Questioning period has begun. First question is from Sen. Collins, Murkowski, and Romney.
They ask Trump's team what they should do if Trump had more than one motive. Suggest he could have been motivated by political interest and pursuit of corruption.
They ask Trump's team what they should do if Trump had more than one motive. Suggest he could have been motivated by political interest and pursuit of corruption.
Deputy WH Counsel Philbin answers.
"Once you get in a mixed motive situation... it can't possibly be an [impeachable] offense. It would be absurd to have the Senate trying to consider, would it be 52% legitimate interest and 48% personal interest?... can't divide it that way"
"Once you get in a mixed motive situation... it can't possibly be an [impeachable] offense. It would be absurd to have the Senate trying to consider, would it be 52% legitimate interest and 48% personal interest?... can't divide it that way"
We could well have seen the justification for Collins, Murkowski, and Romney's acquittal votes set up right there.
Gist would be: it's complicated. Trump had various motives at play. So can't remove him for it.
Gist would be: it's complicated. Trump had various motives at play. So can't remove him for it.
Dems' first question mentions Bolton's book and witnesses.
Schiff uses part of his answer to respond to the GOPers' question. "If you have any question" about mixed motives, "there is a witness a subpoena away who can answer that question."
Schiff uses part of his answer to respond to the GOPers' question. "If you have any question" about mixed motives, "there is a witness a subpoena away who can answer that question."
Philbin says Mulvaney’s comments saying Trump tied aid to investigations were "garbled or misunderstood."
Here were those comments:
Here were those comments:
Would be interested in Trump team's answers to 1, 3, and 5
What ends up happening (as it did in 1999) is that some "questions" are just, "Do you want to respond to what the other side just said?" We already saw Thune do this with his question.
Sen. Shaheen's question tests the logic of defense assertion that Trump can't be impeached if there's no crime.
Asks the House managers, does this mean a pres. can't be impeached for things like “ordering tax audits for political opponents” or “suspending habeas corpus"
Asks the House managers, does this mean a pres. can't be impeached for things like “ordering tax audits for political opponents” or “suspending habeas corpus"
Roberts says that questions can be addressed to both sides after all. They will each have two and a half minutes to respond.
Dershowitz is now claiming that presidents can use foreign policy however they want to help them get reelected. Because they naturally believe their reelection is in the public interest.
Schiff responds to Dershowitz by asking: What if, when Obama made his open-mic comments to Medvedev, he was actually asking for an investigation into Mitt Romney, and offering to drop aid to Ukraine in return? Would that be okay?
The Dershowitz answer and Schiff response was the most revealing exchange so far. Dershowitz argued for unfettered presidential power to use foreign policy to swing elections against their opponents. Would mean a whole lot of things are permissible, as Schiff points out...
Dem question accurately points out that witness depositions do not have to take very long. Happened quickly for the Clinton trial. Trump's team has been exaggerating how long things would have to take, to give GOP senators an excuse to throw in the towel.
Graham+Cruz modify Schiff's hypothetical, ask, what if Obama had evidence Romney's son was being paid by a corrupt Russian company.
Schiff: "The reality is, for a president to withhold military aid from an ally... to target their political opponent is wrong and corrupt. Period."
Schiff: "The reality is, for a president to withhold military aid from an ally... to target their political opponent is wrong and corrupt. Period."
Schiff continues: “If you have a legitimate reason to think that any US person has committed an offense, there are legitimate ways to have an investigation conducted.”
Adds further that a president asking his DOJ to investigate their rivals “taints” that investigation.
Adds further that a president asking his DOJ to investigate their rivals “taints” that investigation.
Reminder: Graham used to understand this. He said in October: "If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing"
Can't overemphasize how silly this answer from Philbin was. Every impeachment trial the Senate has ever held has had witnesses.
Calling witnesses would be *following* past precedent, not breaking from it in some dangerous way
politifact.com/wisconsin/stat…
Calling witnesses would be *following* past precedent, not breaking from it in some dangerous way
politifact.com/wisconsin/stat…
After a few minutes of dodging, Philbin takes the interesting approach of mentioning that Rudy's anti-Biden campaign started a few months before Biden officially entered the race. Suggests (but doesn't outright say) Rudy's efforts were at Trump's behest.
Philbin and Schiff are doing most of the answering on their respective sides.
Philbin comes off as the most competent member of Trump's team, by a long shot, overshadowing his boss Pat Cipollone, and more famous figures like Sekulow and Dershowitz.
Philbin comes off as the most competent member of Trump's team, by a long shot, overshadowing his boss Pat Cipollone, and more famous figures like Sekulow and Dershowitz.
Romney asked a question: when did Trump order the hold on the aid and what was his explanation?
But Philbin did not answer it. Claims he can only cite evidence in the record, and there's no "evidence in the record of a specific date."
Maybe the Senate should get more evidence!
But Philbin did not answer it. Claims he can only cite evidence in the record, and there's no "evidence in the record of a specific date."
Maybe the Senate should get more evidence!
Philbin: "The idea that any information that happens to come from overseas is necessarily campaign interference is a mistake... Information that is credible, that potentially shows wrongdoing" by a candidate "is relevant information for the voters to know about"
Yeah, it's an awkward question for Dems. They had political divisions over whether to use the word "bribery" and went back and forth on it. vox.com/2019/12/16/210…
At the time, Pelosi's answer for why the articles of impeachment didn't mention bribery was basically, "It's what it is."
vox.com/2019/12/16/210…
vox.com/2019/12/16/210…
Good question from Sinema for Trump's team. They announced previous holds on aid, they told Congress, they told the countries. But the Ukraine hold was kept secret- why?
Philbin response is that Ukraine aid hold wasn't done to send a signal. “It was to address concerns. The president raised concerns and he wanted time to have those concerns" (burden-sharing and corruption) "addressed."
(Bolton seems to have heard the concerns were different...)
(Bolton seems to have heard the concerns were different...)
