The Senate impeachment has resumed. Refresh here for live updates.

Key Senate Republican says no to additional witnesses

Sen. Martha McSally, a key Senate Republican who is facing a tough re-election battle in Arizona, announced Wednesday evening that she was ready to vote in Trump's trial without hearing for additional witnesses.

"I have heard enough. It is time to vote," she wrote on Twitter.

McSally explained she did not want to set a "precedent" by going down a path that could extend the trial for potentially months and criticized House Democrats for not doing more to prove their case.

"The House Democrats have repeatedly claimed their case has overwhelming evidence—the same House Democrats who could have handled this matter through a bipartisan oversight process," she wrote. "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."

McSally was considered a possible swing vote on hearing from additional witnesses. She was appointed to her Senate seat at the end of 2018 after losing an election to Arizona's other senator, Democrat Krysten Sinema. McSally faces a number of challengers, including Democrat Mark Kelly.

- Christal Hayes

White House team doesn’t directly answer Romney’s question

Utah Senator Mitt Romney asked Trump’s legal team the exact date Trump officially held up the military aid to Ukraine, and what the explanation he gave was.

Trump’s attorney Patrick Philbin didn’t exactly answer, and instead pointed to testimony stating officials were aware of the hold on July 3.

“I don’t think that there is evidence in the record of a specific date, the specific date, but there is testimony in the record that individuals at OMB and elsewhere were aware of a hold as of July 3, and there is evidence in the record of the President’s rationales from even earlier than that time.”

He continued that Trump showed concern over “burden-sharing” as early as June from NATO allies.

“There is an email from June 24 that has been publicly released from the chief of staff down to a staffer in DOD relating on the subject line ‘POTUS follow-up’, it’s a follow-up from a meeting with POTUS, the President of the United States, concerning a question that had been asked about Ukraine assistance," Philbin stated.

He continued that there “is testimony from later in the summer that the President had raised concerns about corruption in Ukraine, and so that is the evidence in the record that reflects the President's concern."

Romney is a critical and unknown vote in terms of calling witnesses.

- Savannah Behrmann

Democratic senator says he’ll introduce motion to get Chief Justice to rule on evidence, witnesses

In a press release, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md, said he would introduce a motion on Friday to force Chief Justice John Roberts to rule on witnesses, documents, and executive privilege.

Van Hollen said the motion was introduced in response to Trump attorney Jay Sekulow’s argument that Roberts should not be part of decisions to rule on whether evidence and witnesses would be allowed.

“It would also require the Chief Justice to rule on the use of executive privilege – to prevent efforts by this Administration to stonewall and delay access to the facts,” the Maryland Democrat said in a statement. “This motion is consistent with Senate rules and could pass with a majority vote and would preserve the right of the Senate to overrule the Chief Justice if a majority disagrees.”

The motion would have Roberts issue subpoenas on any witness or document subpoenaed by the Senate “if the presiding officer deems them likely to have probative evidence relevant to either article of impeachment” and would allow Roberts to rule on assertions of executive privilege.

Republican senators have expressed concerns that the calling of current or former Trump administration officials could result in protracted court fights if the Trump administration asserts executive privilege.

-Nicholas Wu

Doug Jones slams Dershowitz

Senator Doug Jones, D-AL., who is considered an undecided vote for convicting Trump, dismissed Alan Dershowitz's attacks on other scholars who may disagree with him by demeaning them and saying they are influenced by their own bias.

Dershowitz’s comments came after House manager Jerry Nadler said that “all scholars” agree with the House manager's view on high crimes and misdemeanors “except for Mr. Dershowitz.”

“Professor Dershowitz [should] be the supreme Supreme Court Justice because obviously no one should disagree with anything he says,” Jones told reporters during the dinner break Wednesday night.

The comment elicited audible groans from GOP Senators inside the chamber while a few of their Democratic colleagues smirked.

Later, Jones also told reporters when asked how he would vote that he is “keeping an open until I hear all of the evidence” on “everything.”

“This is a trial, we need to hear all the evidence. Now, don’t go putting some damn headline in there, ‘still open to acquit.’ I’m open to acquit, I’m open to convict. Okay? I want to hear all the evidence, I want to hear witnesses. Okay," he continued.

- Savannah Behrmann

What’s the burden of proof?

The president’s lawyers and Democratic managers split over the question of what burden of evidence should be used for an impeachment trial.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and Todd Young, R-Ind., had asked the question.

In response, Democratic manager Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., discussed the burdens of proof used in past impeachments, noting “there’s no court case on this.”

Lofgren said the House Judiciary Committee held itself to a “clear and convincing standard of proof in the Nixon matter, which requires the evidence of wrongdoing must be substantially more probable to be true than not.”

In Bill Clinton’s impeachment, she said, the “House did not commit to any particular burden of proof.”

She said she would “recommend against including an express standard” and implored senators to work on “finding the facts” without legal technicalities.

Deputy Counsel to the president Patrick Philbin disagreed.

Quoting Democratic and Republican arguments from Clinton's impeachment, Philbin argued impeachment was rooted in criminal law, which put the burden of proof to be “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“The strength of our Constitution and the strength of our nation dictate that the Senate mature beyond a reasonable doubt. The preponderance standard is wholly insufficient, that means just 50.1%,” he said.

“The gravity of the issue before you would not permit applying any lesser standard,” he concluded.

- Nicholas Wu

Schiff: Whistleblower was right, deserves anonymity

The lead House manager, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, took the opportunity of a question about the whistleblower who complained about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine to deny conspiracy theories about the origins of the complaint.

An anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint Aug. 12 with the inspector general of the intelligence community about Trump’s July 25 call urging Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

The complaint served to launch the impeachment inquiry accusing Trump of abuse of power for pursuing the investigation. But House Democrats contend that the whistleblower need not be identified because the person’s second-hand reporting has been confirmed by witnesses in the inquiry.

“The whistleblower did exactly what they should, except for the president that’s unforgivable because the whistleblower exposed the wrongdoing of the president. In the president’s view, that makes him or her a traitor or a spy,” Schiff said.

Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Josh Hawley, R-Mo.; and Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, asked about the whistleblower’s “arguable political bias,” as reported by the inspector general, and questioned whether the person ever worked with Joe Biden.

Schiff denied knowing who the person is and said his committee didn’t write the complaint or coach the whistleblower in any way after the person asked how to report the complaint.

“In short, the conspiracy theory, which I think was outlined earlier, that the whistleblower colluded with the Intel Committee staff to hatch an impeachment inquiry is a complete and total fiction,” Schiff said. “This was I think confirmed by the remarkable accuracy of the whistleblower complaint, which was corroborated by the evidence we collected in all material respects.”

Schiff also recited quotes from Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mitt Romney of Utah and Richard Burr of North Carolina in arguing to protect the whistleblower’s anonymity. As he did, Romney smiled slightly and Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, remained expressionless.

Grassley had said the “person appears to have followed the whistleblower protection laws and ought to be heard out and protected.” Romney was quoted saying whistleblowers “should be entitled to confidentiality and privacy because they play a vital function in our democracy.” Burr had said: “We protect whistleblowers. We protect whistleblowers in our committee.”

- Bart Jansen

Subtle ways to keep answers succinct

Supreme Chief Justice John Roberts found a subtle way Wednesday to enforce his suggestion for 5-minute answers to questions in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

“Thank you, Mr. Manager,” Roberts told Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., to abruptly wrap up a response about whether seeking foreign interference in an election was an impeachable offense.

“Thank you, counsel,” Roberts told Schiff later, ending a reply about how President Donald Trump’s defiance of subpoenas could eviscerate Senate oversight.

A similar response followed Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., ending his reply about subpoenas.

Justices have tried to remain unobtrusive in impeachment trials, as House managers joust with White House lawyers for support of senators. Roberts had looked to his predecessor, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in suggesting the 5-minute limit on answers. But Rehnquist offered some wry exchanges during the 1999 trial of former President Bill Clinton.

On the first of two days of questions in Clinton's trial, then-Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., tried to yield a minute at the end of one response to his fellow manager, then-Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

“I believe the House managers' time has expired,” Rehnquist said.

“I will not yield to House Manager Graham,” Barr replied.

At another juncture, then-Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla., was talking about the importance of calling witnesses, a contentious issue in the Trump trial, too.

“Mr. McCollum, I think you have answered the question,” Rehnquist said.

“Thank you very much,” McCollum replied. “My point is, you ought to bring the witnesses.”

During the second day of questions, then-Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., argued that Clinton had violated his sacred trust.

“The Chair has the view that you have answered the question,” Rehnquist said.

“Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice,” Buyer said.

- Bart Jansen

Trump lawyers said trial could last months with witnesses

President Donald Trump’s defense team said they would call “a long list of witnesses” if they are allowed at his Senate impeachment trial, which could prevent the chamber from its regular business “for months.”

Patrick Philbin, a deputy White House counsel, criticized the case from House Democrats as “half-baked” and said the prosecutors are asking the Senate to conduct part of their investigation by calling more witnesses. But Philbin said the list of witnesses would stretch far beyond former national security adviser John Bolton, a top pick from Democrats because the president would call his own witnesses.

“There would be a long list of witnesses,” Philbin said in response to the question from Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio.

“If the body were to go in that direction, it would mean that this would drag on for months and prevent this chamber from getting its business done,” Philbin added. “There’s a proper way to do things and an upside-down way of doing things.”

- Bart Jansen

Senators asked to judge legitimacy of quid pro quo with Ukraine

House Democrats and President Donald Trump’s defense team disagreed Wednesday at the Senate trial over whether a quid pro quo – the president asking another politician for something in exchange for something – was an impeachable offense.

Alan Dershowitz, a private lawyer representing Trump, argued that trade-offs in political exchanges are only unlawful if the result is illegal. As an example, Dershowitz suggested it would be unlawful for Trump to demand another country build a hotel with his name on it and pay him $1 million.

But Dershowitz said the House accusation about Trump pressuring Ukraine for an investigation is part of the routine give and take in foreign affairs. Dershowitz said presidents wouldn’t need pollsters and political advisers if personal motives weren’t sometimes at play in policy decisions.

“Everyone has mixed motives,” Dershowitz said in reply to the question from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. “If you’re just acting in the national interest, why do you need pollsters? Why do you need political advisers? Just do what’s best for the country.”

But the lead House manager, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said weighing a defendant’s motive is common in trials. Schiff said senators would have to decide whether Trump acted illegitimately in pressuring Ukraine.

As a legitimate example, Schiff said a president could ask a governor to contribute more in disaster relief to receive federal aid. But Schiff said it would be illegitimate for a president to withhold funding unless a governor had an attorney general investigate a political rival.

“All quid pros are not the same,” Schiff said. “Some are legitimate and some are corrupt, and you don’t need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which.”

- Bart Jansen

Trump lawyer Philbin: House failed to prove impeachment beyond doubt

A handful of conservative Republicans asked whether the legal standards are different between a House impeachment and a Senate conviction, and whether House Democrats had made their case.

Patrick Philbin, a deputy White House counsel defending President Donald Trump in the impeachment trial, said the House prosecutors hadn’t made their case and hadn’t cited laws the president broke.

The question came from Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga.; Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.; Mike Lee, R-Utah; and Martha McSally, R-Ariz.

House Democrats accused Trump of abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, while withholding $391 million in military aid. The House also accused Trump of obstruction of Congress for directing his administration to defy subpoenas during the inquiry.

In responding to the question, Philbin said the House simply made an accusation with its impeachment vote and then faced the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in the Senate trial. Philbin said the House managers failed because the summary of the July 25 call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, and Zelensky’s later comments, showed no pressure for investigating Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

“They have failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Philbin said.

- Bart Jansen

Schumer question puts spotlight on Bolton

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked the first question on behalf of Democrats, putting the spotlight on John Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser and a key witness who Democrats have been eager to hear from in the Ukraine scandal.

“Is there any way for the Senate to render a fully informed verdict in this case without hearing the testimony of Bolton, Mulvaney and the other key eyewitnesses or without seeing the relevant documentary evidence?” Schumer’s question stated, which was read aloud by Chief Justice Roberts.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff used the question to make a plea to senators to call for Bolton and not wait for details of his knowledge about this case to be publicized in a book. A manuscript of Bolton’s book, set to be released in March, reportedly included that the president personally told Bolton that military aid for Ukraine was tied to investigations helpful politically to the president.

“Chief Justice, the short answer the question is no,” Schiff said. “There's no way to have a fair trial without witnesses.”

He continued, saying senators can get to the bottom of this case if they chose to call those like Bolton with key information.

“If you have any question about the President's motivation, it makes it all the more essential to call the man who spoke directly with the president, that the President confided in and said he was holding up this aid, because he wanted Ukraine to conduct these political investigations that would help him in the next election," Schiff said.

- Christal Hayes

Crow: 'overwhelming evidence' aid tied to investigations

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who told reporters yesterday she was “processing” everything in the impeachment trial before making up her mind, asked the House managers if it was true there was no evidence Trump had linked aid to investigations, as Trump’s lawyers had argued.

House Manager Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., answered that there was “overwhelming evidence” aid was withheld to pressure Ukraine to open investigations.

Democrats presented a slide labeled “Bogus Explanation: There Is No Direct Evidence” as Crow walked senators through some of the evidence of the aid’s linkage to investigations.

Among several other pieces of evidence, Crow cited a press conference with acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney where Mulvaney had initially said Trump had linked aid and investigations into corruption and a DNC server. Mulvaney later walked back the comments.

Crow also discussed U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland’s testimony, where the ambassador had discussed the conditioning of aid on investigations.

Crow concluded by telling senators if they had “lingering questions” about direct evidence, “you can subpoena Ambassador Bolton and ask him that question directly.”

- Nicholas Wu

Trump lawyer: weighing president's motives ' constitutionally defective'

A trio of Republican senators posed the first question in President Donald Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, asking how his motives in urging an investigation of a political rival should be weighed in the case.

“If President Trump had more than one motive for his alleged conduct, such as the pursuit of political advantage, rooting out corruption and the promotion of national interests, how should the Senate consider more than one motive in its assessment of Article 1?”

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, posed the question jointly with Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Mitt Romney, R-Utah. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts read it for Trump’s lawyers.

Patrick Philbin, deputy White House counsel, said even if Trump’s only motive was for personal gain, it still wouldn’t merit impeachment because it is “constitutionally defective.” But he also said the case would fail because political figures are always weighing the electoral consequences of their decisions.

“Even if there was only one motive, the theory of abuse of power that the House managers have presented, that subjective motive alone can become the basis for an impeachable offense we believe is constitutionally defective,” Philbin said. “It is not a permissible way to frame a claim of an impeachable offense under Constitution.”

Philbin said mixed motives couldn’t possibly be the foundation for impeachment because senators could never weigh whether a decision was 48% legitimate and 52% personal, or the other way around.

“You can’t divide it that way,” Philbin said. “Once you’re into mixed-motive land, it’s clear that their case fails.”

- Bart Jansen

Trump security officials threaten to block publication of Bolton's book

White House security officials are threatening to block publication of John Bolton's book unless the former national security adviser deletes information that is classified.

In a letter to Bolton's attorney, the National Security Council has determined that the book includes "top secret" information that could undermine national security; it did not specify what those passages were.

Under commitments Bolton made when he accepted the job as national security adviser, the letter said, "the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information."

Trump:Donald Trump security officials threaten to block publication of John Bolton's book

The NSC said it would work with Bolton on deletions on the book that has prompted demands for testimony from the former national security adviser in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial.

Bolton's team submitted the manuscript to the National Security Council on Dec. 30 for a standard review to see whether the book contains classified information that should not be made public.

- David Jackson

Gardner, facing tough re-election, says he won't back hearing witnesses

Sen. Cory Gardner, a Republican who has been viewed as a possible swing vote on calling witnesses in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, announced Wednesday he would not support an effort to hear new testimony.

Gardner, who has been one of the senators taking the most notes throughout the trial, said in a statement that he'd reached this decision after paying close attention to the evidence and arguments.

"I do not believe we need to hear from an 18th witness," 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."

McConnell:Republicans don't have the votes to block witnesses in impeachment trial, reports say

Gardner's statement came one day after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly told Republicans in a closed-door meeting that the conference did not have the votes to block witnesses from being called in the trial, something that needs a majority of 51 votes.

Gardner is seen as a possible swing vote because he faces a tough reelection battle in Colorado.

- Christal Hayes

Protesters gather outside Capitol as trial begins

Dozens of protesters stood outside a Senate office building Wednesday demanding senators call witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

They chanted, “Trump/Pence Out Now,” and held up signs that read, “Full evidence. Full witnesses.”

The trial resumes Wednesday with the first of two eight-hour question-and-answer sessions, during which senators will be able to ask questions of House impeachment managers and Trump's defense team. A big question looming over the trial is whether Democrats can convince enough senators to allow the introduction of witnesses and documents at the trial.

At one point, swarms of Capitol Police circled the protesters blocking the entrance to the building. An officer warned protesters to move to another location. They left peacefully and regrouped steps from the U.S. Capitol, where they continued to protest.

Norm Karl, 79, who was among the protestors, said it was important for senators to hear their demands to “transform a sham trial into a real trial.”

“The future of the children requires us to remove Trump and Pence because they are a disaster for humanity and the planet,’’ said Karl, who traveled from Cleveland Wednesday to join the protest.

Sunsara Taylor, a spokeswoman for Refusefacism.org, said the group has been protesting on Capitol Hill since the trial began, but Wednesday’s focus was on pressing senators, particularly Republicans, to support calling witnesses.

“We’re really trying to seize this moment that Donald Trump is on trial facing the prospect of removal,’’ she said.

- Deborah Barfield Berry

Giuliani associate Lev Parnas shows up at Capitol

Lev Parnas, the onetime Donald Trump supporter who says he helped press Ukrainian officials to announce an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden, arrived at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday.

Parnas and his lawyer, Joseph Bondy, have passes to the impeachment trial of the president, but Parnas can't attend because a judge won't let him remove the ankle monitor he must wear as he awaits trial in a criminal campaign finance case. No electronic devices are allowed in the Senate gallery.

On Wednesday, Bondy went into Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office when they arrived. After a few minutes in the office, Bondy emerged, smiling, with two tickets to the trial. He said he would be watching the trial from the gallery, and Parnas would be watching from a “safe” place elsewhere.

Bondy declined to comment on current negotiations with the Southern District of New York but said their appearance could be “beneficial” for Parnas’ case because “people respect those who tell the truth.” Parnas told reporters it would not hurt his pending criminal case.

Parnas was indicted with three co-defendants in October on charges of funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreign money to U.S. election candidates and committees to gain political influence.

They have pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include allegations that Parnas and a business associate falsified the source of a $325,000 contribution to a super PAC backing Trump.

– Kevin McCoy and Nicholas Wu

Democrat Joe Manchin: Hunter Biden 'relevant witness'

Hunter Biden is a “relevant” witness that Democrats should not be afraid to call at the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump if the Senate moves ahead with further testimony, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said Wednesday

“I think so. I really do. I don’t have a problem there because this is why we are where we are,” he said on MSNBC’ “Morning Joe” show.

Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, served on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings, which is at the center of the impeachment charges. Trump is alleged to have withheld congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine last summer until that country announced corruption investigations into the Bidens involving Burisma.

Manchin said he thinks Hunter Biden can “clear himself” based on what he knows about the case.

“But being afraid to put anybody that might have pertinent information (on the witness stand) is wrong, no matter if you’re Democrat or Republican,” he said. “If its relevant, it should be there.”

Manchin’s comments could complicate efforts by Democratic leaders to woo a handful of Republican senators, including Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine, into calling Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton as a witness.

Democrats are eager to hear directly from Bolton who in a forthcoming book alleges Trump told him directly that he wished to continue withholding nearly $400 million in military aid for Ukraine unless the country announced investigations the Bidens.

Asked about Manchin’s comments, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer dismissed Hunter Biden as “irrelevant and a distraction.”

“It is not up to Joe Manchin whether to call Hunter Biden,” Schumer said. “It is up to Joe Manchin to cast a vote on whether we should have witnesses and documents.”

On that point, Schumer said, Democrats remain “totally united.”

Collins also told reporters Wednesday morning that it’s “very important that there be fairness, that each side be able to select a witness or two,” according to CNN.

Manchin is a

– Ledyard King and Nicholas Wu

Trump tells GOP don't let Dems 'play you' on witnesses

President Donald Trump gave a warning to Senate Republicans on Wednesday, telling them not to be "played" by Democrats into calling witnesses for an impeachment trial he wants wrapped up.

Noting that the House had witnesses during its impeachment inquiry, Trump tweeted: "Remember Republicans, the Democrats already had 17 witnesses, we were given NONE! Witnesses are up to the House, not up to the Senate. Don’t let the Dems play you!"

Several Republicans have said they might be interested in hearing from witnesses, particularly former national security adviser John Bolton, perhaps enough to force subpoenas later this week.

Trump, White House aides and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, are trying to lobby certain GOP senators not to call any witnesses and move for a dismissal of the case.

– David Jackson

McConnell: Not enough votes yet to block witnesses

As senators on Wednesday begin up to 16 hours of questions in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, the biggest question lurks: Will witnesses be allowed?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Republicans in a closed-door meeting Tuesday that they did not have the votes to block additional witnesses from being called, according to multiple media reports.

Allowing witnesses would give Democrats a major victory and could significantly lengthen the trial. Democrats hold 47 seats in the Senate and have been attempting to get at least four Republicans to vote with them, which would give them the 51 votes needed to consider additional witnesses and documents.

It could also open the door for both Democrats and Republicans to call those at the top of their list, including John Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser, Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s acting chief of staff, along with GOP-witnesses, such as the whistleblower whose complaint helped launch the impeachment inquiry and Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son.

The vote on witnesses is currently planned for Friday.

– Christal Hayes

John Bolton's new title is 'conservative target':Bolton stirs GOP fury for Trump revelations but friends say he's used to knife fights

How the question and answer session will work

Senators must submit questions in writing to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding at the trial.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the questions will alternate between Republicans and Democrats in eight-hour sessions beginning at 1 p.m. Wednesday and Thursday.

Senators said party leaders would review the questions to avoid repetition and offer some order to the proceeding. Roberts suggested that the House managers and the president's lawyers try to answer each question within five minutes, although that isn't a firm rule.

The opportunity for questions follows opening arguments, which granted each side up to 24 hours spread over three days to explain their positions. The seven House managers used nearly 22 hours of their time, according to C-Span, which broadcast the trial. Trump's team finished in less than 12 hours, according to C-Span.

House Democrats accused Trump of abuse of power for pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, while withholding $391 million in military aid. The House also accused Trump of obstruction of Congress for directing his administration to defy subpoenas from the inquiry.

But Trump's defense team argued that the charges were too vague to enforce because they weren't based on statutory crimes. Setting the bar so low for removal from office would leave future presidents vulnerable to impeachment when Congress is held by the other party, they warned.

Despite the lengthy arguments, senators on both sides said they have plenty of questions. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said he wants to ask the lead manager, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., about any contact his office had with the whistleblower who first raised the alarm about Trump's dealings with Ukraine. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., said she would like to ask about the removal of Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.