Here are the most significant moments so far:

Will Trump's team promise not to appeal Roberts' rulings on privilege

The question

Will the president’s counsel make the same commitment not to appeal any ruling Chief Justice John Roberts makes on privilege and witness relevancy, thus obviating any concerns about an extended trial.

Who asked

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) to White House counsel.

The answer

Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow said the president would not be willing to cede privilege questions to the chief justice, nixing a suggestion by the House managers to allow John Roberts to decide such matters in order to prevent weeks of delay.

“With no disrespect to the chief justice, that’s not the constitutional design,” Sekulow said. “The president is not willing to forgo those rights and privileges that he possesses under the Constitution under Article II for expediency.”

Why it matters

Democrats pressed harder than ever to alleviate concerns among some Republicans about a protracted fight if the Senate decides to call witnesses in the impeachment trial. But it sounds like that’s a non-starter. Some Republicans had raised questions about the possibility too, but it doesn’t appear it will get off the ground.

Why aren’t bribery and wire fraud included in impeachment articles

The question

The House Judiciary report stated President Donald Trump committed criminal bribery and honest services wire fraud. But these offenses are not cited in the impeachment articles. Why not?

Who asked

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked the question to the House impeachment managers.

The answer

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Trump’s actions as alleged in the impeachment articles are “akin to a crime.” But he did not specifically answer Collins’ question about why bribery and wire fraud were left out of the articles, even though the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment report states that Trump committed those offenses.

Why it matters

The impeachment articles did not charge Trump with a statutory crime, something that Democrats have repeatedly pointed out is not required. But Trump’s allies have noted that every previous presidential impeachment alleged statutory crimes, and they have accused Democrats of leaving out these charges for political reasons. That Collins is pointing out the discrepancy is notable because she is considered to be a swing vote.

Romney asks about Ukraine aid freeze

The question

On what specific date did President Donald Trump first order the hold on security assistance to Ukraine and did he explain the reason at that time.

Who asked

Sen. Romney (R-Utah) to White House counsel.

The answer

Trump attorney Patrick Philbin declined to answer the first part of Romney’s question, only indicating that the trial record doesn’t indicate when Trump ordered the hold on aid to Ukraine. He then pointed to correspondence on June 24 that indicated Trump’s interest in burden-sharing among European allies.

Why it matters

Romney, one of the few Republicans open to hearing from witnesses, included this on his pre-released list of six questions for the lawyers on each side. But he didn’t get an answer to the central aspect of his question. Rather, Trump’s attorneys cited discussions other people had about aid to Ukraine but never addressed when Trump ordered the hold on aid or what he told people when he did it.

Bernie Sanders asks about Trump’s "lies"

The question

Given the media has documented President Donald Trump's thousands of lies while in office, more than 16,200 as of January 20th, why should we be expected to believe that anything president trump says has credibility?

Who asked

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) asked the question of the House managers.

The answer

“Well, I'm not quite sure where to begin with that question except to say that, if every defendant in a trial could be exonerated just by denying the crime, there would be no trial,” replied Rep. Adam Schiff before launching into a familiar critique of the president’s fitness for office.

Why it matters

Sanders wasn’t exactly breaking new ground with his question, but it did mark the first time any of the four remaining Democratic 2020 candidates serving in the Senate had spoken up on the floor Wednesday during the question and answer session (Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar followed not that long after). Also, Sanders managed to get Chief Justice John Roberts to read aloud a sentence documenting Trump’s fudging of the facts. That’ll be in the Congressional Record forever.

Point-counterpoint on how long the trial could last

The question

If House managers are certain it would take months to litigate to subpoena John Bolton, why should we assume it wouldn’t take months in the Senate?

Who asked

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) to the White House team; Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), to House managers.

The answer

Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow said it would absolutely be a protracted fight to get witnesses like Bolton.

Why it matters

Sekulow ignored the House managers’ call to allow Chief Justice Roberts to adjudicate questions about privilege and disputes over witnesses.

The question

Respond to the answer to the previous question.

Who asked

Schumer to the House managers.

The answer

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead House manager, lit into the White House lawyers, accusing them of threatening the Senate with endless court battles if they dared to request a single witness who might offer derogatory information about Trump. Schiff said if the House really wanted to tie up the Senate for weeks, he would ask for Sekulow to disclose his contacts with Lev Parnas, the indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, or White House Counsel Pat Cipollone’s involvement in blocking documents from going to the House.

Schiff said the solution is to rely on Roberts to make decisions in camera about what evidence is relevant and whether it’s appropriate for the White House team to identify the whistleblower.

“They’re doing the same thing to the Senate they did to the House, which is, ‘You try to investigate the president, we will tie you and your entire chamber up in knots for weeks and months,’” Schiff said.

Why it matters

Sekulow ignored the House managers’ call to allow Roberts to adjudicate questions about privilege and disputes over witnesses.

How long will the trial go if there are witnesses?

The question

How long would it take for the Senate to finish the impeachment trial if senators vote in favor of calling witnesses?

Who asked

Sens. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) asked the question to the president's lawyers.

The answer

Jay Sekulow, Trump’s lead personal attorney, said it would take “a long time” — possibly “months” — for the Senate to conclude the trial if it votes to call witnesses. “This would be the first of many weeks,” Sekulow said. He also harangued the House managers for rushing their impeachment inquiry and then asking the Senate to call additional witnesses. “They put this forward in an aggressive and fast-paced way. And now they’re saying we need witnesses,” Sekulow said.

Why it matters

The length of the Senate trial is an important consideration for Republican senators deciding whether to vote for or against additional witnesses on Friday. If at least 50 senators vote against calling witnesses, the trial will almost certainly end in short order with an acquittal vote. But if the initial motion for witnesses is adopted, the trial could last several additional weeks, with witnesses being called by both sides.

What did Bolton mean by ‘drug deal’?

The question

What did John Bolton mean when he referenced a “drug deal” between acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland? And did Bolton ever reference this in a meeting with President Donald Trump?

Who asked

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) asked the question to both sides.

The answer

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) explained that Bolton’s comment was made during a July 2019 meeting at the White House after the topic of investigations came up. Fiona Hill, a former Russia adviser on the National Security Council, told investigators that Bolton referred to a “drug deal” that Mulvaney and Sondland were “cooking up.” Trump defender Patrick Philbin dismissed the remark as “hearsay” and said he would not speculate about what Bolton meant.

Why it matters

This was yet another effort by Democrats to highlight Bolton’s relevance to the impeachment inquiry and to their final verdict in the trial — ahead of a likely vote Friday on whether to call witnesses.

What standard of proof should senators use?

The question

What standard of proof should be used in trials of impeachment — preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, beyond a reasonable doubt — and why?

Who asked

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), joined by Sens. Todd Young (R-Ind.) and Michael Crapo (R-Idaho), in this question to both sides.

The answer

Rep. Zoe Lofgren argued for the House managers that there is no clear threshold here that can be pulled from a courtroom and applied to impeachment. She acknowledged that in the impeachment process against Nixon, the House Judiciary Committee used a “clear and convincing” standard but also noted that “it is up to each senator to make a judgment.”

No surprise, but Patrick Philbin countered for Trump’s defense by advising the Senate that it should apply the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard “because the gravity of the situation would not permit you to apply anything less.”

Why it matters

This exchange encapsulates better than just about anything else the two different sides’ perspectives on the fundamental rationale that senators must keep in mind when deciding whether to remove Trump. It’s notable that Murkowski is asking this question, given that she’s seen as a potential swing vote when all is said and done. It also stands out because this is the kind of question jurors in regular court proceedings will ask a judge as they try to understand what their responsibilities entail during deliberations.

Burisma and Rudy Giuliani

The question

At what point did the United States government develop concerns about Ukraine gas company Burisma — the company that employed Hunter Biden — in relation to corruption and concerns with Russia?

Who asked

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) joined Sens. Michael Crapo (R-Idaho) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho) this question to the Trump lawyers.

The answer

One of President Donald Trump’s legal defenders, Pat Philbin, used this question to recite the Trump company line on how the president’s interest in a Ukrainian natural gas company became a focal point of the president’s foreign policy decisions in the region— and it just so happened to coincide with Vice President Joe Biden.

He cited a series of news articles spurred in no small part by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani’s full-scale media campaign that also ended up raising questions about potential Biden conflicts of interest to back up Trump’s interest in the issue.

Why it matters

Trump lawyers have been working overtime during the Senate trial to back up Giuliani’s work and fuse it together with the Trump administration's wider Ukraine policy. In doing that, they’re making an argument that goes to the core of the House’s charge of abuse of power and gives Trump’s Senate GOP allies a useful talking point to back up their defense of the president.

Schiff calls accusations that he coordinated with whistleblower 'total fiction'

The question:

An August 2019 letter to the office of the Director of National Intelligence discussing the so-called whistleblower stated that the inspector general offered some signs of a political bias in favor of a political candidate. Did the so-called whistleblower work for or with Joe Biden — including on Ukraine issues.

Who asked

Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) for House managers.

The answer

Rep. Adam Schiff said he would answer carefully to protect the identity of the whistleblower. He quoted Sens. Chuck Grassley, Richard Burr and Mitt Romney as well as Rep. Devin Nunes urging protection for whistleblowers. Schiff affirmed that he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is, that he hasn’t communicated with him at all. He said his staff didn’t write or influence the complaint. He said his staff didn’t see the complaint until the night before the DNI testified in September.

Why it matters

Schiff delivered the most forceful rebuke of allegations that he somehow coached or colluded with the whistleblower to ignite the Ukraine scandal.

“The conspiracy theory … that the whistleblower colluded with the Intel Committee staff … is a complete and total fiction,” he said.

Schiff also refuted claims that his staff acted improperly in handling initial contact with the whistleblower.

“My staff acted at all times with the most complete professionalism,” he said. “I am very protective of my staff as I know you are. I am grateful that we have such bright hard-working people working around the clock to protect this country. It really grieves me to see them smeared.”

What did the White House know about John Bolton’s book?

The queston

Did anyone in the White House or outside the White House tell the White House counsel’s office that John Bolton’s book would be politically problematic for the president?

Who asked

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) asked the question to the president’s lawyers.

The answer

Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin echoed the White House’s previously stated position on the matter: “No one from inside the White House or outside the White House told us that the publication of the book would be problematic for the president. We assumed that Mr. Bolton was disgruntled and we didn’t expect that he was going to be saying a lot of nice things about the president. But nobody told us anything about that.”

Why it matters

Lawmakers have raised questions about whether the White House counsel’s office was aware of what Bolton wrote in his book before The New York Times first revealed some of its contents on Sunday night — and, as Blumenthal’s question indicated, whether it was political damaging for the president. Philbin echoed other Trump allies who have described Bolton as “disgruntled.” His answer was perhaps the shortest of the day so far.

Will new evidence come out even after the trial ends?

The question

The House has a tape of President Donald Trump saying of ousted U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, “take her out.” Does this suggest other new evidence will come out if the Senate acquits.

Who asked

Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) for the House managers.

The answer

Rep. Adam Schiff said, “The answer is yes.” Every week, indeed, every day new information comes out, he said, pointing ahead to March 17 when former national security adviser John Bolton’s book is due out. Schiff then pressed the White House team for its previous answer on whether there was an awareness of the content of Bolton’s manuscript. He noted that the National Security Council’s statement on the matter didn’t address whether anyone in the counsel’s office was briefed on the manuscript or simply told to block Bolton’s testimony.

Schiff also used the moment to emphasize that the Senate can supplement its trial record and referred back to an earlier question from Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) suggesting that the White House could simply call a witness who would testify whether Trump ever expressed an interest in the Bidens prior to Joe Biden’s entrance into the presidential race.

Why it matters

Trump’s allies have repeatedly indicated that Bolton’s book was not viewed by anyone outside the NSC but there are gaping holes in the statement that have yet to be answered.

Rep. Jason Crow on Ukraine aid freeze: ‘Delays matter’

The question

Is the White House correct in its trial memorandum and in presentations of its case that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other senior Ukrainian officials did not even know that the security assistance had been paused before saying press reports on Aug. 28, 2019, which is more than a month after the July 25th phone call between Presidents Zelensky and Trump.

Who asked

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) posed this question to the House managers.

The answer

“No,” replied Rep. Jason Crow before ticking through a long list of evidence to counter another line of the Trump team’s defense. He cited emails and conversations among U.S. diplomats between the phone call and the oft-quoted POLITICO scoop from late August about the aid freeze.

And he questioned how the pause on aid that Ukraine could truly be OK -- countering a Trump attorney argument -- because of other appropriated U.S. dollars that were going toward military funding. He noted for one that government contractors in Ukraine need continuity when making their purchasing decisions. “Delays matter,” Crow added.

Why it matters

Still more tit-for-tat that ensures the Trump team won’t be making claims that go unanswered. Indeed, White House lawyers had just made the opposite point minutes earlier about whether Ukraine was vulnerable because of the military aid freeze.

Did Schiff coordinate with the whistleblower?

The question

Is there any reason to believe that the whistleblower coordinated with — or knew — anyone on Rep. Adam Schiff’s staff?

Who asked

Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asked the question to the president’s lawyers.

The answer

Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin said the White House has no information about the whistleblower other than what has been revealed in public reporting. Philbin did, though, speculate about the motives of the whistleblower, whose initial complaint about Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky kicked off the impeachment inquiry.

Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has denied that he had any contact with the whistleblower or knows his or her name, but Republicans have noted that the whistleblower contacted Schiff’s staff before filing the complaint.

Philbin said contacts between Schiff’s staff and the whistleblower are “shrouded in secrecy.” He said that getting to the bottom of “how this inquiry was created … could potentially be relevant.”

Why it matters

These senators in particular have raised questions about the motives of the whistleblower, whom many of Trump’s allies have painted as an anti-Trump antagonist within the intelligence community who just wanted to cause problems for the president.

They have pushed Schiff to subpoena the whistleblower, but Schiff has said that over time, the whistleblower became less relevant to the investigation as his committee began to gather information that corroborates and expands upon what was laid out in the whistleblower’s initial complaint. Republicans have sought to paint Schiff as a “fact witness” in the case as part of an effort to de-legitimize the House’s inquiry.

Collins and Murkowski ask Trump lawyers pointed question

The question

Witnesses testified that President Trump believed Ukraine was corrupt. Before Joe Biden entered the race, did President Trump ever mention Joe or Hunter Biden to former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, or to his cabinet officials or top aides? If so, what did the president say and to whom?

Who asked

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) asked the question to the president’s lawyers.

The answer

Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin declined to answer the question directly, stating that he had only the House’s investigative record to work off of and noting that such record does not contain anything that shows Trump specifically mentioning the Bidens before 2019.“They were the ones who ran it. They were the ones who called the witnesses,” Philbin said. But he noted that the record does contain readouts of Trump’s phone calls with Poroshenko — the predecessor to Ukraine’s current president, Volodymyr Zelensky — which state that the two presidents spoke about corruption. Philbin said he presumes that Trump brought up the Bidens but could not say for sure.

Why it matters

Democrats have made the case that Trump didn’t care about holding back military aid from Ukraine until Biden began running for president in 2019, noting that the president’s lawyers say Trump wanted to root out corruption but that Trump never froze military aid during the first two years of his administration. And it was notable that Collins and Murkowski asked the question because they are believed to be considering voting in favor of witnesses and possibly in favor of convicting the president. Their question suggested that they were skeptical of the White House team’s arguments that Trump was interested in rooting out corruption in Ukraine, rather than seeking to investigate his political rivals.

When did Ukraine learn about the aid freeze?

The question

Democrats say Ukraine knew about the hold on aid prior to Aug. 28, when POLITICO made it public. Is that the case?

Who asked

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.) asked the White House team.

The answer

Trump lawyer Michael Purpura said top Ukrainian officials only learned about the hold on military aid through an Aug. 28 POLITICO article. He said some witnesses who suggested it was possible that Ukraine knew prior to the article were ambiguous about it.

“This was something that on Aug. 28 caused a flurry of activity among the highest ranking officials. Never before did they raise any questions with the high-ranking officials through July and August.

“That’s consistent with someone finding out about it for the first time,” he said.

Why it matters

There is some ambiguity about whether Ukraine had a general awareness of the aid freeze prior to the POLITICO article. One witness, State Department Ukraine specialist Catherine Croft, said it was clear that some embassy officials knew but wanted to keep it quiet because it would reveal a rift between the United States and Ukraine.

Only after the POLITICO story, when keeping it secret was no longer an option, did officials begin to make more noise about the issue. But other senior Ukrainian officials, cited by Purpura, indicated they only learned about the aid freeze when POLITICO broke the story.

Who had greater military impact on Ukraine? Trump or Obama?

The question

Which would you say had the greater military impact? President Trump’s temporary pause of 48 days on future aide that will not be delivered to Ukraine or President Obama’s steadfast refusal to provide lethal aid to Ukraine for three years, more than 1,000 days while Ukraine attempted to hold back Russia’s invasion and preserve its sovereignty?

Who asked

Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the panel’s rank-and-file GOP members posed their question to the president’s lawyers.

The answer

No surprise here, but Patrick Philbin replied that the Obama policy was much more dangerous from a global security standpoint compared with what Trump did. The White House associate counsel also argued that a temporary pause in funding didn’t actually have an on-the-ground impact because U.S. appropriations were already in the pipeline for Ukraine.

Why it matters

This is one of the biggest Republican softballs of the day — giving the Trump lawyers a chance to put again on the record their argument that the last Democratic president was even more out of bounds than the Ukraine scheme at the center of the impeachment trial.

Did the White House try to block Bolton’s book?

The question

When did the president’s counsel first learn that former national security adviser John Bolton’s manuscript was submitted to the White House for review, and did they do anything to stop him from publishing his book.

Who asked

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) asked the White House team

The answer

Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin said the White House counsel’s office was notified that it was submitted but wasn’t sure of the precise date. The National Security Council has released a statement indicating that no one has reviewed it outside NSC staff.

Why it matters

Philbin did not answer directly whether the White House counsel’s office knew anything about the contents of the Bolton manuscript. Instead he cited an NSC statement that indicated no one outside the NSC had reviewed the manuscript itself — but didn’t indicate whether anyone else had been briefed on its contents.

Undermining Bolton

The question

President Trump’s former chief of staff John Kelly has said, “I believe John Bolton and suggested Bolton should testify.” Do you agree with General Kelly that he should be heard?

Who asked

Sen. King (I-Maine) asked both teams.

The answer

From Trump’s team, his personal attorney Jay Sekulow responded, saying it’s not clear that the reports about Bolton’s manuscript are accurate. Sekulow cited statements from the Justice Department that called into question the accuracy of Bolton’s unpublished book, which claims that Trump told Bolton he wanted to continue freezing aid until Ukraine announced investigations into the president’s rivals.

Sekulow reiterated that though the president's team doesn't believe witnesses should be called, if they are called then Trump would expect to have his own slate of witnesses.

For the House managers, Rep. Adam Schiff said Kelly’s comments are revealing in that he believes Bolton over the president. Schiff called the White House’s arguments extraordinary and said it would be a mistake to have the first impeachment trial in history without witnesses.

Why it matters

Sekulow is contradicting some of the Senate Republicans who have argued that the information in Bolton’s manuscript, as reported by the New York Times, would not be enough to impeach Trump. Rather, Sekulow claims that the reports of the manuscript can’t be trusted at all.

Would a Trump acquittal undermine the justice system?

The question

President Nixon famously said, “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” President Trump said, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. They let you do anything.” He also said Article II of the Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever” he wants as president. This reflects that the president believes he is above the law. If the Senate acquits Trump, how would that undermine the U.S. system of justice?

Who asked

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) asked the question to the House impeachment managers.

The answer

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead House manager, began his answer by noting that Trump accused the whistleblower — whose complaint kicked off the impeachment inquiry — of treason. Such a statement, Schiff said, shows that Trump believes he is “synonymous with the country,” and that a crime against him is the same as a crime against the United States.

Schiff also used his answer to highlight Trump’s defiance of subpoenas related to the House’s impeachment inquiry.

“If you accept the argument that the president of the United States can tell you to pound sand when you try to investigate his wrongdoing, there will be no force behind any Senate subpoena in the future,” Schiff said.

Why it matters

Harris’ question — which invoked the infamous Access Hollywood tape — gave Schiff an opportunity to portray Trump as believing that he is an authoritarian, tailoring his arguments in particular to the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress. He also appeared to be making a more direct appeal to senators when he mentioned the power of a Senate subpoena — which the chamber’s committee chairs, all Republicans, currently have the power to issue.

Trump defense argues against House impeachment subpoena power

The question

Describe in further detail your contention that all subpoenas issued prior to the House’s approving the impeachment inquiry were invalid.

Who asked

Sens. Rounds (R-S.D.) and Murkowski (R-Alaska) asked the White House lawyers.

The answer

Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin said the White House’s contention is based on case law interpreting constitutional case law giving constitutional power to the House — not a House committee or individual member.

“There is no standing rule in the House that provides the committees ... the authority to use the impeachment power to issue subpoenas,” Philbin said.

Why it matters

Philbin’s answer is highly disputed and was actually refuted by the most recent case law on the matter, which came from the federal district court in Washington. The White House legal team’s interpretation would be a dramatically narrower conception of congressional subpoena authority that it’s been in practice for decades.

The House Intelligence Committee had subpoena authority well before the impeachment inquiry began, and the District Court decision indicated that the House’s claim to be in an impeachment inquiry delivered by Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sept. 24 was valid.

Do ‘high crimes or misdemeanors’ have to be violation of criminal code?

The question

Does the phrase “or other high crimes or misdemeanors” in Article II, Section IV of the Constitution require a violation of U.S. criminal code, or is a breach of public trust sufficient? Please explain.

Who asked

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) posed this to the House managers.

The answer

Another softball for Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who knows this issue cold thanks to her resume as a House staffer during the Richard Nixon impeachment process and again as a sitting member in the Bill Clinton case. She described the reasons the Founding Fathers put the impeachment power into the Constitution but stayed purposefully vague on what the threshold would be for actually moving forward to remove a president.

Lofgren noted that criminal violations like defacing a post office box would be a federal crime but would be scoffed at if lawmakers used that premise to remove a federal officeholder. Bringing it back to Trump, she pointed to his Ukraine scheme as an abuse of power that did run to “the detriment of our national interest.”

Why it matters

Democrats had made all these points back during their presentation last week, but this marked their first chance to rebut the presentation on Monday night by one of Trump’s lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, who argued that a crime did indeed need to be committed to impeach a president.

Would it be OK if Obama did it?

The question

Would former President Barack Obama have had the authority to ask for an investigation into Mitt Romney’s son?

Who asked

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asked the question to the House managers.

The answer

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead impeachment manager, said it was “remarkable to me that we even have to have this conversation,” and he took issue with the hypothetical itself, saying that Trump only wanted the investigation of the Bidens to be announced — not conducted.

Leveraging official political acts “to target their political opponent is wrong and corrupt,” Schiff said, adding: “I can’t imagine any circumstance where that’s justified.”

Why it matters

This was an attempt by Graham and Cruz — both Trump allies and critics of Joe and Hunter Biden — to legitimize Trump’s request that Ukraine investigate the Bidens, and to back up the corruption allegations that have driven Republicans’ criticisms of the former vice president.

Schiff didn’t take the hypothetical at face value, but he essentially said that if Barack Obama had done the same to Mitt Romney under the same circumstances, it would be impeachable.

Dems argue new witnesses won’t drag out trial

The question

Some have claimed that subpoenaing witnesses and documents would unnecessarily prolong this trial. Isn’t it true three witnesses in Bill Clinton’s trial completed their depositions in only one day each? Isn’t it true this chief justice has the authority to rule on this without any delay?

Who asked

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) asked this question to the House managers.

The answer

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) quickly dished up a recounting of the historical record to show both that depositions can happen quickly, like in the Clinton example, and that the Senate in the past has spoken to witnesses who weren’t interviewed by the House. On that latter point, he noted the 1868 Senate trial of President Andrew Johnson included 37 witnesses who didn’t sit for House testimony.

Why it matters

This was an interesting exchange. Right before Carper, White House associate counsel Patrick Philbin had handled a different question from Republicans where he warned that whatever the Senate did in the Trump trial would become the precedent for future impeachment trials. Jeffries' answer offered a direct contradiction by looking back at many of the past Senate impeachment trials — not just Clinton's 1999 case — to make a point that there are indeed many precedents worth remembering.

Did Trump consult advisers in deciding to hold up aid?

The question

Has any evidence been presented by the president’s counsel that Trump relied on policy advisers in his decision to withhold military aid?

Who asked

Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked the House managers.

The answer

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said well-established processes were in place to pursue national security matters — like the National Security Council and the national security adviser, as in John Bolton. But the evidence, he said, showed that none of those agencies were involved in his decision.

Why it matters

Trump’s legal team has repeatedly argued that the president can set foreign policy regardless of his subordinates’ opinions. But the House managers have emphasized that Trump didn’t just ignore his advisers — he flouted all of their advice. There was unanimity among the NSC, the State Department and the Pentagon to release military aid to Ukraine, as well as bipartisan congressional support.

Why not let the voters decide?

The question

Please address the president’s argument that impeachment is the overturn of an election and that the decision should instead be left to the voters.

Who asked

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) asked the question to the House impeachment managers.

The answer

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead House manager, said removing Trump from office is “not voiding” the election but “protecting” it. He referenced the House managers’ argument in their briefs that Trump is trying to “cheat” in the 2020 election and “push out Russian propaganda” about Ukraine. He said it doesn’t matter that an election is taking place in 10 months.

“What you’re really saying is you can only impeach a president in your second term,” Schiff said, noting that such a limitation is not placed on the impeachment power in the Constitution.

“We had to hurry because the president was trying to cheat in that election,” he added.

Why it matters

One of the president’s central arguments against his impeachment and removal from office has been the contention that the 2020 election should serve as a check on Trump’s power, and that House Democrats are seeking to remove Trump from office because they’re worried that Trump will win re-election in 2020.

In fact, many of the Republican senators who were believed to be on the fence about impeachment have noted that the election is fast approaching. Schiff sought to argue that Trump himself presents a threat to the integrity of that election — but it’s proven unlikely to sway Republicans so far.

Dems get a softball

The question

Would the House managers care to correct the record on any false statements in the White House’s opening arguments?

Who asked

Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow asked this to the House managers.

The answer

Rep. Zoe Lofgren’s reply went point by point through several items in the president’s three-day defense.

She argued that the summary of Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was far from the only evidence introduced into the impeachment record about the alleged Trump scheme to get investigations into his political opponents. That included meetings with John Bolton and text messages to the Ukrainian president.

And Lofgren attacked an argument Trump lawyers have made that no crime actually occurred, noting that just because the president got caught doesn’t mitigate his wrongdoing.

Why it matters

This open-ended question served pretty much as the best softball pitch of the day (so far, at least). No doubt, the House managers had been taking copious notes watching the Trump lawyers since Saturday morning. Here, they got to put at least a five-minute spin on things.

Republicans blame the House

The question

Did the House bother to seek testimony or resolve executive privilege issues during the month it held impeachment articles.

Who asked

Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), John Kennedy (R-La.) and Pat Toomey (R-Ark.) asked the Trump team.

The answer

Trump attorney Patrick Philbin said the House did not attempt to litigate matters of executive privilege or immunity during the period in which Speaker Nancy Pelosi held onto articles of impeachment. Philbin noted that the one case related to the Ukraine controversy — brought by John Bolton’s former deputy Charles Kupperman — was dismissed after the House withdrew its attempt to compel his testimony.

Philbin noted that there is typically an “accommodation process” when the White House and Congress disagree on documents or witness testimony.

Why it matters

The House has argued that engaging in court on witnesses connected to the Ukraine matter could have bogged down their investigation for months or even years. The president’s team has argued that this posture suggests a rush to judgment. But Philbin’s argument also ignores that it was Trump who short-circuited the accommodations process when he declared he would comply with no House subpoenas.

Schiff rejects Dershowitz’s quid pro quo defense

The question

Please respond to Alan Dershowitz, who said quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy by a president who legitimately believes that his re-election is in the public interest.

Who asked

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

The answer

Rep. Adam Schiff, who began by saying he was “delighted” to respond to Dershowitz’s argument, said that in every trial, “the question of the defendant’s intention or state of mind is always an issue.” It was a direct response to Dershowitz, who said the president’s intentions should not be “psychoanalyzed” in order to determine whether he abused his power.

But Schiff questioned Dershowitz’s belief that all quid pro quos are acceptable, saying such a theory would give a president “carte blanche” to act in his or her personal political interest rather than the national interest.

“The next president of the United States can ask for an investigation of you,” Schiff said to senators. “They can ask for help in their next election from any foreign power.”

Why it matters

Dershowitz’s answer highlighted the deeply-held view among the president’s closest legal advisers that presidential power is absolute, and that the executive branch has vast authority to carry out the business of the U.S. government without the threat of an overbearing legislative branch. But Dershowitz’s argument went even further than that.

Schiff has argued against such a philosophy for months — from the nomination of William Barr as attorney general through the president’s wholesale rejection of congressional subpoenas as part of the impeachment inquiry — and he indeed seemed “delighted” to push back on it.

Quid pro quo, so what?

The question

Does it matter if there was a quid pro quo. Is it true that quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy?

Who asked

Sen. Cruz (R-Texas) asked the White House lawyers.

The answer

Alan Dershowitz began by noting his attendance at the rolling out of the president’s Middle East peace plan. Dershowitz said if a president used a holdup of money to pressure Israel to commit to freezing settlements, no one would view that as impeachable. He said the only way a quid pro quo could be impeachable is if it involves illegal conduct.

“If a president does something that he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo” that leads to impeachment, he said.

Why it matters

This is new territory for the president’s legal team. Dershowitz is arguing that if a politician views his own reelection as in the public interest, making policy decisions to support his own reelection would be proper. That’s not a case any of the president’s allies have made. Dershowitz suggests that since Trump hasn’t been accused of using foreign policy for financial gain, there’s no way to discern whether his motives were improper.

Dershowitz’s argument would, in a sense, justify any presidential conduct so long as it’s for the president’s electoral advantage.

GOP and Dems share a question

The question

Why did the House not challenge President Donald Trump’s claims of executive privilege and/or immunity during the House impeachment proceedings?

Who asked

Republican Sen. John Kennedy (La.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) and John Cornyn posed the question to both House managers and the Trump legal team.

The answer

House manager Hakeem Jeffries replied with a “simple” answer: They didn’t challenge any executive privilege claims because Trump’s lawyers never raised it. Instead, impeachment investigators had to deal with “blanket defiance” from the president that stymied their ability to enforce subpoenas and obtain documents or witness testimony. The New York Democrat then did a quick nod to the House’s victory last fall in the one court case it is pursuing to get former White House counsel Don McGahn under oath.

Philbin also got a crack at the senators’ question to claim the “Democrats were just in a hurry” to pursue impeachment that meant they “had no time for courts.”

Why it matters

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this moment was Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision to make the two sides share the five-minute response time when a question gets posed to both. That should keep things moving. Other than that, we’ve heard the two sides go at it now quite a few times over the issue of Democrats taking things to court — or not.

Does Trump need to be charged with an actual crime?

The question

Trump's lawyers have argued that the president’s alleged conduct does not constitute a statutory crime, and thus does not warrant impeachment. Does this reasoning imply that if the president does not violate a statutory crime, that he cannot be impeached for abusing his power?

Who asked

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) asked the question to the House managers.

The answer

Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), one of the House impeachment managers, made the case that an allegation of a statutory crime is not required in order to impeach a president. She said an impeachable offense can constitute a “violation of public trust,” adding: “Offenses against the Constitution are different from offenses against the criminal code.”

Garcia said Trump’s alleged conduct “undermines our national security and election security.”

Why it matters

The first article of impeachment charges Trump with abuse of power, and does not specifically accuse the president of committing a crime. Alan Dershowitz, a member of Trump’s legal team, sought to make the case to senators that an impeachable offense must be “criminal-like,” adding that even if the claims in Bolton’s book are true, Trump should not be impeached for it.

This is among the core arguments the president’s team has made so far. Democrats have sought to push back by stating that such a belief would put the president above the law — a common refrain from the House managers.

Dems coordinating questions?

The question

The president’s counsel stated that there’s simply no evidence that the president ever linked security assistance to any investigation. Is that true?

Who asked

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked her question to the House managers.

The answer

No, replied Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, who then ticked through several instances Trump did indeed link security assistance to the Ukraine probes.

Crow mentioned acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s October press conference; Trump’s call with U.S. ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland; Sondland’s conversations with Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo raising concerns about the military aid hold-up; and the fact that both the State and Defense departments “were all kept in the dark.”

Why it matters

More than anything, the way this exchange went down sure made it look like House Democrats knew it was coming. Crow’s answer came with a power-point slide.

Trump, the top diplomat

The question

The managers say the president contravened U.S. foreign policy. Isn’t it the president’s place to set foreign policy?

Who asked

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) asked the Trump team.

The answer

Philbin said it’s the president’s role to set U.S. foreign policy. He said staffers disagreeing with him does not suggest the president is doing something wrong. “The president cannot defy the agencies in the Executive Branch that are subordinate to him,” he said.

Why it matters

This is a line that Republicans have repeatedly turned to: that Trump has the power as the nation’s top diplomat to set the nation’s posture toward Ukraine, so questions about his policy decisions are not the basis for impeachment. The House impeachment managers, though, say the president’s alleged offenses were not about a difference with his policy but with his corrupt effort to pressure a foreign ally to investigate his political opponents.

Bolton and House Dems

The question

The president claims the House didn’t ask John Bolton to testify. Did House impeachment managers ask John Bolton to testify?

Who asked

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asked the House impeachment managers.

The answer

Schiff said that the House did ask Bolton to testify, and he refused — and the House wasn’t willing to spend months or years fighting it out in court.

What’s more, Schiff said, the White House has argued that the courts have no role in resolving disputes between Congress and the Executive Branch. “It takes your breath away, the duplicity of that argument,” Schiff said.

Why it matters

Senate Republicans have said the House should have done more to secure Bolton’s testimony, rather than leave it to the Senate.

But House Democrats counter that joining a legal battle — in the face of the White House’s argument that the courts should stay out of it — would have bogged down the impeachment inquiry for months or years, effectively negating the whole power of impeachment.

How the Senate and House impeachment standards differ

The question

Is the standard for impeachment in the House lower than the standard for conviction in the Senate? Have the House managers met the evidentiary standard for removal?

Who asked: Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) asked the question to Trump’s lawyers.

The answer

Deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin said impeachment is “simply an accusation,” and the House “does not have to adhere to the same standards” as the Senate because the upper chamber is the final arbiter on whether a president is removed from office.

The House has often been compared to a grand jury in the impeachment process, having the power to bring forward an indictment; while the Senate determines whether a president is guilty of the alleged crimes outlined in the indictment.

“There’s a very much higher standard at stake here,” Philbin said, contending that the House managers “have failed at their burden of proof” for warranting Trump’s removal from office.

Why it matters

The senators who asked this question are among some of Trump’s most loyal supporters, and they are unlikely to vote in favor of witnesses or conviction. The question gave Trump’s lawyers an opportunity to hammer home their topline argument: that the House’s case lacks the evidence necessary to prove their claims as outlined in the articles of impeachment.

Making the case for Bolton’s testimony

The question

John Bolton’s forthcoming book claims that President Donald Trump wanted to continue withholding military aid from Ukraine until the country announced investigations into the president's political rivals. Is there any way to have a fully informed verdict without seeing all of the relevant documentary evidence?

Who asked

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

The answer

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead impeachment manager, answered the question by laying out Democrats’ case for calling additional witnesses as part of the trial — and why Democrats believe Bolton’s reported account in his forthcoming book supports their case for new testimony.

“There’s no way to have a fair trial without witnesses,” Schiff said, calling Bolton a relevant witness and noting that he often spoke directly for the president.

Schiff said that calling Bolton as a witness would “erase all doubt” senators might have about the motive for Trump’s decision to withhold military aid from Ukraine.

“If you have any question about whether it was a factor, the factor, a quarter of a factor, all of the factor — there is a witness, a subpoena away who could answer that question,” Schiff added.

“Don’t wait for the book.”

Why it matters

Schumer’s question is at the heart of what the Senate will consider on Friday when it votes on whether to subpoena additional witnesses and documents. Democrats have been hammering their case for new evidence, pointing to Bolton’s reported account to boost their arguments.Most notably, Schiff played clips of Trump’s lawyers Pat Cipollone and Michael Purpura during their opening arguments, in which they harangued the House managers for lack of first-hand witness testimony.

It showed that the House’s strategy for building support for additional witnesses relies, at least in part, on the White House lawyers’ own contentions.

Bolton, continued

The question

Would you please respond to the arguments or assertions for House managers just made in response to the previous question?

Who asked

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) asked the president’s counsel to address Schiff’s remarks a moment earlier, which included the Senate rendering a verdict without hearing witnesses.

The answer

Philbin started his response by parsing Schiff’s comment moments earlier that there’s no evidence Trump was interested in burden sharing because it didn’t come up in a phone call with U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland.

The White House attorney then jumped to the repercussions if the Senate demanded Bolton’s testimony, urging them to take heed to what would happen if it opened up a can of worms by bringing in multiple witnesses.

“That should not be the way, should not be the precedent set here for the way this body will have to handle all impeachments in the future, because if it becomes that easy for the House to do it, they’ll be doing it a lot.”

Why it matters

Thune’s question drew laughter from the Senate chamber. More than anything, it signals one party is going to be giving the other a chance to go point-counterpoint over these next two days.

GOP swing votes start things off

The question

How should the Senate consider if the president had more than one motive in asking Ukraineto investigate his Democratic rivals?

Who asked

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Romney (R-Utah) asked the White House legal team.

The answer

Patrick Philbin, one of Trump’s attorneys, said the House’s entire case depends on proving that the president’s request for Ukraine to investigate his political rivals is an unmitigated sham with no legitimate alternative reason.

“Once you’re into any mixed motive situation, once it is established that there is a legitimate public interest … the managers’ case fails and it fails under their own terms,” he said.

Why it matters

House Democrats based their case on the notion that Trump’s request for Ukraine to investigate his rivals had no other purpose than to benefit himself politically. Throughout their defense, White House lawyers argued that in fact Trump had a real anti-corruption motive for asking Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rival, former vice president Joe Biden.

Philbin is trying to bolster the argument that even if Trump was seeking a personal benefit, as long as he also had a real anti-corruption motive alongside it, the House’s case must fail.

But most notable, perhaps, is that Republican leaders gave the first question to three of the only Republican senators believed to be open to calling new witnesses like John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser.