Here are some of the key moments from Day 2 of the questions and answers offered in the Senate:

Trump’s defense claims Biden may have committed impeachable offense

The question

Is what former Vice President Joe Biden did potentially impeachable?

Who asked

Sens. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) to the White House lawyers.

The answer

Trump attorney Patrick Philbin said Biden’s conduct could fall into impeachable territory because it alleges some kind of “personal, family, financial interest.”

Why it matters

The president’s team, which has mounted some extraordinary arguments about why Trump’s conduct in Ukraine could not be considered impeachable, just made a case for considering Biden’s actions in Ukraine to fall into a category of impeachable offenses. The facts of the case against Biden are sharply disputed, including by a slew of sworn testimony from witnesses.

Shrugging off Bolton

The question

Assuming John Bolton were to testify in the light most favorable to the House, it still wouldn’t be impeachable? Wouldn’t that mean his testimony would add nothing to this case?

Who asked

Sens. Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, Ted Cruz, Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski to White House lawyers.

The answer

Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin indicated that he accepted the premise of the question that the articles of impeachment still wouldn’t rise to an impeachable offense based on Bolton’s allegations. “On their face, the articles of impeachment, as they’ve been laid out by the House manager, don’t as a matter of law rise to the level of an impeachable offense,” he said.

Why it matters

Murkowski’s name on this question is interesting given her previous indication that Bolton appears to be a relevant witness. Also notable is the presence of Alexander, another key vote on the witness question. The White House lawyers are advocating that the Senate conclude that Bolton’s story, even if true, falls short of showing an impeachable offense.

Key moderate Dems

The question

Should the House have initiated a formal accommodations process to negotiate for documents and witnesses after the passage of a resolution establishing the impeachment inquiry? And what is the duty of lawmakers to make sure all relevant facts are known during the trial instead of at some point in the future?

Who asked

Sens. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) to the House managers.

The answer

Rep. Adam Schiff said it was apparent from the beginning that the White House wouldn’t cooperate. He said they’ve been litigating the Don McGahn case for months and it was clear there would be no effort to offer accommodations. Schiff also emphasized the Senate’s sole power to ensure that all the facts come out before the trial ends.

Why it matters

These three Democrats are the only ones believed to be considering a vote to acquit Trump on at least one of the charges against him. Their focus on the House’s obligation to enter accommodation talks with the White House suggests they’re homing in on the obstruction article.

Constitutional clash

The question

How would the verdict alter the balance of power between Executive Branch and Legislative Branch in the future?

Who asked

Sens. Gary Peters (D-Mich) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) to both sides.

The answer

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone said “A final verdict of acquittal would be the greatest thing for our country.” He said the separation of powers would benefit because a conviction would “damage our country horribly — maybe forever.” Cipollone said allowing the Senate to decide matters of executive privilege would be dangerous to the separation of powers.

Rep. Adam Schiff responded if the Senate acquits Trump, it will sanction his posture that he can “defy all subpoenas” and assert “bad faith claims of privilege.”

“It will eviscerate our oversight power,” he said.

Why it matters

This is the most existential question in the entire trial — what will it mean once the entire process is over? Both teams of lawyers see extraordinary danger to the republic if they lose

Murkowksi hints on witnesses?

The question

The reporting on Ambassador Bolton’s book suggests he has a different account than other witnesses about President Donald Trump’s handling of military aid. This dispute weighs in favor of calling witnesses. Why should the Senate not seek witness testimony?

Who asked

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to White House lawyers.

The answer

Patrick Philbin, the president’s attorney, argued that allowing the Senate to call witnesses in the trial would set a bad precedent and grind the Senate to a halt indefinitely. “This chamber will have to be issuing the subpoenas and dealing with that,” he said. “That’s not the way that this chamber should allow impeachment to be presented to you.”

Why it matters

Murkowski is one of the most important swing votes on witnesses and just indicated that she believes the current dispute over Bolton’s account “weighs in favor” of witnesses. It’s unclear if the White House’s response satisfied her concerns, but it’s the first and clearest indication that Murkowski may be leaning toward seeking testimony.

Why did the House withdraw its subpoena for Bolton’s deputy?

The question

Why did the House withdraw the subpoena for former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman and not pursue other subpoenas?

Who asked

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Jim Risch (R-Ida.) to the House managers.

The answer

Rep. Adam Schiff said the House and Justice Department both believed Kupperman had no standing to sue. Kupperman filed suit in October to get clarity on whether he would need to testify after the House subpoenaed him but President Donald Trump ordered him not to comply. But mostly, Schiff said, the House believed the entire suit was an effort to string the House along and tie up the impeachment inquiry for months. A judge eventually dismissed the suit.

Why it matters

Collins remains a crucial swing vote on whether to call witnesses in the impeachment trial, and her interest in this issue suggests she still has lingering interest in the House’s handling of witnesses — and why they didn’t pursue legal remedies.

Can the Senate complete interviews in one week?

The question

Please elaborate on how the Senate could complete witness interviews and document production within one week, as proposed by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

Who asked

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked the question to the House impeachment managers.

The answer

Schiff noted that the documents the House subpoenaed have already been collected at the various agencies and departments, so it would be easy for them to be transmitted to the Senate upon the deliverance of a subpoena. Schiff also said any questions of executive privilege that might come up during the witness depositions could be adjudicated by the chief justice.

Why it matters

Schiff made the offer earlier Thursday in order to alleviate concerns by Republicans that calling witnesses and procuring documents would unnecessarily prolong the trial. Schiff’s offer, though, is unlikely to convince Republicans — mostly because it is not clear, even unlikely, that Roberts would want to weigh in on the thorny legal questions surrounding executive privilege. Republicans have said such disputes would be tied up in the courts for months.

All eyes on Lamar Alexander

The question

Compare this impeachment with the partisan makeup of prior impeachments.

Who asked

Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to House managers.

The answer

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who was a House staffer during the Nixon impeachment, said parties were both “dug in” at the time but “couldn’t turn away from” the evidence. Lofgren made her best pitch for new witnesses, suggesting it could even be a unifying moment since it will leave fewer unanswered questions that could leave a verdict in doubt.

Why it matters

Alexander, who is retiring, is a crucial swing vote on witnesses, and he’s kept his cards close for days. Many will be parsing his interest in the partisan intensity of impeachments as a potential clue to how he’ll vote.

McConnell asks a question

The question

Can you respond to the question of bipartisanship asked by Sen. Lamar Alexander?

Who asked

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to White House lawyers.

The answer

Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin recited a list of House roll call votes on impeachment inquiries that featured higher levels of bipartisanship.

Why it matters

McConnell was teeing up a rebuttal to satisfy Alexander’s inquiry and push back on the claim that prior impeachments were equally decided along partisan lines.

Warren puts Schiff — and Roberts —

on the spot

The question

Does it delegitimize the chief justice and the Supreme Court as a whole when Republican senators continue to refuse to call additional witnesses and documents?

Who asked

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked the question to the House impeachment managers.

The answer

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead House manager, said this does not reflect poorly on the chief justice, and he used the rest of his answer to again make the case in favor of calling witnesses.

“It diminishes the power of this example to the rest of the world if we cannot have a fair trial in the face of this kind of presidential misconduct,” Schiff added. “This is the remedy for presidential abuse.”

Why it matters

The question immediately put Schiff in the awkward position of rejecting the premise; he defended Roberts, who he said had acted “admirably.” And it also produced a cringe-worthy moment, forced by the question itself, in which Roberts read aloud whether his role presiding over the trial had somehow led to a lack of confidence in himself and the institution.

But that might have been the point: liberals who wish Roberts would be more active in the trial praised the query.

Schiff livid over question alleging coordination between staffer and whistleblower

The question

There are reports that the House Intelligence Committee hired a staffer who was overheard in 2017 speaking with someone alleged to be the whistleblower about taking down President Donald Trump. Why did you hire this staffer the day after the July 25 Ukraine call?

Who asked

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) and several other GOP senators asked the question to both sides.

The answer

Schiff responded to the question, assailing Republicans for asking it and accusing them of “smearing” his staff and “circulating smears” in unconfirmed press reports. “I will not dignify those smears on my staff by giving them any credence whatsoever,” he said. “I think that’s disgraceful,” he added.

Sekulow responded that it was Schiff who made the whistleblower’s complaint central to the Ukraine controversy, and he suggested that whistleblower protections prohibit “retribution” but don’t guarantee “complete anonymity.”

Why it matters

Schiff delivered his most forceful response yet to efforts to insinuate that his staff coordinated with the whistleblower who first lodged complaints about Trump’s contacts with Ukraine. Schiff said the focus on the issue at all threatens to chill other whistleblowers with information about government wrongdoing as well as people who might want to work on a congressional staff.

Trump attorney says no private citizen carried out foreign policy

The question

Will President Donald Trump assure us that private citizens will not be directed to conduct foreign policy unless formally designated by the president and the State Department to do so?

Who asked

Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Murkowski) asked the question to the president’s counsel.

The answer

Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin told the senators that there was no American foreign policy being carried out by a private citizen. He said Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney who sought the Ukraine-led investigations of the Bidens, was simply a source of information for Trump who knew about Ukraine and spoke frequently with the president. Several witnesses who testified before House investigators said Trump had directed them to work with Giuliani.

“The president’s policy is always to abide by the laws, and continue to do so,” Philbin said.

Why it matters

This was the first bipartisan question in the two days of the Q & A period so far — and it was a revealing one. The question prefaced with the Logan Act, which prohibits private American citizens to interact with foreign governments on behalf of the United States. It suggests that both Collins and Murkowski — who are considered to be the swing votes on the question of whether Trump should be acquitted or convicted — believe that Trump’s decision to deputize Giuliani was improper.

Can a president ask a foreign country to investigate a U.S. citizen?

The question

Are there legitimate circumstances under which a president can request that a foreign country investigate a U.S. citizen, including a political rival, who is not already under investigation by the U.S. government?

Who asked

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) asked the question to both sides.

The answer

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead House impeachment manager, said “it would be hard for me to contemplate” a circumstance in which such a request to a foreign government would be appropriate.

Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin said the question “assumes” that Trump requested an investigation of a political rival, adding that he believes the July 25 phone call memorandum between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shows that Trump did not specifically ask for an investigation. Philbin said Trump was asking Zelensky to instead look into “the situation in which the prosecutor had been fired.”

He said there would, in fact, be circumstances under which such a request to a foreign government would be legitimate if there was a “national interest in having some information about that and understanding what went on.”

Why it matters

The fact that Collins asked this question shows again that she is keeping an open mind on the question of whether to vote to convict or acquit the president. The premise of the question presumes that Collins believes that Trump did, in fact, ask for an investigation of his rival — and therefore she wanted to know whether it’s ever appropriate to request such a probe.

Who's paying for Rudy's work?

The question

Who pays for Rudy Giuliani’s travel and work on President Donald Trump’s behalf?

Who asked

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) asked the question to the House managers and the president’s counsel.

The answer

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) replied, “I don’t know who’s paying Rudy Giuliani’s fees.” He then noted that Giuliani has said several times that his work was on behalf of Trump not in his capacity as president, but as a private citizen.

“The whole country is paying the freight for it,” Schiff added.

Trump attorney Jay Sekulow responded, assailing Schiff for raising the issue and pivoting to claims about former Vice President Joe Biden. He also attacked three Democratic senators, whom he said had asked Ukraine to cooperate with former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation amid reports that the government might be pulling back its support.

Why it matters

There have long been questions about how Giuliani has been paid for his work on Trump’s behalf — especially because he is not a U.S. government employee. Reed’s question underscored Giuliani’s unusual role as the president’s personal attorney, who also happened to be involving himself in U.S. foreign policy at Trump’s direction.