trump.
“I’m open to acquit, I’m open to convict,” he said. “Okay? I want to hear all the evidence, I want to hear witnesses.”
Still, Jones seemed unimpressed with Trump’s defense team, taking issue with their focus on the Bidens. “If they wanted to go after the Bidens, they should have done it a long time ago and nobody did that. Nobody did that, ever,” he said.
He also seemed unconvinced by Alan Dershowitz’s argument that nothing short of a crime was ground for impeachment. “We should probably just abolish the Supreme Court and let professor Dershowitz be the Supreme Court justice,” Jones snarked.
Senator Rand Paul’s question has been rejected, possibly because it names the whistleblower whose complaint launched the impeachment inquiry.
Sen. Paul’s question deals with the whistleblower and names the alleged whistleblower, per sources
— Phil Mattingly (@Phil_Mattingly) January 30, 2020
Chief Justice Roberts has, to this point, rejected the question - which he’d have to read.
No sense Paul is backing down on asking, likely to be discussed during dinner.
Chief Justice John Roberts essentially refused to read the question out, according to reports.
Rand Paul just asked about what his question says: “It’s still an ongoing process; it may happen tomorrow,” he told reporters
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 30, 2020
Donald Trump has his supporters have previously publicized the alleged name of the whistleblower, and have called for the whistleblower to testify in the impeachment inquiry.
Updated
Jeff Sessions, the former attorney general who was fired by Donald Trump in 2018 has waded into the debate over whether John Bolton should testify in the Senate trial.
With regard to the @AmbJohnBolton situation, let me just say this: I did not write a book or go on CNN or criticize @realDonaldTrump for 3 VERY IMPORTANT REASONS…
— Jeff Sessions (@jeffsessions) January 29, 2020
Bolton’s behavior “is an act of disloyalty to the administration one serves and tends to undermine the unity and teamwork needed to reach the highest level of effectiveness,” Sessions wrote in a series of tweets.
Trump has said he never would have named Sessions Attorney General had he known that Sessions would recuse himself from the investigation into Russian election interference.
Since then, Sessions has endeavored to repair his relationship with Trump, especially now that he is campaigning to take back his former Senate seat in Alabama. An endorsement from Trump could give Sessions a huge boost in a competitive primary battle.
Senator Joe Manchin posed a question pointed toward Alan Dershowitz, noting that “high crimes and misdemeanors” clearly doesn’t refer to a statutory crime.
“What has happened in the past 22 years to change the original intent of the framers?” he asked. Dershowitz’s response: “What happened was that the current president was impeached.”
Democrats have been repeatedly harkening back to comments Dershowitz made more two decades ago, during Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Back then, Dershowitz said that “if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need technical crime.”
Throughout Trump’s impeachment trial, Dershowitz has said his views have evolved since, insisting that despite a consensus of legal scholars arguing otherwise, nothing short of a criminal act is grounds to impeach a president.
At one point, the Trump lawyer and Harvard Law professor took aim at one of his Harvard colleagues, Laurence Tribe, who has advised House Democrats on impeachment.
“Professor Tribe got woke, and with no apparent new research, he came to the conclusion, ‘Oh, but this president can be charged while sitting in office.’ That’s not the kind of scholarship that should influence your decision,” Dershowitz said.
House manager Adam Schiff hit back: “I don’t think you can write off the consensus of constitutional opinion by saying they’re all Never Trumpers.”
The Senate has now taken a 45-minute dinner break.
Updated
As senators mull the merits of calling John Bolton as a witness, an attorney for the former national security adviser has issued a statement.
“I have received no response whatever to my urgent request for the NSC’s immediate guidance as to any concerns it may have with respect to the chapter of the manuscript dealing with Ambassador Bolton’s involvement in matters related to Ukraine,” said Charles Cooper, an attorney for Bolton.
Cooper also shared his reply to a National Security Council letter saying Bolton’s manuscript contained classified information. “We do not believe that any of the information could reasonably be considered classified,” he wrote in an emailed response.
The lawyer requested “urgent” guidance from the NSC given that Bolton may be called to testify in the Senate trial. “If he is asked to testify, it seems certain he will be asked questions that will elicit much of the information contained in the chapter of the manuscript dealing with his involvement in matters related to Ukraine,” Cooper wrote.
Updated
Lisa Murkowski, along with other senators asked another interesting question, posed to both the House managers and Trump’s defense: What standard of proof should be used in impeachment trials.
House manage Zoe Lofgren said the House Judiciary Committee followed the same standard used during Richard Nixon’s impeachment process, only admitting evidence that was more likely true than not true.
White House counsel Patrick Philbin argued that neither a “preponderance of evidence” nor a “clear and convincing” amount met the standard. Lawmakers must make a case “beyond a reasonable doubt”, he said.
Updated
Ted Cruz, a Republican senator of Texas, asked Adam Schiff if the whistleblower whose complaint kicked off the impeachment inquiry worked with Joe Biden to take down Donald Trump.
In response, Schiff said he did not know who the whistleblower is. “I have not met them,” he said, adding the idea that the whistleblower tried to get Trump impeached “is a complete and total fiction”.
“I’m not going to go anything which would reveal the name of the whistleblower,” Schiff said.
Evening summary
That’s it from me today. My west coast colleague Maanvi Singh will take over the blog for the next few hours.
Here’s where the day stands so far:
- One of Trump’s lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, made the controversial argument that the president’s request for Ukraine to investigate Democrats was in the public interest because Trump considered his reelection to be in the public interest. Many commentators responded by pointing out that such logic could justify nearly any action carried out by a sitting president.
- The White House sent a letter to John Bolton’s lawyer saying the former national security adviser’s book contained “significant amounts of classified information” and “may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information.”
- The impeachment managers used their answers in today’s proceedings to argue in favor of calling witnesses, including Bolton, to testify in the trial.
- Trump’s Republican allies appear confident they will be able to block witness testimony in the impeachment trial, potentially setting up a Friday night vote to acquit the president.
Maanvi will have more updates and analysis of the trial coming up, so stay tuned.
Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, two of the Republican senators considered most likely to support witness testimony, have asked a question about whether Trump raised any concerns about Hunter Biden’s business activities in Ukraine before Joe Biden launched his presidential bid.
Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin responded by blaming House Democrats for not waiting to hear from senior administration officials who could shed more light on that question. (Of course, many of those officials were subpoenaed by the House but refused to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.)
Philbin also pointed to two phone calls that Trump previously had with the Ukrainian president, in which the general subject of anti-corruption efforts was raised, to argue the request for investigations of Democrats was an extension of that goal.
Responding to a question from Republican senator Shelley Moore Capito, deputy White House counsel Mike Purpura said Ukraine did not know about the hold on its military assistance until it was publicly reported.
Purpura insisted Ukrainian officials first learned of the hold on the aid when Politico reported about it in late August.
But the New York Times has reported that Ukraine’s deputy foreign minister, Olena Zerkal, learned of the aid freeze in July.
Trump and his allies have argued that the president’s July phone call could not have been interpreted as a quid pro quo because Ukrainian officials did not yet know of the aid freeze.
Responding to a question from Senate Democrats, deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin said the White House counsel’s office was “notified” when John Bolton’s manuscript was sent to the national security council for review.
Philbin reiterated that no outside the NSC has reviewed the manuscript and then read the White House’s letter to Bolton’s lawyer regarding the book.
In the letter, the NSC said Bolton’s book contained “significant amounts of classified information” and “may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information.”
Jay Sekulow, one of the Trump’s lawyers, said that the president’s team would call witnesses if the Democratic proposal for witness testimony were approved.
“Of course, if witnesses are called by the House managers ... the president’s counsel would have the opportunity to call witnesses as well, which we would,” Sekulow said.
Counsel Jay Sekulow: “Let’s be clear…We would expect if [House managers] are going to get witnesses, we will get witnesses” https://t.co/up2CQNLRW8 pic.twitter.com/Zq8fqBBVdf
— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 29, 2020
But at the moment, Republican senators appear confident they will be able to defeat a motion to call witnesses in the impeachment trial.
If they do, the Senate could move to a vote on whether to remove Trump from office as soon as Friday night.
During the recess, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer downplayed expectations about the vote on witness testimony, as Trump’s Senate allies voiced confidence that a vote to acquit would take place on Friday night.
Schumer on changes of winning the witness vote on Friday:
— Heather Caygle (@heatherscope) January 29, 2020
“It’s an uphill fight. Is it more likely than not? Probably no. But is it a decent good chance? Yes.”
The Senate impeachment trial has resumed, and the first question is on the Republican side for Trump’s legal team.
A group of Senate Republicans, led by Jim Inhofe, asked a question about the Obama administration’s decision not to provide lethal aid to Ukraine.
The question was clearly setting up an opportunity for Trump’s lawyers to repeat their talking points about the current administration providing anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, an opportunity that deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin jumped at.
Republican senators say they are planning on a vote to acquit on Friday night if the Democratic proposal to call witnesses fails.
Sen. Barrasso on @NBCNews says plan would be to move to immediately acquit on Friday night if in fact the Senate votes against calling additional witnesses
— Kasie Hunt (@kasie) January 29, 2020
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has called for a brief recess; the impeachment trial will resume in about 20 minutes.
Roberts quotes 'Access Hollywood' tape as part of Kamala Harris' question
Posing a question to the impeachment managers, Democratic senator Kamala Harris invoked the “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Trump described groping women.
At one point in the tape, Trump said, “When you’re a star, they let you do it.” Harris compared that comment to Richard Nixon saying, “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts read both of these quotes aloud.
26TH QUESTION, submitted by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) to House managers: "If the Senate fails to hold the president accountable for his conduct, how would that undermine the integrity of our system of justice?" https://t.co/8eDXJbxaT6 pic.twitter.com/x5rjrafYGG
— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) January 29, 2020
Harris’ question centered on whether it would undermine the US justice system if the Senate fails to hold Trump accountable.
Lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff warned that a Senate acquittal could set a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
“If you look in the pattern of the president’s conduct and his words, what you see is a president who identifies the state as being himself,” Schiff said.
The question-and-answer session has been going on for about two and a half hours now, so five and a half hours remain in today’s proceedings.
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell just said each side would get one more question before the impeachment trial recesses for 15 minutes.
When his Senate colleagues Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz posed their hypothetical question about his son being involved with a corrupt Russian company, Mitt Romney appeared bemused.
Romney stood behind his desk, shook his head, smiled and raised his arms in a "c'mon" gesture as the chief justice read the question aloud https://t.co/zwmn6aq4uW
— Alayna Treene (@alaynatreene) January 29, 2020
In their question, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz flipped lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff’s hypothetical about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on its head.
Schiff earlier asked the senators to imagine a situation in which Obama had asked Russia to investigate Romney, the former president’s 2012 election opponent, arguing Obama absolutely would have been impeached for such behavior.
Clearly targeting Joe Biden and his son, Graham and Cruz asked, “If Obama had evidence that Mitt Romney’s son was being paid $1 million a year by a corrupt Russian company ... would Obama have authority to ask if that potential corruption be investigated?”
Schiff replied, “That hypothetical is a bit off.” Nonetheless, the impeachment manager went on to make the argument that a president requesting an probe of his political rival tainted any potential investigation, even if there were legitimate questions about corruption.
Schiff added that Trump’s alleged request focused on Ukraine announcing an investigation of the Bidens rather than actually launching them, which casts doubt upon his interest in cracking down on corruption.
The impeachment managers have repeatedly used their answers to make an argument for calling witnesses, specifically John Bolton.
We are 17 questions in, with the witness issue emerging frequently.
— Erica Werner (@ericawerner) January 29, 2020
Dems using some questions to argue that Bolton could answer outstanding issues.
WH team saying that if Bolton were called, many other witnesses would be, too, and proceedings would drag on for months.
Impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries made the argument that witnesses have been called in every one of the Senate’s 15 impeachment trials. (Obviously, not all of those impeachment trials were against presidents.)
“Why should this president be treated differently?” Jeffries asked.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY): “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...” https://t.co/up2CQNLRW8 pic.twitter.com/8CoK6RvYZg
— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 29, 2020
Democratic senators were visibly stunned when Alan Dershowitz made his argument that Trump was acting in the public interest by pushing for investigations of Democrats because the president considers his reelection to be in the public interest.
Dems' reaction to Dershowitz's case just now would've been great TV:
— Sam Brodey (@sambrodey) January 29, 2020
- When Dersh suggested reelection concerns fit in national interest, Bernie turned to Schatz, who mouthed either "WHA" or "WOW"
- Gillibrand and Merkley made frustrated hand motions
- Slow grin from Schumer
Dershowitz stretches definition of 'public interest'
Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin has retaken the podium on behalf of the president’s team, but fellow Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz has delivered the most controversial answer of the day so far.
Asked whether a quid pro quo matters in deciding to remove a president from office, Dershowitz argued Trump was acting in the public interest by pushing for investigations of Democrats because an officeholder’s reelection can be in the public interest.
Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." https://t.co/jKErQcS1Iy pic.twitter.com/zo4rL6Zbla
— ABC News (@ABC) January 29, 2020
Many commentators warned that this sweepingly broad definition of the public interest could justify almost any action of a sitting president.
This is absurd. Dershowitz is arguing that as long as you believe that you winning an election will be a good thing for the country, you can do pretty much whatever you want — including using public money for personal gain — to help you win. That’s not how democracy works. https://t.co/agfT01l9uy
— Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) January 29, 2020
The president lawyers are arguing that if the president ordered his election opponent arrested that would be fine because he’s pursuing the national interest in order to get re-elected.
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) January 29, 2020
Updated
Responding to the question about whether a quid pro quo matters, lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff criticized Alan Dershowitz argument that Trump acted out of “mixed motives.”
Schiff asked the senators to imagine a scenario in which Barack Obama asked a foreign country to investigate Mitt Romney, the former president’s 2012 election opponent who is now sitting in the Senate chamber.
“Does any of us have a question that Barack Obama would be impeached?” Schiff asked.
The House intelligence committee chairman concluded by saying that not all quid pro quos are the same. “Some are legitimate; some are corrupt,” Schiff said. “And you don’t need to be a mindreader to figure out which is which.”
Republican senator Ted Cruz posed this question to Trump’s lawyers: does it matter if there was a quid pro quo?
Alan Dershowitz, who previously argued it would not be impeachable if Trump did tie Ukraine’s military assistance to investigations of Democrats, responded by saying a quid pro quo is only against the law if the “quo” is illegal.
Dershowitz said the president’s actions were at least partly motivated by the public interest, arguing that Trump cannot be impeached based on “mixed motives.”
Inside the Senate chamber where the impeachment trial is being held, the impeachment managers and Trump’s lawyers are scrambling to produce the best responses to the senators’ questions.
Inside chamber for first hour of Q&A..
— Sarah Ferris (@sarahnferris) January 29, 2020
Much more interesting to watch than arguments. Both Trump defense and Dem managers have converted their tables into mini war rooms. Lawyers and members whispering, note passing -- scrambling to come up with best answer in 15 seconds or so
Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin described impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries’ answer as a “misrepresentation of the record.”
Jeffries said in response to a question from Senate Republicans that Trump had not made any claims of executive privilege, instead pursuing a strategy of “blanket defiance.”
But Philbin said the White House never cited executive privilege because they considered House subpoenas to be “invalid” and based on a rushed timeline.
John Kennedy has just become the first Republican senator to pose a question to the impeachment managers, although he also posed it to Trump’s lawyers.
Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts said each side would be given two and a half minutes to answer the question, which centered on why the House did not challenge the president’s claims of executive privilege during the impeachment inquiry.
Impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries pointed out that Trump never officially invoked executive privilege, instead resting his defense on “this notion of blanket defiance.”
So far, the questions in today’s proceedings have served as another opportunity for the impeachment managers and Trump’s lawyers to repeat their talking points from the opening arguments.
So far Dems are only asking Dems questions, and GOP only asking Trump legal team questions.
— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) January 29, 2020
Many of the questions are thinly veiled efforts to tee up talking points.
This is ... less than useful.
Mitt Romney, one of only a few Republican senators who has indicated support for calling witnesses in the impeachment trial, has released the six questions he intends to ask during the question-and-answer sessions.
The questions I have submitted for the Q&A period of the Impeachment Trial: pic.twitter.com/JTHlKJfcNN
— Senator Mitt Romney (@SenatorRomney) January 29, 2020
The questions are wide-ranging, covering everything from Rudy Giulaini’s activities in Ukraine to the timeline of the freeze on Ukraine’s military assistance.
But Romney’s last question concerns Joe Biden, asking the impeachment managers whether they believe the former vice president or his son did anything corrupt or “otherwise inappropriate” in Ukraine.
The House impeachment managers and Trump’s lawyers are presenting polar opposite arguments about potentially calling witnesses to testify in the trial.
Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin warned that calling witnesses could set a dangerous precedent by transforming the Senate into an investigative body.
But lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff replied, “Think about the precedent you would be setting if you don’t call witnesses in a trial. ... That to me is the much more dangerous precedent.”
Gardner opposes witness testimony
Cory Gardner, a Republican senator who is facing a difficult reelection in Colorado later this year, has issued a statement saying he does not support witness testimony in the impeachment trial.
“I do not believe we need to hear from an 18th witness,” Gardner told Colorado Politics, referring to the officials who testified during the House impeachment inquiry.
“I have approached every aspect of this grave constitutional duty with the respect and attention required by law, and have reached this decision after carefully weighing the House managers and defense arguments and closely reviewing the evidence from the House, which included well over 100 hours of testimony from 17 witnesses.”
During a meeting with other Republican senators yesterday, Gardner expressed a fear that a prolonged trial could lead to more Democratic attacks on vulnerable incumbents.
Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin made the dubious claim that Mick Mulvaney’s comments at his October press conference, at which he infamously confirmed a quid pro quo in the freeze on Ukraine’s military assistance, were “garbled or misunderstood.”
In reality, Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, repeatedly said during the press conference that the aid freeze was tied to a request for an investigation into the 2016 election.
Mulvaney later walked back those comments, but there was nothing “garbled” about them.
Democrats' first question focuses on Bolton
The first question from Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer was posed to the House impeachment managers and centered on the potential testimony of John Bolton.
Schumer asked whether it was possible to have a fair trial without senators hearing more information about the former national security adviser, who has reportedly alleged that Trump directly tied Ukraine’s military assistance to investigations of Democrats.
“The short answer to that question is no,” said lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff. The House intelligence committee chairman argued that Bolton’s testimony was “essential” to determining Trump’s motivation in holding up Ukraine’s aid.
“Don’t wait for the book,” Schiff said. “Don’t wait until March 17, when it is in black and white, to find out the answer to your question.”
Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin responded to the question from Republican senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney by arguing the impeachment managers had not met their burden of proof for the first article of impeachment.
Philbin said the evidence showed Trump was acting, at least partly, out of “legitimate public interest” in his interactions with Ukraine and thus his pushing for investigations into Joe Biden and the 2016 election was justified.
The impeachment managers would have to show there was no public interest concern to make their case, Philbin said, claiming that the managers had failed at that task.
First question comes from Collins, Murkowski and Romney
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said questions should be kept to five minutes, and questions will alternate between Republicans and Democrats.
The first question is from three Republican senators who appear to be currently leaning toward allowing witness testimony in the trial: Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney.
The three senators posed a question to the president’s legal team: “If President Trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct ... how should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of article I?” The first article of impeachment is abuse of power.
Impeachment trial resumes with question-and-answer session
Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts has assumed his post, and the Senate impeachment trial has now officially resumed.
Today will be the first of two eight-hour sessions in which senators can submit questions, read by Roberts, to the impeachment managers and Trump’s lawyers.
White House letter claims Bolton's book contains classified information
The White House has indeed sent a letter to John Bolton’s attorney saying his client’s book cannot be published in its current form, confirming CNN’s earlier scoop.
WH LETTER to Bolton lawyer claims his book as information classified at Top Secret level. Bolton and lawyer had maintained they didn't believe the draft contained any classified info. pic.twitter.com/TM395h7GHe
— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) January 29, 2020
The letter claims Bolton’s manuscripts contains “significant amounts of classified information” and “may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information.”
Bolton’s team has said the former national security adviser does not believe the manuscript contains classified information, but he still submitted it to the national security council as a precaution.
Senior House Democrat says Bolton raised concerns about Yovanovitch ouster
Eliot Engel, the chairman of the House foreign relations committee, has just put out a statement contradicting Trump’s claim that John Bolton did not raise concerns about Ukraine when he left the administration in September.
CHAIRMAN @RepEliotEngel ON HIS CALL WITH JOHN BOLTON:
— House Foreign Affairs Committee (@HouseForeign) January 29, 2020
"President Trump is wrong that John Bolton didn’t say anything about the Trump-Ukraine Scandal at the time the President fired him. He said something to me." https://t.co/MfoZ1gvBBw
“President Trump is wrong that John Bolton didn’t say anything about the Trump-Ukraine Scandal at the time the President fired him,” Engel said in the statement. “He said something to me.
“On September 19, shortly after Ambassador Bolton’s departure as national security advisor, my staff reached out to him at my request. ...
“He and I spoke by telephone on September 23. On that call, Ambassador Bolton suggested to me—unprompted—that the committee look into the recall of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. He strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv.”
Yovanovitch’s removal as ambassador to Ukraine has become a key point of interest in the impeachment trial, after the longtime diplomat testified that she was ousted due to a smear campaign led by some of Trump’s allies, including Rudy Giuliani, as they pushed for investigations into the Democrats.
“It’s telling that, of all people, John Bolton is now the target of right-wing ire,” Engel concluded. “It underscores just how important it is that the Senate subpoena Ambassador Bolton as a witness.”
Updated
Afternoon summary
The impeachment trial is set to resume with the first of two question-and-answer sessions in about 30 minutes.
Here’s where the day stands so far:
- Trump lashed out against John Bolton, as questions lingered over whether Republicans had the votes to block witness testimony in the impeachment trial.
- Lev Parnas, a former associate of Rudy Giuliani who has been indicted on campaign-finance charges, arrived at the Capitol but was not allowed into the Senate chamber where the trial is being held because of his ankle monitor.
- Trump signed the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, hailing the deal as a “colossal victory” even as economists voiced skepticism of its ultimate benefits.
The blog will have much more coming up, so stay tuned.
White House reportedly threatens Bolton not to publish book
According to CNN, the White House has threatened John Bolton not to publish his book, which reportedly includes an allegation that Trump directly tied Ukraine’s military assistance to investigations of Democrats.
Trump has been tweeting about the former national security adviser’s book today, confusingly arguing that the unpublished memoir includes both false and classified information.
The book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” is set for publication on March 17, likely after the Senate votes on whether to remove Trump from office.
Senate Democrats have insisted Bolton should testify in the impeachment trial to make the details of the book available before the vote on acquittal.
Trump signs USMCA trade deal
Trump has officially signed the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, hailing the deal as a “colossal victory” that replaces the “nightmare” of NAFTA.
.@realDonaldTrump heralds #USMCA trade agreement at White House signing ceremony. pic.twitter.com/fgiwHpNlYl
— Jeff Mason (@jeffmason1) January 29, 2020
However, a number of economists have noted that the deal’s greatest selling point is putting an end to the market uncertainty caused by Trump’s repeated threats to kill the North American trade agreement.
This is an important point... The biggest economic boost from USMCA comes from end of uncertainty caused by end of Trump's threat to kill Nafta.
— Shawn Donnan (@sdonnan) January 29, 2020
The independent assessment is actually that it will hurt auto sales and production. https://t.co/iImVtR32Ey
After a very dramatic arrival at the Capitol, Lev Parnas will not be allowed to enter the Senate chamber where the impeachment trial is being held, because of his ankle monitor.
His attorney will be allowed to enter the chamber, and Parnas, a former associate of Rudy Giuliani, will watch the proceedings elsewhere.
Lev Parnas isn’t going into the Capitol Building because of his GPS ankle monitor. So after picking up tickets at Sen Schumer’s office, Parnas’ attorney will go into the Senate chamber but Parnas will watch from an undisclosed area. pic.twitter.com/E30g6DwgkD
— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) January 29, 2020
Although Lev Parnas has arrived on Capitol Hill, it appears the former associate of Rudy Giuliani may not be able to actually enter the Senate chamber where the impeachment trial is being held.
SCHUMER just said he might not be able to get in the chamber for the trial because he has an ankle monitor. https://t.co/ChMXzilMbX
— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) January 29, 2020
A spokesperson for Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer said the lawyer of Lev Parnas reached out to request tickets for the impeachment trial.
Lev Parnas is supposedly on the Hill & may sit in Senate gallery today. Per @SenSchumer spokesman: “Like many other New York constituents, Mr. Bondy reached out and asked for gallery tickets, and we said yes.” Bondy is Parnas’ lawyer
— John Bresnahan (@BresPolitico) January 29, 2020
Parnas, a former associate of Rudy Giuliani, was just spotted on Capitol Hill and told congressional reporters that senators should call witnesses in the trial.
Parnas appears on Capitol Hill
As Trump continues to speak at the USMCA signing ceremony, a key figure in the impeachment inquiry has appeared on Capitol Hill.
Lev Parnas, a former associate of Rudy Giuliani who has been indicted on campaign-finance charges, arrived at the Capitol and immediately went to the office of Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer.
Lev Parnas and his attorney Joseph Bondy have arrived on Capitol Hill. Parnas says he wants a chance to tells senators that President Trump knew about everything. pic.twitter.com/IwxeRczzue
— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) January 29, 2020
Asked what he wanted to tell senators, Parnas replied, “Call the witnesses.” A reporter followed up by asking what he would want senators to know if he wasn’t called to testify.
“The president knew everything that was going on in Ukraine,” Parnas replied, adding that there were “many quid pro quos.”
Speaking at the White House for the signing of USMCA, Trump made repeated reference to the impeachment trial, suggesting that Lindsey Graham was probably missing the ceremony to hold a press conference.
When he mentioned Ted Cruz, the president joked that the Republican senator was “dying to get back there and ask those questions,” referring to today’s proceedings.
The president also praised John Cornyn, who is up for reelection in Texas this year. “You don’t have to worry about Beto either, do you, John?” Trump asked, apparently mocking former Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke.
Trump touches on impeachment during USMCA ceremony
Trump has now started addressing a crowd at the White House for the signing ceremony of the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.
The president described the renegotiated deal as a “colossal victory” that cleaned up the “nightmare” of NAFTA.
Trump praised Republican senators like Chuck Grassley, Pat Roberts and Martha McSally for their work on the deal but then added, “Maybe I’m just being nice to them because I want their vote.”
The president joked that he already had the House vote, citing the 197 members who opposed his impeachment, even though both articles of impeachment were approved.
Trump did not mention the House Democrats who administration officials have credited for helping to craft the trade deal.
Updated
Graham says witness testimony is 'unnecessary'
Lindsey Graham, one of the president’s closest Senate allies, said he considered witness testimony to be “unnecessary” for the impeachment trial.
VERY INTERESTING @LindseyGrahamSC
— Kasie Hunt (@kasie) January 29, 2020
“It is my opinion, based on the law and facts, that additional testimony is unnecessary in this case...
“...I am concerned when John Bolton’s credibility is attacked, it makes it more likely some will feel the need to call him as a witness.”
Graham expressed concern about efforts to discredit John Bolton, as the president’s lawyers tried to do yesterday as they concluded their opening arguments.
But echoing the president’s team, Graham said Trump’s actions would not be impeachable even if he did directly tie Ukraine’s military assistance to investigations of Democrats, as Bolton has reportedly alleged.
“For the sake of argument, one could assume everything attributable to John Bolton is accurate and still the House case would fall well below the standards to remove a president from office,” Graham said.
Trump will soon participate in a White House signing ceremony for the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, known as USMCA.
Administration officials worked with House Democrats to craft the final deal, and some at the White House have acknowledged the agreement was significantly improved thanks to the work of Democratic lawmakers.
Despite that, Trump did not invite House Democrats to the signing ceremony, although speaker Nancy Pelosi highlighted USMCA during a press conference this morning.
”The only reason that the President is having a signing today is because of what we did as Democrats,” says House Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal. “In the end, it was our priority that made this happen.”
— Haley Byrd (@byrdinator) January 29, 2020
As Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell tries to wrangle the votes to block witness testimony, another Republican senator appears to be leaning against calling witnesses in the impeachment trial.
Toomey adds that IF witnesses are called he thinks it’s only fair that both parties get to call them.
— Jonathan Tamari (@JonathanTamari) January 29, 2020
He went hard after Hunter Biden; he argued Hunter would be an important witness b/c his job at Bursima offers another explanation (besides corruption) for why Trump withheld aid
Pat Toomey, a Republican of Pennsylvania, told a reporter that he was “very, very skeptical” any witness would change his mind on acquittal, while emphasizing both sides should be allowed to call witnesses if the Democrats’ proposal passes.
Toomey specifically mentioned Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son, and Democratic senator Joe Manchin also appeared open to calling Biden to testify earlier today.
Democratic senator Doug Jones, who faces a difficult reelection race in Alabama later this year, said the ultimate decision over witness testimony could affect his vote on whether to remove Trump from office.
I asked @DougJones if the witness decision could influence his final vote on acquittal. “It could very well! I think it's a real prob when POTUS starts attacking every witness that is supposed to come here....quite frankly, some ppl would argue it shows his guilt under Article 2”
— Nancy Cordes (@nancycordes) January 29, 2020
But Jones made clear he is not rushing to make any decisions about acquittal until all of the evidence is presented.
“I’m a lawyer,” Jones said. “I’ve sat in on so many jury trials, and every one I sit in, the judge says ‘do not make up your minds until you’ve heard all the evidence and consider everything.’”
New Iowa poll shows close race in first voting state
A new poll from Iowa shows a close race in the first voting state between five Democratic presidential candidates: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
The Monmouth University poll found that Biden and Sanders lead the pack at 23% and 21%, respectively. Buttigieg and Warren are effectively tied at 16% and 15%, and Klobuchar slightly trails at 10%.
New Monmouth poll in Iowa just out:
— Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) January 29, 2020
Biden 23%
Sanders 21%
Buttigieg 16%
Warren 15%
Klobuchar 10%
Steyer 4%
Yang 3%
Everyone else 1% or less
But perhaps most interestingly, only 47% of likely caucusgoers say they are firmly decided on which candidate they will support, meaning more than half of Iowa Democrats could change their mind before the caucuses on Monday.
Iowa voters are notoriously indecisive about their presidential choices, with polls often swinging significantly up until the day of the caucuses.
However, voters in Iowa also expect to see the candidates they are supporting in person, which could pose a problem for the four Democratic senators -- Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar and Michael Bennet -- who are currently stuck in Washington because of the impeachment trial.
Manchin indicates support for calling Hunter Biden to testify
Joe Manchin suggested on MSNBC this morning that he would support calling Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son, to testify in the impeachment trial.
“You know, I think so. I really do,” Manchin said when asked if Biden was a “relevant witness.” “I don’t have a problem there, because this is why we are where we are. Now, I think that he can clear himself, what I know and what I’ve heard.”
.@WillieGeist asks @Sen_JoeManchin if Hunter Biden is a 'relevant witness.' Sen. Manchin responds: "I think so; I really do." pic.twitter.com/ZESiUMWTWc
— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) January 29, 2020
Manchin is the first Democratic senator to indicate support for Biden’s potential testimony. His comments come a week after minority leader Chuck Schumer said a potential witness trade involving the Bidens was “off the table.”
Republicans have tried to paint Biden’s business activities in Ukraine as corrupt, even though Ukrainian and US officials have dismissed those allegations.
Manchin later made clear that he considered calling Joe Biden to testify to be a “bridge too far.”
Just spoke with Sen. Manchin. He stood by his comments on @Morning_Joe about supporting possibly calling Hunter Biden. Asked him if he’d be open to calling VP Biden. He said no, called that a “bridge too far.”
— Robert Costa (@costareports) January 29, 2020
Trump lashes out against Bolton
Trump has already been tweeting away this morning, attacking John Bolton for his “nasty & untrue book,” which reportedly alleges that the president directly tied Ukraine’s military assistance to investigations of Democrats.
But Trump also claimed the former national security adviser’s book was filled with classified information, which would seem to contradict his assertion that the book’s details were false.
....many more mistakes of judgement, gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2020
Bolton’s allegations are now at the heart of the debate over whether the Senate will approve witness testimony in the impeachment trial, as Democrats say they must hear from the former administration official.
Bolton left the administration in September, and he and Trump publicly sparred over whether the departure was the result of a firing or a resignation.
Bolton also served as the US ambassador to the UN under George W Bush, but the hawkish official was unable to secure Senate confirmation, so he resigned at the end of his recess appointment in 2006.
Uncertainty looms over witness testimony in impeachment trial
The impeachment trial of Donald Trump continues today with the first of two days of question-and-answer sessions, beginning at 1pm ET.
But the real question remains whether Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell will be able to wrangle the votes to block witnesses from testifying in the trial, as Democrats try to pick off four Republicans to back their proposal.
At a meeting yesterday following the conclusion of the trial’s opening arguments, McConnell said he does not yet have the votes to block witness testimony, but an administration official said the White House is confident the proposal will be rejected.
The matter will likely come up for a vote on Friday. If it fails, Trump could be acquitted in as soon as two days.
Here’s what else the blog is keeping its eye on:
- Trump will sign the renegotiated North American trade deal (USMCA) at 11am ET.
- Several Democratic presidential candidates, including Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, are in Iowa, with only five days to go until the caucuses.
- Secretary of state Mike Pompeo is expected to skip an appearance before the House foreign relations committee.
The blog will have more coming up, so stay tuned.
Updated
