This makes zero sense. How can senators credibly deny that they need more witnesses if they already know about the existence of relevant witnesses and documents the president has intentionally withheld? We know McConnell does not intend to allow critical witnesses with firsthand knowledge of impeachable conduct, such as former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Unlike at every other impeachment hearing, senators therefore can be certain that absent intervention by the minority, the majority party will not be diligent or impartial. (Republicans keep telling us they will not be.)

To understand just how preposterous is Collins’s plan to delay deciding on bringing forth critical evidence, imagine the Senate does put off the decision on new witnesses until the trial. Collins would apparently ask: “Mr. Chief Justice, please ask the House manager what Mr. Bolton would say if he were called to testify.” The obvious answer — “How the heck should I know?!” — proves the point. The Senate needs key witnesses and key documents, whose existence is now known, to render a fair trial. Collins’s effort to put off the moment of reckoning is yet another in a series of spineless capitulations to her party.

AD

AD

The necessity to call additional witnesses and subpoena more documents has become evident since the House voted on articles of impeachment. We subsequently learned about a key in-person Oval Office meeting with senior officials and a string of emails concerning Trump’s hold on Ukrainian aid.

The New York Times reported last weekend: “On a sunny, late-August day, Mr. Bolton, [Defense Secretary Mark] Esper and [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo arrayed themselves around the Resolute desk in the Oval Office to present a united front, the leaders of the president’s national security team seeking to convince him face to face that freeing up the money for Ukraine was the right thing to do.”

Building on that report, Just Security, a progressive website addressing national security issues, revealed the contents of several of the redacted memos mentioned in the New York Times report:

AD

AD

“Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold.” This is what Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told Elaine McCusker, the acting Pentagon comptroller, in an Aug. 30 email, which has only been made available in redacted form until now. It is one of many documents the Trump administration is trying to keep from the public, despite congressional oversight efforts and court orders in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation.

The documents confirm that the hold on Ukraine aid came directly from the president and over the objections of “Pentagon officials that the hold would violate the Impoundment Control Act, which requires the executive branch to spend money as appropriated by Congress, and that the necessary steps to avoid this result weren’t being taken.”

Just Security’s review of the relevant emails shows that “[although] the pretext for the hold was that some sort of policy review was taking place, the emails make no mention of that actually happening. Instead, officials were anxiously waiting for the president to be convinced that the hold was a bad idea. ... [Senior] defense officials were searching for legal guidance, worried they would be blamed should the hold be lifted too late to actually spend all of the money, which would violate the law.”

Reacting to the latest revelations, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a written statement Thursday: “These emails further expose the serious concerns raised by Trump administration officials about the propriety and legality of the president’s decision to cut off aid to Ukraine to benefit himself.” He concludes:

AD

AD

This new evidence also raises questions that can only be answered by having the key Trump administration officials — Mick Mulvaney, John Bolton, Michael Duffey and Robert Blair — testify under oath in a Senate trial. Importantly, that Mr. Duffey said there was ‘clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold’ only further implicates President Trump and underscores the need for the Senate to subpoena the witnesses and documents we’ve requested at the onset of a trial.

Senate Republicans appear ready to exclude evidence that the rest of us know further implicates the president. This would be a cover-up in plain sight. “There cannot be any good-faith argument anymore against further witnesses and documents in the impeachment proceedings,” former prosecutor Mimi Rocah told me. “This is strong proof that there was and still is an active cover-up going on by the Trump administration concerning the real reasons for withholding Ukraine aid.” She argues that Republican senators “who have said they are open to further evidence should now demand it. This is all going to come out eventually, and anyone who isn’t asking to see the evidence now is part of the cover-up.”

It is a blatant violation of senators’ oaths to proceed with a trial designed to exclude evidence that became available only after the articles of impeachment passed the House. Collins and other Republicans need to demand a real trial, not a charade intended to exonerate the president.

As former prosecutor Joyce White Vance told me: “It’s clear people inside the administration are concerned Trump will get away with serious misconduct. That’s why information continues to drip out.” She added: “McConnell is on the horns of a dilemma: Do the right thing and insist on witnesses and documents, or continue to cover for Trump and run the risk — which looks more like a certainty these days — that the information makes it out on its own.” She said that unlike in Watergate, Republicans run the risk of complicity “long after [the president’s] guilt was clear.”

AD

AD

McConnell, however, is not known as one to prioritize doing the right thing. Therefore, absent an agreement up front to guarantee that all relevant documents and witnesses be made available in the Senate, the House should consider the following:

Reopen impeachment hearings in the Intelligence Committee, introducing the relevant emails and calling for all remaining witnesses. (Following the dismissal of the lawsuit by former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman, some of these witnesses may now choose to testify.)

Supplement the report on impeachment with new evidence.

Consider additional articles (e.g., violation of the impound act) based on conduct revealed in new evidence.

If appropriate, vote on new articles of impeachment.

After all that, send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

It is not practical to delay sending the articles to the Senate indefinitely, but it is reasonable — indeed essential — that the record be completed to the extent possible, making it that much more difficult for the Senate to conduct a kangaroo court. Of course, all of this could be expedited if Collins and a few of her Republican colleagues insisted that all of the relevant witnesses and document be presented in the Senate trial. That, however, would require they drop specious excuses and live up to their oaths as jurors.