Day in Impeachment: Top Democrat Concedes ‘Probably No’ on Witnesses During questioning, a lawyer for President Trump argued that any action to aid re-election could be considered in the nation’s interest and therefore could not be impeachable. Video transcript Back bars 0:00 / 2:49 - 0:00 transcript Impeachment Trial Highlights: Surprising Arguments in Questioning Phase Senators questioned the House impeachment managers and President Trump’s legal team. Trump’s lawyers argued that anything a president did to win re-election could be “in the public interest.” “What you see is a president who identifies the state as being himself.” “Senator Lee asks of counsel for the president: ‘Isn’t it the president’s place, certainly more than the place of career civil servants, to conduct foreign policy?’” “If staffers disagree with him, that does not mean that the president is doing something wrong.” “There is in fact overwhelming evidence that the president withheld the military aid directly to get a personal political benefit to help his individual political campaign.” “And if you say you can’t hold a president accountable in an election year, where they’re trying to cheat in that election, then you are giving them carte blanche. So all quid pros are not the same. Some are legitimate and some are corrupt. And you don’t need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which.” “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest, and mostly you’re right, your election is in the public interest. And 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.” “The president cannot defy the agencies within the executive branch that are subordinate to him. It is only they who can defy the president’s determinations of policy. And the House managers are held to a standard of proving proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of what would be a cognizable impeachable offense. Here, they have failed in their burden of proof.” “Just as the president doesn’t trust what these witness have to say, the president’s lawyers don’t want to rely on what the chief justice’s rulings might be. I’m not for a moment suggesting they don’t think the chief justice is fair — quite the contrary: They’re afraid he’ll be fair. They’re afraid he’ll make a fair ruling. That should tell you something about the weakness of their position.” “After 31 or 32 times you said you proved every aspect of your case — that’s what you said, well you didn’t, you said he just said he did — well then I don’t think we need any witnesses. Thank you.” “Thank you, counsel.” Senators questioned the House impeachment managers and President Trump’s legal team. Trump’s lawyers argued that anything a president did to win re-election could be “in the public interest.” Credit Credit... Erin Schaff/The New York Times Senators questioned the impeachment managers and President Trump’s lawyers for about eight hours on Wednesday. Among the surprising arguments was one by Alan Dershowitz, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, who said, “If the 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.”

Republican leaders signaled they were regaining confidence that they would be able to block new witnesses and documents and bring the trial to an acquittal verdict as soon as Friday. Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, acknowledged that winning enough Republican votes was unlikely.

Fielding friendly questions from Democratic senators, House managers reiterated the heart of their case and accused Mr. Trump’s lawyers of falsely stating that there was no evidence that the president linked security assistance to investigations.

Jan. 29, 2020, 11:15 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 11:15 p.m. ET By Senate adjourns after 93 questions. After 93 questions over eight hours, the Senate has adjourned. The trial resumes Thursday afternoon at 1 p.m. Eastern and senators will continue to lob queries at the Democratic impeachment managers and the president’s defense team. A vote on witnesses is expected on Friday.

Jan. 29, 2020, 11:04 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 11:04 p.m. ET By Slip-up incites laughter on the Senate floor. Image Claire McCaskill lost her bid for re-election in 2018. Credit... Jeff Roberson/Associated Press Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri stood up, as his colleagues had, to ask a question. But in rattling off the senators he was teaming up with for the question, he misspoke: Instead of naming Senator Martha McSally, a freshman Republican from Arizona, he named a fellow Missourian, Claire McCaskill, a Democratic senator ousted in 2018. The slip-up was met with laughter and some oohs on the Senate floor. “Terrifying moment,” Mr. Blunt remarked, as Ms. McSally laughed on the other side of the chamber. Ms. McCaskill, for her part, responded on Twitter when she saw reports of the exchange. “It’s simple. He misses me,” she wrote. . It’s simple. He misses me. 😬 — Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) January 30, 2020 Read more

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Jan. 29, 2020, 10:46 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 10:46 p.m. ET By ‘Mere information’ wouldn’t violate campaign finance law, Trump’s lawyer says. President Trump was perfectly within his rights to solicit information about his political rivals from Ukraine and his effort to do so may not be construed as an illegal attempt to interfere with the 2020 election, his lawyer argued Wednesday night — an assertion that stunned and outraged Democrats. “Mere information is not something that would violate the campaign finance law,” said Patrick Philbin, a deputy White House counsel. He asserted that while the law bars candidates from accepting foreign contributions and bars foreign citizens from voting, it does not bar candidates from taking information from a foreign government. The assertion goes to the heart of Democrats’ accusations against the president, who said in an interview with ABC News that he saw no problem with taking information from a foreign power. Moreover, Mr. Philbin added, “credible information, credible information of wrongdoing by someone who is running for a public office is not campaign interference.” He added, “The idea that any information that happens to come from overseas is campaign interference is a mistake.” Democrats hit back hard. “I was stunned to hear that now it is apparently O.K. for the president to get information from foreign governments in an election. That’s news to me,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and one of the House impeachment managers. “The election campaign laws prohibit accepting anything of value — and a thing of value is information.” Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the lead House impeachment manager, was even more pointed: “You can’t solicit foreign interference and the fact that you’re unsuccessful in getting it doesn’t exonerate you. A failed scheme doesn’t make you innocent; it just makes you unsuccessful — an unsuccessful crook.” Read more

Jan. 29, 2020, 10:30 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 10:30 p.m. ET By Another swing-state Republican says no to new witnesses and documents. Image Senator Martha McSally said on Twitter that “a dangerous precedent” would be set if the Senate condoned “a rushed, partisan House impeachment with no due process.” Credit... Erin Schaff/The New York Times Senator Martha McSally of Arizona became the second Republican standing for election in a swing state to announce on Wednesday that she would vote against calling new witnesses and documents in President Trump’s impeachment trial. “I have heard enough,” Ms. McSally wrote on Twitter. “It is time to vote.” Hours earlier, Senator Cory Gardner, Republican of Colorado, said he had reached a similar conclusion. Their stances were a positive sign for Republican leaders hoping to end the trial this week without compelling new evidence, though several key moderate Republicans remain publicly undecided before the vote expected on Friday. “A dangerous precedent will be set if we condone a rushed, partisan House impeachment with no due process that shuts down the Senate for weeks or months to do the House’s work,” Ms. McSally said. In 2018, Ms. McSally lost a Senate race to Senator Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat, but was then appointed to fill Arizona’s other Senate seat shortly afterward. I have heard enough. It is time to vote. — Martha McSally (@SenMcSallyAZ) January 30, 2020 Read more

Jan. 29, 2020, 9:47 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 9:47 p.m. ET By Senators recess before another hour of questioning. The trial broke for a 15-minute recess at 9:44 p.m. Eastern. When they return, senators are expected to ask questions for about another hour.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Jan. 29, 2020, 9:23 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 9:23 p.m. ET By Romney, contemplating Trump’s fate, gets a question. Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, the only Republican whose public remarks have suggested he is seriously considering whether to vote to convict President Trump, asked a question that gave insight into his thinking: “On what specific date did President Trump first order the hold on security assistance to Ukraine and did he explain the reason at that time?” The question suggests that Mr. Romney — who is also the only Republican who has said outright that he will vote to hear from witnesses — wants to get to the bottom of why Mr. Trump withheld $391 million in security assistance from Ukraine, a central question of the case. Democrats charge that the president was demanding a political favor — an investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his potential 2020 rival — in exchange for releasing the money. But the answer from Patrick Philbin, deputy White House counsel, was less revealing than the question itself. Mr. Philbin said there was no evidence in the record of a specific date, but there is testimony showing that officials at the Office of Management and Budget were aware of a hold on security aid as early as July 3. That is more than two weeks before Mr. Trump’s July 25 telephone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, in which Mr. Trump asked Mr. Zelensky to “do us a favor, though,” and investigate Mr. Biden. Mr. Philbin went on to cite a Defense Department email exchange on June 24 in which the Pentagon’s chief of staff, seeking to answer a question from the president, asked what the aid was used for, whether it went to American companies and how much other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization spent to support Ukraine. And he cited testimony from an Office of Management and Budget official who said the president was concerned about corruption. Read more

Jan. 29, 2020, 9:08 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 9:08 p.m. ET By Schiff tells Republicans to trust how the chief justice would handle witnesses. Image Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. arriving Wednesday on Capitol Hill. Credit... Erin Schaff/The New York Times Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the lead Democratic House manager, invoked Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. several times on Wednesday night, saying Republicans should not worry about litigious trial delays over witnesses. Mr. Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, would prevent them, Mr. Schiff said, by making swift determinations over the relevance of witnesses and the appropriateness of their testimonies. House managers would agree to be bound by those rulings and not appeal to reverse them, Mr. Schiff said. “I trust the man behind me sitting way up,” he said from the lectern in front of Mr. Roberts. “I can’t see him right now, but I trust him to make decisions about witnesses.”

Jan. 29, 2020, 8:56 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 8:56 p.m. ET By Sanders says Trump has told 16,200 lies. (But who’s counting? ) Image Senator Bernie Sanders at the Capitol on Wednesday. Credit... Erin Schaff/The New York Times With four Democratic senators running for president, the 2020 presidential election was not far from the Senate chamber Wednesday night. Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic nomination, used his question to make the case that his would-be opponent in November — President Trump — has a somewhat questionable relationship with the truth. “Given the media has documented President Trump’s thousands of lies while in office — more than 16,200 as of Jan. 20,” Mr. Sanders asked, “why should we be expected to believe that anything President Trump says has credibility?” The Washington Post reported last week that Mr. Trump has made 16,200 false or misleading claims since he took office three years ago. A low murmur went up in the Senate chamber as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. read the question aloud. Representative Adam B. Schiff, the lead House impeachment manager, also seemed taken aback. “Well,” Mr. Schiff said with a slight chuckle, “I’m not quite sure where to begin with that question.” Read more

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Jan. 29, 2020, 8:45 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 8:45 p.m. ET By Schiff acknowledges he likes Bolton ‘a little more than I used to.’ Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the lead House manager, made one more pitch on Wednesday for why senators should call witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial: “I’m no fan of John Bolton, although I like him a little more than I used to.” He added, “Don’t take my word for it about John Bolton.” But he might as well have been summarizing how Democrats have revised their feelings about Mr. Bolton, the former national security adviser they once derided, until the disclosure on Sunday that President Trump wanted to hold up vital security aid to Ukraine until it investigated his political rivals.

Jan. 29, 2020, 8:32 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 8:32 p.m. ET By As Republicans warn of witness-induced delays, Democrats fire back. Image Senator Lindsey Graham speaking to reporters on Wednesday at the Capitol. Credit... Erin Schaff/The New York Times Teeing up an argument that the Senate would be paralyzed for weeks if their colleagues voted to hear from witnesses, Republican senators submitted question after question Wednesday evening asking the White House defense team to outline the effect such a vote would have on the chamber’s productivity. Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have warned that if the Senate were to vote to hear from witnesses, it would open the floodgates. If John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, were called to testify, they contend, so, too, would a litany of others, like Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. But some lawmakers sought to give momentum to that argument, and the president’s lawyers were happy to oblige. Jay Sekulow, the White House counsel, said that if witnesses are called, “We would be here for a very, very long time. And that’s not good for the United States.” Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, offered an incredulous rebuttal. The message from the White House, Mr. Schiff said, was, “We will make you pay for it with endless delay.” “Don’t be thrown off by this claim,” he continued. “We’re not here to indulge in fantasy or distraction.” Read more

Jan. 29, 2020, 8:22 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 8:22 p.m. ET By White House lawyer says counsel’s office only learned of Bolton account on Sunday. Patrick Philbin, a deputy White House counsel, told senators Wednesday evening that he and other members of the White House legal team only learned of John R. Bolton’s account of his conversations about Ukraine with President Trump shortly before it was publicly reported. “Lawyers in the White House counsel’s office learned about that allegation for the first time on Sunday afternoon when it was contacted by The New York Times,” he said in response to a question about when the president’s defense team was first informed of the account by Mr. Bolton, the former national security adviser. The Times reported on Sunday that a coming book by Mr. Bolton asserts that the president told him directly that he would not release almost $400 million in military aid to Ukraine until the country assisted with investigations into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Mr. Bolton submitted a manuscript of the book to the National Security Council for prepublication review and Democrats are dubious that lawyers there did not communicate with their colleagues in the White House about the contents of the manuscript. Earlier in the questioning, Mr. Philbin denied that anyone had warned White House lawyers that the book would be a political problem or that they had been allowed to review it. Read more

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Jan. 29, 2020, 8:15 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 8:15 p.m. ET By Schiff accuses the intelligence agencies of withholding relevant information. Representative Adam B. Schiff, the lead House impeachment manager, accused the director of national intelligence and the National Security Agency of withholding intelligence that he said could be relevant to the impeachment trial of President Trump. It was the second time in two weeks that Mr. Schiff has spoken openly about a behind-the-scenes conflict between the House Intelligence Committee, which he leads, and one of the nation’s largest intelligence agencies. His statement came in response to a question from a senator from Virginia about whether there was evidence that Russia had disseminated conspiracy theories about the 2016 election inference that Mr. Trump and his lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani had repeated. (It was unclear whether the question was from Senator Mark Warner, who is the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, or Senator Tim Kaine.) Mr. Schiff did not specifically mention Russia in his answer but said there were “three categories of relevant information” that the Senate needed to see. The first was additional testimony, still kept secret, from Jennifer Williams, a national security aide to Vice President Mike Pence. He urged senators, all of whom have security clearances, to read the classified testimony. The second category dealt with intelligence, which he described only as “directly relevant to this trial,” that had been provided to his committee. “There is a third category of intelligence, too, which raises a very different problem, and that is that the intelligence communities are for the first time refusing to provide to the intelligence committee,” Mr. Schiff said, referring to the nation’s 16 intelligence agencies, which report to the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire. “That material has been gathered, we know it exists, but the N.S.A. has been advised not to provide it," Mr. Schiff said. Addressing the decision-making behind the move, Mr. Schiff said, “Now the director says that this is the director’s decision, but nonetheless there is a body of intelligence that is relevant to requests that we have made that is not being provided.” It was unclear whether he meant Mr. Maguire, a former head of the National Counterterrorism Center, or Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, the director of the National Security Agency. But the standoff raised the possibility of a “deeply concerning and new phenomenon,” he said: Are the intelligence agencies — which his committee oversees — “now also withholding information at the urging of the administration?” It is unclear whether the intelligence Mr. Schiff was referring to involved Ukraine, Russia or both. But there has been widespread speculation that it involves intercepts or other intelligence gathered from inside the Kremlin’s leadership, or inside Ukraine, that might suggest Mr. Trump was repeating Russian talking points. The issue came up because in Mr. Trump’s July 25 telephone conversation with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, he sought an investigation into whether the server of the Democratic National Committee was being hidden inside Ukraine. That is part of a theory — widely discredited, even by Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department — that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind the theft of data from the committee’s computer systems in 2015 and 2016. “The server, they say Ukraine has it," Mr. Trump said, according to a reconstructed account of the conversation prepared by the National Security Council. In fact, there were many servers, some in the cloud. But the primary server, about the size of a large laptop, has been on display in the basement of the Democratic National Committee, next to one of the file cabinets that the Watergate burglars broke into nearly a half-decade ago. The National Security Agency has declined to comment about the dispute, or why the intelligence has not been provided to the committee. Nor has the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said much, other than issue a general statement that “the intelligence community is committed to providing Congress with the information and intelligence it needs to carry out its critical oversight role.” Mr. Schiff and Mr. Maguire have tangled before, when Mr. Maguire held up reporting to the committee over the summer about a “whistle-blower report” that ultimately started the impeachment investigation. Ultimately, the report was turned over to the committee. As in that case, Mr. Schiff is in a delicate spot: He cannot say what the intelligence contains, even if he knows. So instead, he is pressuring the intelligence agencies to turn it over, in a form that all senators can examine — if it is admissible in evidence. Read more

Jan. 29, 2020, 7:30 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 7:30 p.m. ET By Rand Paul’s question may center on naming the whistle-blower. Image Senator Rand Paul on Wednesday at the Capitol. Credit... Erin Schaff/The New York Times Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, has been prevented so far from asking a question about the origins of the impeachment inquiry because it would reveal the identity of the whistle-blower, according to a person familiar with the debate. “It’s still an ongoing process; it may happen tomorrow,” Mr. Paul told reporters on Wednesday. Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 2 Republican, for his part, said, “We have members who have an interest in questions related to the whistle-blower.” But he noted that he did not believe the whistle-blower would be named on the Senate floor. “I don’t think that happens, and I guess I would hope that it doesn’t,” he said. It remains unclear how the issue will be resolved. Read more

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Jan. 29, 2020, 6:43 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 6:43 p.m. ET By Bashing Bolton, a Senate candidate, Jeff Sessions, plays up his loyalty. As he campaigns to reclaim his former Senate seat in Alabama, the former attorney general Jeff Sessions has been trying hard to repair his relationship with President Trump since he fired him in 2018. He appears to believe the saga of John R. Bolton could help. Mr. Sessions posted a series of thoughts on Twitter on Wednesday as the trial was unfolding, contrasted himself with Mr. Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser. His message boiled down to this: I had every reason to gripe publicly, Mr. President, but I did not! “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…” Mr. Sessions wrote. First, discretion is “the honorable thing to do,” he said. Second, speaking out is “an act of disloyalty to the administration one serves.” And third, it “sets a very damaging and dangerous precedent” that could undermine the ability of the president to have “candid” conversations with his aides, Mr. Sessions said. Mr. Sessions, notably, did not include among his reasons that he had no criticisms for Mr. Trump. Mr. Sessions is involved in a competitive Republican primary race in Alabama. An endorsement from Mr. Trump, his former boss, could be decisive and the candidate has said he will ”work for” it. 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 Read more

Jan. 29, 2020, 6:34 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 6:34 p.m. ET By The Senate breaks for dinner. The senators wrapped after more than two hours of uninterrupted questions, including the occasional cross-examination by Republicans of the Democratic House managers and by Democrats of President Trump’s lawyers. At least a few of the questions handed over by senators appeared typed, rather than handwritten, though with some cross outs and additions in pen. The questioning could go deep into the night.

Jan. 29, 2020, 6:20 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 6:20 p.m. ET By Senators ask when the president wanted to pursue an investigation of the Bidens. Image Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in Sioux City, Iowa, on Wednesday. Credit... Ruth Fremson/The New York Times Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska jointly raised one of the more interesting questions of the afternoon: At what point did President Trump decide that Ukraine needed to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, Hunter Biden? Patrick Philbin, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, did not answer directly. But he tried to suggest that the president’s interest was not prompted by Mr. Biden’s announcement in late April that he was running for president. Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani apparently briefed the president on Ukraine, he said. And “months before Vice President Biden announced his candidacy, Mr. Giuliani is looking into this issue and interviewing people and getting information.” He also said that whatever Mr. Giuliani told Mr. Trump was protected by attorney-client privilege, which suggests that even Mr. Trump’s team might acknowledge he would be of limited use as a witness. That is notable because another defense lawyer, Jane Raskin, specifically criticized the House managers for never subpoenaing him to testify. Read more

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Jan. 29, 2020, 5:58 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 5:58 p.m. ET By Protesters rally outside the Capitol, calling trial ‘a sham.’ As the minority leader, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, played down the likelihood of witnesses in the impeachment trial, a fresh wave of protesters appeared at the Capitol to press for witnesses and new evidence. The few dozen demonstrators, organized by the advocacy group Refuse Fascism, chanted, “Trump, Pence, out now,” accompanied by the beat of a drum. About a dozen officers from the Capitol Police herded them off the pavement and onto the grounds of a park nearby. “The idea that you have a jury, a Senate coordinating in lock step with the defendant, working to suppress evidence, to suppress witnesses — that’s not justice,” said Sunsara Taylor, a co-founder of the group. “That’s a sham. This is illegitimate.” After about 30 minutes, the demonstrators began to march through the city. They plan to return every day until the trial concludes, Ms. Taylor said.

Jan. 29, 2020, 5:43 p.m. ET Jan. 29, 2020, 5:43 p.m. ET By Cory Gardner won’t vote to call witnesses or documents. Image Senator Cory Gardner, Republican of Colorado, on Tuesday at the Capitol. Credit... Erin Schaff/The New York Times As the questioning began on Wednesday, yet another Republican, Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado, made it official: He would not vote for witnesses and documents. Mr. Gardner was never a leading candidate to buck his party, but as a Republican up for re-election this fall in a Democratic-leaning state, he refused for days to commit one way or another. That changed on Wednesday, when he said the Senate need not consider anything beyond the testimony already gathered in the House’s impeachment inquiry. “I do not believe we need to hear from an 18th witness,” Mr. Gardner said. “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.”