1st question in Senator Q&A phase of impeachment trial is from the moderate Republicans--Collins reads out Q from herself, Murkowski and Romney.
How should Senate treat evidence if Trump had dual motives both personal and public?
#ImpeachmentTrial #impeachment
How should Senate treat evidence if Trump had dual motives both personal and public?
#ImpeachmentTrial #impeachment
Philbin answers:
1) even if Trump's motive was only personal, it's too subjective to be viable for impeachment
2) if he had any mixed motives, it destroys their case, because Senators can't determine how much was personal vs. public motive
1) even if Trump's motive was only personal, it's too subjective to be viable for impeachment
2) if he had any mixed motives, it destroys their case, because Senators can't determine how much was personal vs. public motive
2nd question from (D-NY) Chuck Schumer:
Bolton's book is coming out, can the Senate come to a viable conclusion without hearing from him?
Schiff gives a long answer, but his short answer is no.
Also shows videos of WH counsel arguing to hear "all of the facts"
Bolton's book is coming out, can the Senate come to a viable conclusion without hearing from him?
Schiff gives a long answer, but his short answer is no.
Also shows videos of WH counsel arguing to hear "all of the facts"
3rd question from ? is asking WH counsel to basically to refute what House managers just said.
Philbin goes to call transcript to prove Trump cared about burden sharing.
Philbin claims Mulvaney's comments at the now-famous press briefing were "garbled and/or misunderstood."
Philbin goes to call transcript to prove Trump cared about burden sharing.
Philbin claims Mulvaney's comments at the now-famous press briefing were "garbled and/or misunderstood."
Philbin also says if Senate hears from witnesses, it will paralyze the body for future Senates, because they will become the investigative body.
"If it's that easy, it will happen in the future a lot."
"If it's that easy, it will happen in the future a lot."
4th question from ? Democrat:
Trump tweeted the other day that House never asked Bolton to testify. So that the record is accurate, is that true?
Schiff:
Yes, we also asked others including Dr. Kupperman, and they refused, he then reviews the court proceedings that spawned.
Trump tweeted the other day that House never asked Bolton to testify. So that the record is accurate, is that true?
Schiff:
Yes, we also asked others including Dr. Kupperman, and they refused, he then reviews the court proceedings that spawned.
Schiff also points out that WH counsel is making 2 arguments: 1 to Senate that House should have subpoenaed Bolton and others, but another argument in the courts in the McGahn case that the House committee lacks the authority to subpoena Executive Branch officials
5th question from Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) along with Sens. Loeffler, Lee, and McSally:
Is standard for impeachment in House lower threshhold than conviction in the Senate, and have house managers met their evidentiary burden to support removal?
Is standard for impeachment in House lower threshhold than conviction in the Senate, and have house managers met their evidentiary burden to support removal?
Philbin:
"An impeachment is simply an accusation." House needs "clear and convincing evidence," that's a lower standard than what has to be met in Senate.
Recalls textual references in Constitution to crimes, therefore Senate standard should be beyond a reasonable doubt
"An impeachment is simply an accusation." House needs "clear and convincing evidence," that's a lower standard than what has to be met in Senate.
Recalls textual references in Constitution to crimes, therefore Senate standard should be beyond a reasonable doubt
6th question is from Dianne Feinstein (D-CA):
WH counsel says no evidence Trump withheld aid for personal benefit, is that true?
Rep. Crow: look no further than Mulvaney's own statements, Sondland's testimony, Amb. Taylor's testimony, and more info available if you call Bolton
WH counsel says no evidence Trump withheld aid for personal benefit, is that true?
Rep. Crow: look no further than Mulvaney's own statements, Sondland's testimony, Amb. Taylor's testimony, and more info available if you call Bolton
7th question from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT):
House managers have argued Trump wasn't acting in proper foreign policy, but doesn't president set foreign policy?
Philbin:
Yes, and Constitution gives him that authority. Staffers in State Dept. don't have authority.
House managers have argued Trump wasn't acting in proper foreign policy, but doesn't president set foreign policy?
Philbin:
Yes, and Constitution gives him that authority. Staffers in State Dept. don't have authority.
8th question from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH):
WH counsel says you haven't charged a crime, so he can't be impeached, is this true?
Rep. Garcia:
No, legal scholars, multiple Supreme Court justices, prior impeachments, etc. agree impeachment doesn't have to charge a crime
WH counsel says you haven't charged a crime, so he can't be impeached, is this true?
Rep. Garcia:
No, legal scholars, multiple Supreme Court justices, prior impeachments, etc. agree impeachment doesn't have to charge a crime
9th question from Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) for both sides:
Why did House not challenge Trump's claims of executive privilege and/or immunity during House impeachment proceedings?
Why did House not challenge Trump's claims of executive privilege and/or immunity during House impeachment proceedings?
Rep. Jeffries:
We didn't challenge bc president never raised executive privilege, he claimed blanket ability to defy, refused any/all documents and witnesses.
No case law to support absolute immunity, every argument that has ruled has rejected it.
We didn't challenge bc president never raised executive privilege, he claimed blanket ability to defy, refused any/all documents and witnesses.
No case law to support absolute immunity, every argument that has ruled has rejected it.
Philbin:
I showed you cases--Watkins, others--that proved subpoenas were invalid. Asserted doctrine of absolute immunity for executive advisors, also the inability to have executive agency counsel present. They didn't challenge it becuase they rushed impeachment.
I showed you cases--Watkins, others--that proved subpoenas were invalid. Asserted doctrine of absolute immunity for executive advisors, also the inability to have executive agency counsel present. They didn't challenge it becuase they rushed impeachment.
9th question from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT):
WH counsel argues no harm, aid released, meeting happened at UN, Trump treated Ukraine more favorably. Your response?
There was harm, aid only released after they got caught, etc.
WH counsel argues no harm, aid released, meeting happened at UN, Trump treated Ukraine more favorably. Your response?
There was harm, aid only released after they got caught, etc.
Above was 10th question, 11th now from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):
As a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo? Is it true quid pro quos often used in foreign policy?
As a matter of law, does it matter if there was a quid pro quo? Is it true quid pro quos often used in foreign policy?
Dershowitz:
Officials believe their elections are in public interest, so if they do something to further that interest, it can't be impeachable. Politicians always consider political impacts. If impeachable, you'd have to determine "corrupt motive," not possible if mixed motive.
Officials believe their elections are in public interest, so if they do something to further that interest, it can't be impeachable. Politicians always consider political impacts. If impeachable, you'd have to determine "corrupt motive," not possible if mixed motive.
12th question, from Sen. Schumer (D-NY):
Please respond to answer just given by president's counsel.
Schiff:
Odd answer from Dersh, questions of intent or state of mind is ALWAYS at issue in criminal trials. Also he argues all quid pro quos are same, but they're not.
Please respond to answer just given by president's counsel.
Schiff:
Odd answer from Dersh, questions of intent or state of mind is ALWAYS at issue in criminal trials. Also he argues all quid pro quos are same, but they're not.
Schiff continues:
What if Obama on open mic in 2012 said "Ok Medvedev, I won't send aid to Ukraine to fight you if you announce investigation into Mitt Romney? Does anyone doubt that would be impeachable?
All impeachments regarding cheating in election happen near elections"
What if Obama on open mic in 2012 said "Ok Medvedev, I won't send aid to Ukraine to fight you if you announce investigation into Mitt Romney? Does anyone doubt that would be impeachable?
All impeachments regarding cheating in election happen near elections"
13th question, from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA):
Does House failure to pursue subpoenas render their Obstruction of Congress article unprecedented?
Philbin:
Yes, never a case where House stopped pursuing without litigation. We made various arguments, must be sorted out in court.
Does House failure to pursue subpoenas render their Obstruction of Congress article unprecedented?
Philbin:
Yes, never a case where House stopped pursuing without litigation. We made various arguments, must be sorted out in court.
14th question, from Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI):
Would House managers care to correct falsehoods in WH counsel's opening arguments?
Rep. Lofgren:
WH counsel argued 6 facts, we think all are incorrect. Trump's intent was clear on July 25 call, but we have evidence before (cont.)
Would House managers care to correct falsehoods in WH counsel's opening arguments?
Rep. Lofgren:
WH counsel argued 6 facts, we think all are incorrect. Trump's intent was clear on July 25 call, but we have evidence before (cont.)
Rep. Lofgren (cont.):
Zelensky said privately he resisted investigations, he only relented after he realized he wouldn't get aid, getting caught doesn't mitigate wrongdoing, GAO says Trump violated federal law.
Zelensky said privately he resisted investigations, he only relented after he realized he wouldn't get aid, getting caught doesn't mitigate wrongdoing, GAO says Trump violated federal law.
15th question, from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Bozeman, McSally, Blackburn, Toomey:
Did House bother to seek testimony or litigate executive privilege issues during the month it held up sending impeachment articles to Senate?
Philbin:
No, never litigated any of these issues.
Did House bother to seek testimony or litigate executive privilege issues during the month it held up sending impeachment articles to Senate?
Philbin:
No, never litigated any of these issues.
Philbin (cont.):
One time they did litigate, House managers withdrew the subpoena, mooted out the case, affirmatively avoided litigation.
Seems based on their assertion "sole power of impeachment" is paramount, invalidates other Constitutional protections, that's dangerous.
One time they did litigate, House managers withdrew the subpoena, mooted out the case, affirmatively avoided litigation.
Seems based on their assertion "sole power of impeachment" is paramount, invalidates other Constitutional protections, that's dangerous.
16th question, from Democratic Senator from New Mexico:
Please address WH counsel's arguments that House seeks to overturn 2016 election, and voters should make decision in 2020.
Schiff:
Overturns election because by nature president is in office, that's why he's being impeached
Please address WH counsel's arguments that House seeks to overturn 2016 election, and voters should make decision in 2020.
Schiff:
Overturns election because by nature president is in office, that's why he's being impeached
Schiff:
That means Founders would have just said presidents can commit whatever high crimes and misdemeanors they want, as long as it's in their first term.
If you believe it's not OK to ask foreign country to interfere in our elections, then it doesn't matter what term it is
That means Founders would have just said presidents can commit whatever high crimes and misdemeanors they want, as long as it's in their first term.
If you believe it's not OK to ask foreign country to interfere in our elections, then it doesn't matter what term it is
17th question, from Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH):
Given that impeachment proceedings are privileged in Senate, and prevent other work, please address implications of House presenting incomplete case to Senate, and requesting Senate to seek testimony from additional witnesses?
Given that impeachment proceedings are privileged in Senate, and prevent other work, please address implications of House presenting incomplete case to Senate, and requesting Senate to seek testimony from additional witnesses?
Philbin:
Big issue, not simple. No one goes to trial without discovery, hearing from witnesses first. Issues here for trying to run things in such upside down way would be grave for this body as an institution. Largely prevents this chamber from getting other business done
Big issue, not simple. No one goes to trial without discovery, hearing from witnesses first. Issues here for trying to run things in such upside down way would be grave for this body as an institution. Largely prevents this chamber from getting other business done
Philbin (cont.):
Means this body will end up taking over investigative task. Senate's regular business will be slowed down, hindered. Not just about 1 witness. President would call his own witnesses, a long list, would drag on for months, prevent this chamber from doing business
Means this body will end up taking over investigative task. Senate's regular business will be slowed down, hindered. Not just about 1 witness. President would call his own witnesses, a long list, would drag on for months, prevent this chamber from doing business
Philbin (cont.):
Sets dangerous precedent. Whatever is accepted in this case, that's seal of approval for the future, becomes easy for House to impeach a president and leave it all to Senate.
Would forever change relationship from House to Senate. Vitally important to consider
Sets dangerous precedent. Whatever is accepted in this case, that's seal of approval for the future, becomes easy for House to impeach a president and leave it all to Senate.
Would forever change relationship from House to Senate. Vitally important to consider
Philbin (cont.):
Makes it far too easy for House to impeach, which will "make them come even more frequently." Senate will have to "clean up" for future House impeachments.
Makes it far too easy for House to impeach, which will "make them come even more frequently." Senate will have to "clean up" for future House impeachments.
18th question, from Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE):
Some have claimed witnesses would unnecessarily prolong trial. Isn't it true that 3 extra Clinton witness depositions took only 1 day, and that Chief Justice can decide privilege or other witness issues without further delay?
Some have claimed witnesses would unnecessarily prolong trial. Isn't it true that 3 extra Clinton witness depositions took only 1 day, and that Chief Justice can decide privilege or other witness issues without further delay?
Jeffries:
Yes, that's true, as many as 5 a week happened in past. Senate has had 15 different impeachment trials in its history, every single trial had witnesses. 37 out of 40 witnesses that testified in Johnson impeachment trial were new.
Yes, that's true, as many as 5 a week happened in past. Senate has had 15 different impeachment trials in its history, every single trial had witnesses. 37 out of 40 witnesses that testified in Johnson impeachment trial were new.
19th question, from Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX):
What are consequences to presidency, in advice he can expect from senior advisors, if Senate seeks to resolve claims of executive privilege for subpoenas in this impeachment trial without any determination by an Article III court?
What are consequences to presidency, in advice he can expect from senior advisors, if Senate seeks to resolve claims of executive privilege for subpoenas in this impeachment trial without any determination by an Article III court?
Philbin:
Presidency wouldn't get objective advice, because advisors can't expect confidentiality. Vital interests are at stake. Bolton was NSA, he holds nation's secrets. To suggest there would be no issues with NSA isn't how it would work. President must protect that privilege
Presidency wouldn't get objective advice, because advisors can't expect confidentiality. Vital interests are at stake. Bolton was NSA, he holds nation's secrets. To suggest there would be no issues with NSA isn't how it would work. President must protect that privilege
20th question, from Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI):
If president were acting in interest of national security as WH counsel claims, would there be evidence to substantiate his claim? If yes, has any been presented by WH counsel?
If president were acting in interest of national security as WH counsel claims, would there be evidence to substantiate his claim? If yes, has any been presented by WH counsel?
Rep. Crow:
Yes, there would be many people within State and Defense Depts., but none of those folks were incorporated into an interagency review process during vast majority of time in question. From time of call to time hold was lifted, those agencies were in the dark.
Yes, there would be many people within State and Defense Depts., but none of those folks were incorporated into an interagency review process during vast majority of time in question. From time of call to time hold was lifted, those agencies were in the dark.
21st question, from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC):
In Schiff's hypothetical, if Obama had evidence Romney's son was being paid $1 million a year by corrupt Russian company, and Romney acted to benefit that company, would Obama have authority ask for investigation?
In Schiff's hypothetical, if Obama had evidence Romney's son was being paid $1 million a year by corrupt Russian company, and Romney acted to benefit that company, would Obama have authority ask for investigation?
Schiff:
Premise is off, because it assumes that Obama's son was acting inappropriately. But if we take hypothetical, at no point should a president be asking for investigations into political rival, even from domestic actors. President shouldn't target rival, help him cheat, etc.
Premise is off, because it assumes that Obama's son was acting inappropriately. But if we take hypothetical, at no point should a president be asking for investigations into political rival, even from domestic actors. President shouldn't target rival, help him cheat, etc.
22nd question, from Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI):
Does the phrase "other high crimes and misdemeanors" in Constitution require a breach of criminal code or is a violation of public trust sufficient? Please explain.
Does the phrase "other high crimes and misdemeanors" in Constitution require a breach of criminal code or is a violation of public trust sufficient? Please explain.
Rep. Lofgren:
Framers were clear that abuse of power was impeachable. Cites Hamilton, former justice, says there is plenty of abuse that can take place without criminal violation. Nixon was charged with abusing power, some criminal, some not, but all impeachable bc it's corrupt.
Framers were clear that abuse of power was impeachable. Cites Hamilton, former justice, says there is plenty of abuse that can take place without criminal violation. Nixon was charged with abusing power, some criminal, some not, but all impeachable bc it's corrupt.
Rep. Lofgren:
Some crimes wouldn't rise to the level of impeachment, and some things that aren't crimes are still impeachable.
Some crimes wouldn't rise to the level of impeachment, and some things that aren't crimes are still impeachable.
23rd question, from ?:
Describe in further detail that all subpoenas issued prior to House authorization of impeachment inquiry are an invalid exercise of House subpoena authority.
Describe in further detail that all subpoenas issued prior to House authorization of impeachment inquiry are an invalid exercise of House subpoena authority.
Philbin:
My contention is based on previous Supreme Court cases. Constitution assigns power of impeachment to House, but full House, not committee, subcommittee, etc. Prior cases including U.S. v. Roomlee [sp], Watkins v. U.S., etc.
My contention is based on previous Supreme Court cases. Constitution assigns power of impeachment to House, but full House, not committee, subcommittee, etc. Prior cases including U.S. v. Roomlee [sp], Watkins v. U.S., etc.
Philbin (cont.):
Those aren't impeachment cases, but they establish authority of body. There's no standing rule in House that provides committees authority to use impeachment power to issue subpoenas. Rule 10 is about legislation, not impeachment.
Those aren't impeachment cases, but they establish authority of body. There's no standing rule in House that provides committees authority to use impeachment power to issue subpoenas. Rule 10 is about legislation, not impeachment.
Philbin (cont.):
Always been the case throughout history, always a resolution in House first before it attempted to use process to compel testimony. When House finally adopted HR660, authorizing subpoenas, nothing in that resolution addressed previous subpoenas retroactively.
Always been the case throughout history, always a resolution in House first before it attempted to use process to compel testimony. When House finally adopted HR660, authorizing subpoenas, nothing in that resolution addressed previous subpoenas retroactively.
Philbin (cont.):
Question whether that could have even been legal retroactively, but they never even addressed them. That means 23 subpoenas issued were invalid. Long legal argument in our brief about this topic.
Question whether that could have even been legal retroactively, but they never even addressed them. That means 23 subpoenas issued were invalid. Long legal argument in our brief about this topic.
24th question, from Bob Casey (D-PA):
Hamilton writes in Federalist 65, impeachment result from those offenses which proceed from "abuse of public trust." Can you speak broadly to duties of public servant, and how president's actions have violated this trust?
Hamilton writes in Federalist 65, impeachment result from those offenses which proceed from "abuse of public trust." Can you speak broadly to duties of public servant, and how president's actions have violated this trust?
Rep. Nadler (cont.):
This is precisely the conduct Framers had in mind. President violated the public trust with his actions.
Then addresses Philbin's arguments, says House can bring impeachment however it wants, power to subpoena has generally been delegated to committees
This is precisely the conduct Framers had in mind. President violated the public trust with his actions.
Then addresses Philbin's arguments, says House can bring impeachment however it wants, power to subpoena has generally been delegated to committees
Nadler (cont.):
Says that delegation wasn't true in Watkins or Roomlee [sp] cases that Philbin cited. Also says president never claimed executive privilege, and that he's claiming absolute monarchical power
Says that delegation wasn't true in Watkins or Roomlee [sp] cases that Philbin cited. Also says president never claimed executive privilege, and that he's claiming absolute monarchical power
25th question, from Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS):
Please respond to arguments Nadler just made.
Sekulow:
Regarding witnesses, in Clinton, witnesses had already been introduced before being deposed again.
Please respond to arguments Nadler just made.
Sekulow:
Regarding witnesses, in Clinton, witnesses had already been introduced before being deposed again.
Sekulow:
Schiff's argument that Chief Justice could decide question of executive privilege is a stretch, no precedent for that. What if we wanted to call Schiff? Wouldn't speech issues also come in? Should Roberts decide those too? Schiff hypothetical happened in 2016 election
Schiff's argument that Chief Justice could decide question of executive privilege is a stretch, no precedent for that. What if we wanted to call Schiff? Wouldn't speech issues also come in? Should Roberts decide those too? Schiff hypothetical happened in 2016 election
26th question, from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA):
Nixon said "when the president does it, that means it's not illegal." Trump said he can do what he wants. Indicates he thinks he's above the law. How would that undermine next election?
Nixon said "when the president does it, that means it's not illegal." Trump said he can do what he wants. Indicates he thinks he's above the law. How would that undermine next election?
Schiff:
Pattern of president's conduct shows he sees state as himself. Describes whistleblower as traitor. Only possible if you see yourself as synonymous with country. Witnesses weren't called because they're being blocked and WH counsel is making duplicitous arguments
Pattern of president's conduct shows he sees state as himself. Describes whistleblower as traitor. Only possible if you see yourself as synonymous with country. Witnesses weren't called because they're being blocked and WH counsel is making duplicitous arguments
Senate is breaking for about 20 minutes or so, will resume at 4pm.
27th question, from Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and others:
Which had greater military impact: President Trump's delay of providing defensive lethal aid to Ukraine for 48 days, or President Obama's denial of aid for more than 3 years?
Which had greater military impact: President Trump's delay of providing defensive lethal aid to Ukraine for 48 days, or President Obama's denial of aid for more than 3 years?
Philbin:
Obama's refusal had more impact, Trump's aid was future aid that would be spent over some number of years, etc.
Obama's refusal had more impact, Trump's aid was future aid that would be spent over some number of years, etc.
28th question, from Sen. Angus King (I-ME) for both sides:
Former Chief of Staff John Kelly said in Sarasota this week he believes John Bolton and suggests he should testify. Do you agree with General Kelly that he and other witnesses should be heard?
Former Chief of Staff John Kelly said in Sarasota this week he believes John Bolton and suggests he should testify. Do you agree with General Kelly that he and other witnesses should be heard?
Sekulow:
To move this unverified manuscript into this proceeding is not correct, if you go down the road of witnesses, we'll want to call our own, and all that changes the nature and scope of the proceedings, and House didn't ask for that before.
To move this unverified manuscript into this proceeding is not correct, if you go down the road of witnesses, we'll want to call our own, and all that changes the nature and scope of the proceedings, and House didn't ask for that before.
Schiff:
What's the significance of Kelly's saying he believes Bolton and not Trump? It would be extraordinary not to have witnesses, first impeachment ever without them. Both sides should be able to call "relevant witnesses." Let president call Mulvaney.
What's the significance of Kelly's saying he believes Bolton and not Trump? It would be extraordinary not to have witnesses, first impeachment ever without them. Both sides should be able to call "relevant witnesses." Let president call Mulvaney.
Missed 29th question, apologies.
30th question:
When did president's counsel learn that Bolton manuscript had been submitted to WH for review? And has any president's counsel or other member of WH tried to influence Bolton not to publish the book?
30th question:
When did president's counsel learn that Bolton manuscript had been submitted to WH for review? And has any president's counsel or other member of WH tried to influence Bolton not to publish the book?
Philbin:
We were notified, I don't remember when, NSC staff has it and is reviewing. As to 2nd part, some of it has been determined to cause grave harm to national security of U.S. Under federal law, and NDA your client signed, manuscript may not be published. Still under review.
We were notified, I don't remember when, NSC staff has it and is reviewing. As to 2nd part, some of it has been determined to cause grave harm to national security of U.S. Under federal law, and NDA your client signed, manuscript may not be published. Still under review.
31st question, from Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Burr, McSalley, Daines, Moran, and Sasse:
Is it true Trump administration approved providing javelin missiles to Ukraine on heels of Obama admin not sending that aid? Was this in opposition to his defense secretary and others?
Is it true Trump administration approved providing javelin missiles to Ukraine on heels of Obama admin not sending that aid? Was this in opposition to his defense secretary and others?
Philbin:
Yes, Trump admin approved that aid, and his policies for Ukraine have been stronger than previous administration. Not sure whether Trump's decision was in opposition to Defense secretary, but believes that is true.
Yes, Trump admin approved that aid, and his policies for Ukraine have been stronger than previous administration. Not sure whether Trump's decision was in opposition to Defense secretary, but believes that is true.
32nd question, from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and others:
President Trump has taken position there should be no witnesses and documents in this impeachment. Is there precedent? And what are the implications of that?
President Trump has taken position there should be no witnesses and documents in this impeachment. Is there precedent? And what are the implications of that?
Rep. Lofgren:
Trump has taken extreme measures. Even Nixon allowed witnesses to testify, told them to answer truthfully. Trump issued categorical, indiscriminate block "to prevent Congress from doing its duty to hold president accountable." Not about specific, narrowly-defined...
Trump has taken extreme measures. Even Nixon allowed witnesses to testify, told them to answer truthfully. Trump issued categorical, indiscriminate block "to prevent Congress from doing its duty to hold president accountable." Not about specific, narrowly-defined...
...privileges." House created rules to allow subpoenas. Trump doesn't have authority anyway to tell House how its rules should work. Our oversight will be eviscerated if you allow President to act this way.
33rd question, from Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV):
Did officials from Ukraine know about the hold on military aid earlier than the August 28th Politico article?
Purpura:
No, overwhelming body of evidence only became aware of hold on aid through Aug 28 article.
Did officials from Ukraine know about the hold on military aid earlier than the August 28th Politico article?
Purpura:
No, overwhelming body of evidence only became aware of hold on aid through Aug 28 article.
34th question, from Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD):
Basically the same question as above, but now directed at House managers.
Rep. Crow:
Laura Cooper got 2 emails asking about the assistance. You should subpoena the emails. Former Kyiv official said they knew.
Basically the same question as above, but now directed at House managers.
Rep. Crow:
Laura Cooper got 2 emails asking about the assistance. You should subpoena the emails. Former Kyiv official said they knew.
35th question, from Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) & Murkowski (R-AK):
House says Trump consistently expressed view Ukraine was corrupt. Before Biden entered race in April 2019, did Trump mention Bidens before then to previous Ukraine president Poroshenko, his officials, or others?
House says Trump consistently expressed view Ukraine was corrupt. Before Biden entered race in April 2019, did Trump mention Bidens before then to previous Ukraine president Poroshenko, his officials, or others?
Philbin:
I'm limited to what's in the record House gave us, nothing in the record about that. But publicly available comments that Trump asked Poroshenko about corruption generally. Giuliani had been asking questions since Fall 2018, he was all over that alleged corruption
I'm limited to what's in the record House gave us, nothing in the record about that. But publicly available comments that Trump asked Poroshenko about corruption generally. Giuliani had been asking questions since Fall 2018, he was all over that alleged corruption
Missed questions 36, 37, 38, 39, sorry had to do TV. More notes from a colleague coming on those later.
Question 40, from Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) and others:
Does "missing witness" rule apply here? And if so, what adverse inferences should we draw from missing witnesses and documents?
Schiff:
Failure to produce evidence has consistently been shown that it must not be favorable.
Does "missing witness" rule apply here? And if so, what adverse inferences should we draw from missing witnesses and documents?
Schiff:
Failure to produce evidence has consistently been shown that it must not be favorable.
Schiff:
You should absolutely draw a negative inference from the fact that Trump is blocking all documents and witnesses. And their arguments are invalid--there's no absolute immunity for documents. Would these emails and documents confirm what other evidence shows? We think yes
You should absolutely draw a negative inference from the fact that Trump is blocking all documents and witnesses. And their arguments are invalid--there's no absolute immunity for documents. Would these emails and documents confirm what other evidence shows? We think yes
Schiff:
They won't allow Bolton's notes, Taylor's notes, any info. Should you derive an adverse inference from that? Yes of course you should. The adverse inference screams at you as to why they don't want Bolton to testify. But don't rely on inference. Rely on subpoena.
They won't allow Bolton's notes, Taylor's notes, any info. Should you derive an adverse inference from that? Yes of course you should. The adverse inference screams at you as to why they don't want Bolton to testify. But don't rely on inference. Rely on subpoena.
41st question, from Senator John Thune (R-SD):
Please respond to previous arguments by Schiff on last question.
Philbin:
Haven't read recent case cited on missing witness rule, but I can bet it doesn't allow for certain exemptions. If you try to subpoena defendant's lawyer...
Please respond to previous arguments by Schiff on last question.
Philbin:
Haven't read recent case cited on missing witness rule, but I can bet it doesn't allow for certain exemptions. If you try to subpoena defendant's lawyer...
...he'd claim attorney-client privilege, and you can't draw adverse inference from that. They're misrepresenting our case that we haven't claimed a legal deficiency. We have a legal argument, they may disagree, but they can't claim that our arguments are invalid without courts.
42nd question, from Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH):
Did acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney waive executive privilege in his press conference where he said there's political influence in foreign policy?
Rep. Jeffries:
Yes, Mulvaney has waived executive privilege. In fact...
Did acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney waive executive privilege in his press conference where he said there's political influence in foreign policy?
Rep. Jeffries:
Yes, Mulvaney has waived executive privilege. In fact...
...as WH counsel acknowledged, they've never exerted executive privilege. They claim our subpoenas were invalid bc we hadn't voted for impeachment inquiry, but there's nothing in Constitution, or Supreme Court precedent, or federal law, or House rules that supports that argument.
Jeffries (cont.):
Pat Cipollone wrote us a letter saying Mulvaney is "absolutely immune" from compulsion for testimony, but cited no law because there is no precedent for such an outrageous claim. Fair trial should include Mulvaney, Bolton, and other witnesses.
Pat Cipollone wrote us a letter saying Mulvaney is "absolutely immune" from compulsion for testimony, but cited no law because there is no precedent for such an outrageous claim. Fair trial should include Mulvaney, Bolton, and other witnesses.
43rd question, from Sen. Murkowski (R-AK):
Constitution does not provide a standard of proof for impeachment trials. In Clinton trial, sides applied different standards.
What should we use--preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing, or beyond reasonable doubt, and why?
Constitution does not provide a standard of proof for impeachment trials. In Clinton trial, sides applied different standards.
What should we use--preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing, or beyond reasonable doubt, and why?
Rep. Lofgren:
House held itself to "clear and convincing" standard in Nixon case. Clinton case, didn't hold itself to one.
In the end, it's up to each Senator to make a judgment. Your oath holds you to finding of "impartial justice."
House held itself to "clear and convincing" standard in Nixon case. Clinton case, didn't hold itself to one.
In the end, it's up to each Senator to make a judgment. Your oath holds you to finding of "impartial justice."
Philbin:
Constitution makes it clear on impeachment, it speaks of conviction, issues related to crimes, so it should be a traditional criminal standard of proof--beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance isn't enough, that means 50.1%. Even clear and convincing isn't enough.
Constitution makes it clear on impeachment, it speaks of conviction, issues related to crimes, so it should be a traditional criminal standard of proof--beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance isn't enough, that means 50.1%. Even clear and convincing isn't enough.
44th question, from Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ):
Even if a communication or document is covered by executive privilege, that can be overcome by showing it's important and unavailable elsewhere. Trump said "we have all the material, they don't have the material." Can he do that?
Even if a communication or document is covered by executive privilege, that can be overcome by showing it's important and unavailable elsewhere. Trump said "we have all the material, they don't have the material." Can he do that?
Rep. Jeffries:
Trump alone has power to assert executive privilege. Not what happened, he's ordered entire Executive branch to defy our oversight via impeachment. Every court that has considered the matter, says president cannot assert a privilege to protect his own wrongdoing.
Trump alone has power to assert executive privilege. Not what happened, he's ordered entire Executive branch to defy our oversight via impeachment. Every court that has considered the matter, says president cannot assert a privilege to protect his own wrongdoing.
Jeffries:
Supreme Court precedent in Nixon: his generalized assertion of privilege to demonstrated need for evidence in trial. DC court ruled Congress need for documents in impeachment is particularly compelling. Argument every document is under privilege or immunity is absurd
Supreme Court precedent in Nixon: his generalized assertion of privilege to demonstrated need for evidence in trial. DC court ruled Congress need for documents in impeachment is particularly compelling. Argument every document is under privilege or immunity is absurd
*Nixon assertion of privilege is subordinate to demonstrated need for evidence
45th question, from Sen. Kennedy (R-LA) and Moran:
What did Hunter Biden do for money Burisma holdings paid him?
Pam Bondi:
He's said he went to a few board meetings/year. We know he attended 1 in Monaco. We heard when Burisma owner Zlochevsky fled Ukraine, he went to Monaco
What did Hunter Biden do for money Burisma holdings paid him?
Pam Bondi:
He's said he went to a few board meetings/year. We know he attended 1 in Monaco. We heard when Burisma owner Zlochevsky fled Ukraine, he went to Monaco
Bondi:
Devon Archer was on board with him. Factually we don't know much about what he did. There was a Norway trip in June of 2015. He remained on board until April 2019.
Devon Archer was on board with him. Factually we don't know much about what he did. There was a Norway trip in June of 2015. He remained on board until April 2019.
46th question, from Sen. Schumer (D-NY):
House managers say president demands absolute immunity. WH counsel disputes this. Can either of you name a single witness or document the president has given access to?
Philbin:
House keeps saying blanket denial, that's not what we said
House managers say president demands absolute immunity. WH counsel disputes this. Can either of you name a single witness or document the president has given access to?
Philbin:
House keeps saying blanket denial, that's not what we said
Philbin (cont.):
Multiple problems: no subpoenas were valid before Oct 31 House vote for impeachment inquiry. Mulvaney request came after, that's when we claimed absolute immunity. Later subpoenas we refused because they didn't allow executive branch counsel to accompany them
Multiple problems: no subpoenas were valid before Oct 31 House vote for impeachment inquiry. Mulvaney request came after, that's when we claimed absolute immunity. Later subpoenas we refused because they didn't allow executive branch counsel to accompany them
Philbin (cont.):
OLC opinion says compulsion of testimony without executive agency counsel present is unconstitutional.
Rep. Lofgren:
House committees had subpoena authority based on rules we established, we issued, they were denied. Claim of absolute immunity is absurd.
OLC opinion says compulsion of testimony without executive agency counsel present is unconstitutional.
Rep. Lofgren:
House committees had subpoena authority based on rules we established, we issued, they were denied. Claim of absolute immunity is absurd.
Lofgren (cont.):
Court in McGahn case ruled president cannot claim absolute immunity. He's a president, not a king. Constitution says president is not above the law.
Court in McGahn case ruled president cannot claim absolute immunity. He's a president, not a king. Constitution says president is not above the law.
47th question, from Republican Senator from Georgia:
You refused to answer question on whistleblower bias. Is House saying whistleblower is fact witness, and could be involved in Biden's prior actions? Why wasn't ICIG report released to us?
You refused to answer question on whistleblower bias. Is House saying whistleblower is fact witness, and could be involved in Biden's prior actions? Why wasn't ICIG report released to us?
Rep. Schiff:
With respect to ICIG, briefings we had related to problematic handling of whistleblower report. Intelligence community is continuing investigation into why this was withheld from Congress in violation of the law. Identity of whistleblower is being protected.
With respect to ICIG, briefings we had related to problematic handling of whistleblower report. Intelligence community is continuing investigation into why this was withheld from Congress in violation of the law. Identity of whistleblower is being protected.
Schiff (cont.):
After examining background, previous actions, etc. ICIG found whistleblower credible, and his/her complaint was urgent and must be provided to Congress. Also found it was being withheld in violation of the law. WH counsel is relying on an OLC opinion.
After examining background, previous actions, etc. ICIG found whistleblower credible, and his/her complaint was urgent and must be provided to Congress. Also found it was being withheld in violation of the law. WH counsel is relying on an OLC opinion.
Sekulow:
ICIG report says there was an indicia of political bias with the whistleblower, of course that's relevant.
ICIG report says there was an indicia of political bias with the whistleblower, of course that's relevant.
48th question from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV):
Framers took "high crimes and misdemeanors" out of British law, where it was in place for 400+ years. Previous impeachments have happened for offenses that were not crimes. What has happened in last 20 years to change this view?
Framers took "high crimes and misdemeanors" out of British law, where it was in place for 400+ years. Previous impeachments have happened for offenses that were not crimes. What has happened in last 20 years to change this view?
Dershowitz:
What happened is I read more, studied more, learned more, and changed my view, as academics should constantly be challenging themselves to do. I wrote a paper on it before this issue came up. Framers rejected maladministration, synonym of that is abuse of power.
What happened is I read more, studied more, learned more, and changed my view, as academics should constantly be challenging themselves to do. I wrote a paper on it before this issue came up. Framers rejected maladministration, synonym of that is abuse of power.
Dersh (cont.):
Issue is not whether a crime is required. Issue is whether abuse of power rises to level of impeachable, and Framers would have said no
Nadler:
First draft of Constitution said "treason and bribery," rejected as too narrow...
Issue is not whether a crime is required. Issue is whether abuse of power rises to level of impeachable, and Framers would have said no
Nadler:
First draft of Constitution said "treason and bribery," rejected as too narrow...
Nadler (cont.):
Later added "high crimes and misdemeanors" of which abuse of power is one. Fact is, crimes and impeachments are 2 different things.
Later added "high crimes and misdemeanors" of which abuse of power is one. Fact is, crimes and impeachments are 2 different things.
49th question, from Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC):
We keep seeing video of Mulvaney saying quid pro quo in that press conference. How do u respond to claims that proves House impeachment manager's point?
Purpura:
Mulvaney issued 2 statements, one after press briefing, another Monday
We keep seeing video of Mulvaney saying quid pro quo in that press conference. How do u respond to claims that proves House impeachment manager's point?
Purpura:
Mulvaney issued 2 statements, one after press briefing, another Monday
Purpura (cont.):
Both say Trump never told me there was condition on flow of aid. More to do with publicity around book deal. Mulvaney excluded himself from meetings between Trump and Giuliani to protect attorney-client privilege.
Both say Trump never told me there was condition on flow of aid. More to do with publicity around book deal. Mulvaney excluded himself from meetings between Trump and Giuliani to protect attorney-client privilege.
50th question, from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD):
What did National Security Advisor John Bolton mean when he referred to the "drug deal" Giuliani et. al. were cooking up?
Rep. Schiff:
The day he said it, there were 2 meetings with Ukrainians.
What did National Security Advisor John Bolton mean when he referred to the "drug deal" Giuliani et. al. were cooking up?
Rep. Schiff:
The day he said it, there were 2 meetings with Ukrainians.
Schiff (cont.):
July 10 meeting, Sondland brings up Biden investigation deal, Bolton stiffens, ends meeting. Sondland later makes it more explicit, Hill brings that to Bolton's attention, he tells her to go tell the lawyers.
Philbin:
This is hearsay, I'm not gonna speculate
July 10 meeting, Sondland brings up Biden investigation deal, Bolton stiffens, ends meeting. Sondland later makes it more explicit, Hill brings that to Bolton's attention, he tells her to go tell the lawyers.
Philbin:
This is hearsay, I'm not gonna speculate
51st question, from multiple Republican senators:
In September 2019, security assistance aid was released to Ukraine. Yet House managers continue arguing aid was conditioned on announcement of investigations or WH meeting. Were any of those conditions ever met?
In September 2019, security assistance aid was released to Ukraine. Yet House managers continue arguing aid was conditioned on announcement of investigations or WH meeting. Were any of those conditions ever met?
Purpura:
Short answer is no, we demonstrated this before. There was a meeting in UN. There was a proposed meeting in Poland. And there was never any investigation announced.
Short answer is no, we demonstrated this before. There was a meeting in UN. There was a proposed meeting in Poland. And there was never any investigation announced.
52nd question, from Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA):
Do you know about add'l information related to Trump disseminating Russian disinformation? Should we have this info before we deliberate?
Rep. Schiff:
You have testimony from Jennifer Williams, it sheds light on VP and what he knew.
Do you know about add'l information related to Trump disseminating Russian disinformation? Should we have this info before we deliberate?
Rep. Schiff:
You have testimony from Jennifer Williams, it sheds light on VP and what he knew.
Second body of intelligence you have access to is evidence produced by House. And more available that you can get by further compelling documents and witnesses.
53rd question, from Sen. David Perdue (R-GA):
How does the noncriminal abuse of standard advanced by House managers differ from maladministration, impeachment standard rejected by Framers. Where is the line between such an abuse of power and a policy disagreement?
How does the noncriminal abuse of standard advanced by House managers differ from maladministration, impeachment standard rejected by Framers. Where is the line between such an abuse of power and a policy disagreement?
Dershowitz:
Abuse of power doesn't rise to the level. Framers were striking a balance between conduct by executive that they were afraid of and giving too much power to Congress. Other scholars are not objective, they're biased, and you should take that into account.
Abuse of power doesn't rise to the level. Framers were striking a balance between conduct by executive that they were afraid of and giving too much power to Congress. Other scholars are not objective, they're biased, and you should take that into account.
54th question, from Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD):
If trial does not allow witnesses and documents, would a reasonable judge conclude these proceedings are a Constitutionally fair trial?
Schiff:
It's obvious that would not be a fair trial. And Dershowitz's argument is incorrect.
If trial does not allow witnesses and documents, would a reasonable judge conclude these proceedings are a Constitutionally fair trial?
Schiff:
It's obvious that would not be a fair trial. And Dershowitz's argument is incorrect.
55th question, from Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ) and others:
Do the articles of impeachment charge the president with bribery, extortion? Or anything like it? If not, then are any of the things they talk about in the articles that reference these crimes appropriate?
Do the articles of impeachment charge the president with bribery, extortion? Or anything like it? If not, then are any of the things they talk about in the articles that reference these crimes appropriate?
Philbin:
No, they're not in the articles, and legal precedent shows they shouldn't be considered. If Schiff had talked about those crimes in a real trial, as he just did here, it would have been a mistrial and we'd all be going home. What Schiff just attempted here was improper
No, they're not in the articles, and legal precedent shows they shouldn't be considered. If Schiff had talked about those crimes in a real trial, as he just did here, it would have been a mistrial and we'd all be going home. What Schiff just attempted here was improper
56th question, from Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM):
WH counsel keep bringing up Hunter Biden. By their standard applied to him, should Pres. Trump's kids and their business dealings come under scrutiny?
Rep. Demings:
Let's stay focused on this issue. Trump's kids & Bidens are irrelevant
WH counsel keep bringing up Hunter Biden. By their standard applied to him, should Pres. Trump's kids and their business dealings come under scrutiny?
Rep. Demings:
Let's stay focused on this issue. Trump's kids & Bidens are irrelevant
57th question, from Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID):
Does the evidence show it's in U.S. interest to investigate the Bidens?
Philbin:
Yes, because he got Burisma board job with no experience, happened right after Biden took over Ukraine policy, Burisma founder was corrupt, etc.
Does the evidence show it's in U.S. interest to investigate the Bidens?
Philbin:
Yes, because he got Burisma board job with no experience, happened right after Biden took over Ukraine policy, Burisma founder was corrupt, etc.
58 through 69 not tweeted, sorry doing other work!
70th question, if Trump does claim executive privilege, wouldn't he be forced to identify the sensitive documents he wishes to protect?
Rep. Nadler: EP is limited, he must carefully claim it, has been rejected by courts
70th question, if Trump does claim executive privilege, wouldn't he be forced to identify the sensitive documents he wishes to protect?
Rep. Nadler: EP is limited, he must carefully claim it, has been rejected by courts
71st question, from Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT):
On what specific date did Trump order hold on security assistance to Ukraine, and did he explain why at that time?
Philbin:
"I don't think there's evidence in record of the specific date, or a specific date."
On what specific date did Trump order hold on security assistance to Ukraine, and did he explain why at that time?
Philbin:
"I don't think there's evidence in record of the specific date, or a specific date."
Philbin (cont):
There's evidence of him talking about it in July and even before then. Morrison testified he was aware from OMB that president expressed concerns about corruption. Evidence Trump raised concerns early as June 24, people aware July 3
#ImpeachmentTrial #impeachment
There's evidence of him talking about it in July and even before then. Morrison testified he was aware from OMB that president expressed concerns about corruption. Evidence Trump raised concerns early as June 24, people aware July 3
#ImpeachmentTrial #impeachment
72nd question, from Sen. Cortez Masto (D-NV):
WH counsel said Trump was not given due process in House, can you address that and to past precedent?
Rep. Demings:
"The President is not the victim here. The victim is the American people."
WH counsel said Trump was not given due process in House, can you address that and to past precedent?
Rep. Demings:
"The President is not the victim here. The victim is the American people."
Demings (cont):
President was invited to Judiciary hearings, cross-examined witnesses, present evidence, raised objections. Could've requested their own witnesses. Also Republicans were involved in Intelligence Committee hearings to ask questions.
President was invited to Judiciary hearings, cross-examined witnesses, present evidence, raised objections. Could've requested their own witnesses. Also Republicans were involved in Intelligence Committee hearings to ask questions.
73rd question, from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK):
Why didn't House authorize retroactively the subpoenas it issued *after* the House vote to open impeachment inquiry, or re-issue them?
Rep. Garcia:
This is red herring. House has sole discretion due to Constitutional authority.
Why didn't House authorize retroactively the subpoenas it issued *after* the House vote to open impeachment inquiry, or re-issue them?
Rep. Garcia:
This is red herring. House has sole discretion due to Constitutional authority.
Garcia (cont):
House is Constitutionally-entitled to info from executive branch during impeachment. Otherwise a President can hide his own wrongdoing, effectively nullifying his own impeachment. Not how separation of powers works. There is no requirement for full House vote.
House is Constitutionally-entitled to info from executive branch during impeachment. Otherwise a President can hide his own wrongdoing, effectively nullifying his own impeachment. Not how separation of powers works. There is no requirement for full House vote.
Garcia (cont):
Many judges have been impeached before in this body without a full House vote. Nixon impeachment inquiry began and went for 4 months before a full House vote. House gives committees power to issue subpoenas.
Many judges have been impeached before in this body without a full House vote. Nixon impeachment inquiry began and went for 4 months before a full House vote. House gives committees power to issue subpoenas.
74th question, from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI):
WH counsel refused to answer direct question from Collins & Murkowski. 5 minutes after, House counsel read info from outside record. Did Trump ever bring up Bidens before the July phone call? If so, to whom, and when?
WH counsel refused to answer direct question from Collins & Murkowski. 5 minutes after, House counsel read info from outside record. Did Trump ever bring up Bidens before the July phone call? If so, to whom, and when?
Philbin:
House managers said we can refer to things in public domain and House record, otherwise they'll object. So I can't answer what private conversations Trump may have had. Also re: previous question, all presidential impeachments started with full House vote.
House managers said we can refer to things in public domain and House record, otherwise they'll object. So I can't answer what private conversations Trump may have had. Also re: previous question, all presidential impeachments started with full House vote.
75th question, from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO):
When Shokin took office, Ukraine prosecutor general, he vowed to investigate Burisma. Did OLC or other issue ethics guidance given position held by his son?
Philbin:
We're not aware of evidence that Biden sought ethics opinion.
When Shokin took office, Ukraine prosecutor general, he vowed to investigate Burisma. Did OLC or other issue ethics guidance given position held by his son?
Philbin:
We're not aware of evidence that Biden sought ethics opinion.
Philbin (cont):
Public evidence and Kent testimony show they raised the issue of potential conflict of interest due to Biden's son's position. When Kent raised with VP office, it said Biden was dealing with illness of his other son, no action was taken.
Public evidence and Kent testimony show they raised the issue of potential conflict of interest due to Biden's son's position. When Kent raised with VP office, it said Biden was dealing with illness of his other son, no action was taken.
Rep. Demings: Facts about VP Biden's conduct are clear and don't change. Shokin was widely considered corrupt and not prosecuting corruption. Entire free world--US, EU, IMF--pressed for office to be cleaned up, so be skeptical of anything he claims.
Demings (cont):
Ambassador Yovanovitch, big corruption fighter, made it clear that Shokin's dismissal would pave way for MORE investigations into corruption, including into Burisma
Ambassador Yovanovitch, big corruption fighter, made it clear that Shokin's dismissal would pave way for MORE investigations into corruption, including into Burisma
76th question, from Sen. Angus King (I-ME):
Giuliani was in Ukraine on political errand by his own admission, so doesn't President's mention of his name on the July 25 call with Zelensky conclusively establish the real purpose of the call?
Giuliani was in Ukraine on political errand by his own admission, so doesn't President's mention of his name on the July 25 call with Zelensky conclusively establish the real purpose of the call?
Rep. Nadler:
Yes, Giuliani played key role in Trump's months-long scheme to get these investigations. Overwhleming evidence--texts, documents, etc.--prove this, started with smear campaign on Yovanovitch, etc. Letter to Zelensky makes clear Giuliani is there for personal reasons
Yes, Giuliani played key role in Trump's months-long scheme to get these investigations. Overwhleming evidence--texts, documents, etc.--prove this, started with smear campaign on Yovanovitch, etc. Letter to Zelensky makes clear Giuliani is there for personal reasons
77th question, from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL):
How would the Framers view removing a president without overwhelming consensus of the people, and only one party support?
Dershowitz:
Hamilton addressed it, they would be appalled, the criteria they've set out, makes it anything
How would the Framers view removing a president without overwhelming consensus of the people, and only one party support?
Dershowitz:
Hamilton addressed it, they would be appalled, the criteria they've set out, makes it anything
Dersh (cont):
House or Senate are not above the law, by making impeachment this woolly, you'd be placing yourselves above the law.
Hypothetical: if Obama doesn't send lethal aid because left-wing Dems won't like it, that wouldn't be impeachable
House or Senate are not above the law, by making impeachment this woolly, you'd be placing yourselves above the law.
Hypothetical: if Obama doesn't send lethal aid because left-wing Dems won't like it, that wouldn't be impeachable
Dersh (cont):
Further hypotheticals....
Further hypotheticals....
78th question, from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN):
I was here for last impeachment, of Judge Thomas Porteus [sp]. We had 26 new witnesses there. What possible reason could there be for allowing those witnesses there, but not here?
I was here for last impeachment, of Judge Thomas Porteus [sp]. We had 26 new witnesses there. What possible reason could there be for allowing those witnesses there, but not here?
Rep. Schiff:
No real difference, in fact more important to have witnesses here given that it's a president. We've argued trial should be fair to president and American people. Trump has solicited foreign interference from Russia in 2016, and Ukraine and China for 2020.
No real difference, in fact more important to have witnesses here given that it's a president. We've argued trial should be fair to president and American people. Trump has solicited foreign interference from Russia in 2016, and Ukraine and China for 2020.
Schiff:
Giuliani admitted to being in Ukraine on personal trip for Trump. Dershowitz just made shocking argument, that Biden investigation is only relevant if he runs for president. It's always unjustified even if he didn't run.
Giuliani admitted to being in Ukraine on personal trip for Trump. Dershowitz just made shocking argument, that Biden investigation is only relevant if he runs for president. It's always unjustified even if he didn't run.
79th question, from Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT):
Over past 244 years, 8 judges have been removed by U.S. Senate, but never president. They were removed for unlawful actions. How does current impeachment compare to those?
Over past 244 years, 8 judges have been removed by U.S. Senate, but never president. They were removed for unlawful actions. How does current impeachment compare to those?
Dershowitz:
Huge difference between removing president and judge or even justice. Judge isn't the whole judicial branch. President *is* executive branch. Also presidents run for re-election, judges don't
Huge difference between removing president and judge or even justice. Judge isn't the whole judicial branch. President *is* executive branch. Also presidents run for re-election, judges don't
80th question, from Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):
Trump said he'd accept dirt from other countries into his opponent. But your brief says foreign interference is inappropriate. Does Trump agree with you?
Trump said he'd accept dirt from other countries into his opponent. But your brief says foreign interference is inappropriate. Does Trump agree with you?
Philbin:
That Trump quote is from ABC interview about info, not improper behavior. I don't think info from a foreign source should be considered election interference. Congress specifically sets out improper foreign interference--campaign contributions, etc.
That Trump quote is from ABC interview about info, not improper behavior. I don't think info from a foreign source should be considered election interference. Congress specifically sets out improper foreign interference--campaign contributions, etc.
81st question from Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA):
As a fact witness to impeachment inquiry, did Rep. Schiff's handling of inquiry create material due process issue?
Philbin:
Yes, because 3 issues
1) No full House vote before subpoenas
As a fact witness to impeachment inquiry, did Rep. Schiff's handling of inquiry create material due process issue?
Philbin:
Yes, because 3 issues
1) No full House vote before subpoenas
Philbin (cont):
2) Trump counsel couldn't present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, etc. in Intelligence Committee hearings
3) Schiff and/or his staff spoke to whistleblower, that was never probed
That creates issues with fundamental fairness and material due process
2) Trump counsel couldn't present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, etc. in Intelligence Committee hearings
3) Schiff and/or his staff spoke to whistleblower, that was never probed
That creates issues with fundamental fairness and material due process
82nd question, from Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI):
Does impeaching president on abuse of power require his scheme to succeed?
Rep. Lofgren:
The fact that Trump didn't succeed doesn't matter. You wouldn't be innocent if you tried to commit murder but didn't succeed.
Does impeaching president on abuse of power require his scheme to succeed?
Rep. Lofgren:
The fact that Trump didn't succeed doesn't matter. You wouldn't be innocent if you tried to commit murder but didn't succeed.
83rd question, from Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY):
Can Senate convict president for Obstruction of Congress for exercising his Constitutional authorities or rights?
Philbin:
Short answer, no. Prof. Turley said House is abusing its power bc it demanded info and Exec branch resisted
Can Senate convict president for Obstruction of Congress for exercising his Constitutional authorities or rights?
Philbin:
Short answer, no. Prof. Turley said House is abusing its power bc it demanded info and Exec branch resisted
Philbin:
They can't jump immediately to impeachment just because president is exercising his rights. Brandeis said separation of powers wasn't efficient way to govern, but that grind between branches is a protection of liberty. It helps ensure no branch grabs too much power.
They can't jump immediately to impeachment just because president is exercising his rights. Brandeis said separation of powers wasn't efficient way to govern, but that grind between branches is a protection of liberty. It helps ensure no branch grabs too much power.
84th question, from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):
Before the break, WH counsel said accepting mere info from foreign source doesn't break finance law, and is not interference to accept info from foreign source. Under that definition, propaganda from Russia would be legal.
Before the break, WH counsel said accepting mere info from foreign source doesn't break finance law, and is not interference to accept info from foreign source. Under that definition, propaganda from Russia would be legal.
84th question (cont):
i.e. the 2016 propaganda campaign from Russia. Isn't it true that this is a huge problem, and one of the highest priorities of our intelligence and law enforcement communities?
Rep. Schiff:
Yes, huge priority. Massive Russia campaign undermined our election
i.e. the 2016 propaganda campaign from Russia. Isn't it true that this is a huge problem, and one of the highest priorities of our intelligence and law enforcement communities?
Rep. Schiff:
Yes, huge priority. Massive Russia campaign undermined our election
Schiff (cont):
Mueller didn't address collusion, but he did say he couldn't prove criminal conspiracy. But WH counsel is now saying that even if Mueller had found Trump DID do that, it would be ok, because if it was in his best interest, that's the nation's best interest.
Mueller didn't address collusion, but he did say he couldn't prove criminal conspiracy. But WH counsel is now saying that even if Mueller had found Trump DID do that, it would be ok, because if it was in his best interest, that's the nation's best interest.
Schiff (cont):
You can't solicit foreign interference. This body and American people should not accept the argument that it's ok for president to ask for foreign interference because it's "his policy." That's not policy, it's corruption. They can dress it up all they want.
You can't solicit foreign interference. This body and American people should not accept the argument that it's ok for president to ask for foreign interference because it's "his policy." That's not policy, it's corruption. They can dress it up all they want.
85th question, from Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME):
House judiciary committee report asserted president committed criminal bribery in U.S. codes, but these weren't the impeachment articles. If he did them, did they violate these codes, and if so, why weren't they the articles?
House judiciary committee report asserted president committed criminal bribery in U.S. codes, but these weren't the impeachment articles. If he did them, did they violate these codes, and if so, why weren't they the articles?
Rep. Jeffries:
Dershowitz says impeachment has to be a crime, or akin to a crime. That's what we allege in 1st article, abuse of power. That it was corrupt, bc Trump solicited a thing of value in exchange for 2 official acts: release of $391 million of aid, and White House visit
Dershowitz says impeachment has to be a crime, or akin to a crime. That's what we allege in 1st article, abuse of power. That it was corrupt, bc Trump solicited a thing of value in exchange for 2 official acts: release of $391 million of aid, and White House visit
86th question, from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY):
How do the president's actions differ from other presidential holds on Congressional assistance, and how is that aid supposed to work?
Rep. Crow:
What Trump did is not same as making sure it aligns with policy and process
How do the president's actions differ from other presidential holds on Congressional assistance, and how is that aid supposed to work?
Rep. Crow:
What Trump did is not same as making sure it aligns with policy and process
Crow (cont):
If it was, we'd have documents, facts, and other to back it up. We have none of that. Prior holds, as under Obama, Congress was notified, and always done in national interest. Trump's other holds, like Afghanistan bc of terrorism--official, public, involved Congress
If it was, we'd have documents, facts, and other to back it up. We have none of that. Prior holds, as under Obama, Congress was notified, and always done in national interest. Trump's other holds, like Afghanistan bc of terrorism--official, public, involved Congress
87th question, from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO):
What does supermajority requirement (67 votes) for removal via impeachment say about the type of case and the standard of proof that should be brought?
Dershowitz:
2/3 requirement serves as check on the House, but also...
What does supermajority requirement (67 votes) for removal via impeachment say about the type of case and the standard of proof that should be brought?
Dershowitz:
2/3 requirement serves as check on the House, but also...
Dersh (cont):
...the Senate was much different back then, senators not directly elected, supposed to be more mature, take a view to the future, and therefore should not engage in a partisan impeachment.
...the Senate was much different back then, senators not directly elected, supposed to be more mature, take a view to the future, and therefore should not engage in a partisan impeachment.
88th question, from Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT):
House managers have committed to abide by rulings of Chief Justice on witnesses and evidence. Will WH counsel make same commitment, eliminating need for extended litigation?
Sekulow:
We're not gonna do that...
House managers have committed to abide by rulings of Chief Justice on witnesses and evidence. Will WH counsel make same commitment, eliminating need for extended litigation?
Sekulow:
We're not gonna do that...
Sekulow (cont):
With all due respect to Chief Justice, we're not going to give up our rights to challenge subpoenas.
With all due respect to Chief Justice, we're not going to give up our rights to challenge subpoenas.
89th question, from Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS):
Prof. Dershowitz, you said House grounds for impeachment are dangerous. What specific danger does it pose to our republic?
Dershowitz:
Crucial. Would make divisions grow even greater. If president were removed today, it would pose...
Prof. Dershowitz, you said House grounds for impeachment are dangerous. What specific danger does it pose to our republic?
Dershowitz:
Crucial. Would make divisions grow even greater. If president were removed today, it would pose...
Dersh (cont):
...existential dangers. Wouldn't be accepted by many Americans, because such divided country and time. And if precedent is established that president can be removed for ubiquitous term like "abuse of power" this would just be the beginning of the use of impeachment.
...existential dangers. Wouldn't be accepted by many Americans, because such divided country and time. And if precedent is established that president can be removed for ubiquitous term like "abuse of power" this would just be the beginning of the use of impeachment.
90th question, from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ):
Administration worked with Congress on other aid holds. Receiving countries also knew funds were withheld. Why, when administration withheld aid from Ukraine, did it not notify Congress or these other countries, so they knew?
Administration worked with Congress on other aid holds. Receiving countries also knew funds were withheld. Why, when administration withheld aid from Ukraine, did it not notify Congress or these other countries, so they knew?
Philbin:
In those other instances, it was clear that withholding aid was meant to send signal. Here, Amb. Volker made clear that hold would NOT become public, bc they didn't want signal to Ukraine or others. Idea here was not to send signal to whole world.
In those other instances, it was clear that withholding aid was meant to send signal. Here, Amb. Volker made clear that hold would NOT become public, bc they didn't want signal to Ukraine or others. Idea here was not to send signal to whole world.
91st question, from both Sens. Young & Braun (R-IN):
We were promised by House managers the evidence for both articles would be overwhelming, but we keep hearing calls for witnesses. Both parties agree all testimony has been included except ICIG report...?
We were promised by House managers the evidence for both articles would be overwhelming, but we keep hearing calls for witnesses. Both parties agree all testimony has been included except ICIG report...?
Schiff:
Evidence has been overwhelming. Also, Sekulow argued that they won't give up rights, but Constitution does allow Chief Justice to rule, they just don't want him to.
Sekulow:
29 times House managers have said "overwhelming." 31 times said "prove." Clearly hasn't been done
Evidence has been overwhelming. Also, Sekulow argued that they won't give up rights, but Constitution does allow Chief Justice to rule, they just don't want him to.
Sekulow:
29 times House managers have said "overwhelming." 31 times said "prove." Clearly hasn't been done
That's it for tonight, Senate adjourns until 1pm Thursday.
Video of this question and its answer:
36th question, from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA):
House now has tape of Trump saying of Amb. Yovanovitch "Get rid of her, take her out, etc." to Parnas & Fruman at Giuliani's direction.
Does this mean if Senate doesn't pursue all evidence, it'll keep coming out after verdict?
House now has tape of Trump saying of Amb. Yovanovitch "Get rid of her, take her out, etc." to Parnas & Fruman at Giuliani's direction.
Does this mean if Senate doesn't pursue all evidence, it'll keep coming out after verdict?
Schiff:
Yes, new info will keep coming, Bolton's book Mar 17, etc. Both Rs and Ds will have to answer the question of "why didn't you want to know when it could've helped your decision..." Why did Trump stop the aid this year and no prior year. Coincidence Biden running for pres?
Yes, new info will keep coming, Bolton's book Mar 17, etc. Both Rs and Ds will have to answer the question of "why didn't you want to know when it could've helped your decision..." Why did Trump stop the aid this year and no prior year. Coincidence Biden running for pres?
37th question, from Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE)
Counsel for pres has underscored admin's anti-corruption w allies. At what point did they develop concerns with Burisma?
Counsel for pres has underscored admin's anti-corruption w allies. At what point did they develop concerns with Burisma?
Philbin:
Trump brought up burden sharing, corruption in 2 specifics, potential Ukraine interference in 2016, firing prosecutor. Giuliani was investigating things in January 2019. Then public reports. Solomon in Hill, etc. Info available to Trump, example of potential corruption
Trump brought up burden sharing, corruption in 2 specifics, potential Ukraine interference in 2016, firing prosecutor. Giuliani was investigating things in January 2019. Then public reports. Solomon in Hill, etc. Info available to Trump, example of potential corruption
38th question, from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT):
Did anyone in WH or outside WH that publication of Bolton's book would be problematic for President Trump?
Philbin:
No, no one told us that. We assumed Bolton wouldn't say nice things. Oddly quick answer.
Did anyone in WH or outside WH that publication of Bolton's book would be problematic for President Trump?
Philbin:
No, no one told us that. We assumed Bolton wouldn't say nice things. Oddly quick answer.
39th question, from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):
Aug 26, 2019 letter to DNI said whistleblower showed political bias to another candidate. Speculation wb worked with Biden. Did whistleblower work with Biden? On issues involving Ukraine? Involved in specific firing of prosecutor general?
Aug 26, 2019 letter to DNI said whistleblower showed political bias to another candidate. Speculation wb worked with Biden. Did whistleblower work with Biden? On issues involving Ukraine? Involved in specific firing of prosecutor general?
Schiff:
Several senators have said they want to protect whistleblowers, including Grassley, Romney, Burr, Nunes. I don't know who wb is, haven't met or communicated. My staff has been attacked, they didn't write it or coach wb, they didn't see it before ICIG. No reveal of WB ID.
Several senators have said they want to protect whistleblowers, including Grassley, Romney, Burr, Nunes. I don't know who wb is, haven't met or communicated. My staff has been attacked, they didn't write it or coach wb, they didn't see it before ICIG. No reveal of WB ID.
Video of this question and answer:
58th question, from Sen. @DickDurbin (D-IL):
Answer same question asked above.
Rep. Garcia:
No evidence Biden acted inappropriately
Video of answer:
Answer same question asked above.
Rep. Garcia:
No evidence Biden acted inappropriately
Video of answer:
@DickDurbin 59th question, from @SenatorTimScott (R-SC):
House managers say Biden theory is debunked. What agency within government led to debunking?
Eric Herschmann:
None of them, real question here is corruption of Biden
Timecode link to video:
House managers say Biden theory is debunked. What agency within government led to debunking?
Eric Herschmann:
None of them, real question here is corruption of Biden
Timecode link to video:
@DickDurbin @SenatorTimScott 60th question, from Sen. @JeffMerkley (D-OR):
Please clarify answer on Bolton manuscript, when did you see it, etc.
Philbin:
Allegation in report by NYT of Bolton's book, we learned of last weekend, WH counsel is not involved in classification
Please clarify answer on Bolton manuscript, when did you see it, etc.
Philbin:
Allegation in report by NYT of Bolton's book, we learned of last weekend, WH counsel is not involved in classification
@DickDurbin @SenatorTimScott @JeffMerkley 61st question, from @SenDanSullivan (R-AK):
How long would this trial take if we had allowed all of Schumer's amendments?
Sekulow:
A long time, even longer if we allow more witnesses. I want Joe Biden. I want Hunter Biden. I want whistleblower.
How long would this trial take if we had allowed all of Schumer's amendments?
Sekulow:
A long time, even longer if we allow more witnesses. I want Joe Biden. I want Hunter Biden. I want whistleblower.
@DickDurbin @SenatorTimScott @JeffMerkley @SenDanSullivan 62nd question, from Sen. @BobMenendezNJ (D-NJ)
Trump says he cared about corruption, but he released Congressional aid to Ukraine 45 times Jan 2017 to Jun 2019 before the call. So why didn't he care about it before?
Rep. Crow:
He didn't
Link to answer:
Trump says he cared about corruption, but he released Congressional aid to Ukraine 45 times Jan 2017 to Jun 2019 before the call. So why didn't he care about it before?
Rep. Crow:
He didn't
Link to answer:
@DickDurbin @SenatorTimScott @JeffMerkley @SenDanSullivan @BobMenendezNJ 63rd question, from Sen. @RonJohnsonWI (R-WI):
If Bolton subpoena is gonna take months, why wouldn’t we just decide not to do it either like House didn't?
Sekulow:
Good point, it'll take months. Will that be new norm - 2 week impeachment, drop on Senate?
If Bolton subpoena is gonna take months, why wouldn’t we just decide not to do it either like House didn't?
Sekulow:
Good point, it'll take months. Will that be new norm - 2 week impeachment, drop on Senate?
@DickDurbin @SenatorTimScott @JeffMerkley @SenDanSullivan @BobMenendezNJ @RonJohnsonWI 64th question, from @SenSchumer (D-NY):
Respond to last question
Schiff:
Obvious what's happening here, dare call for witnesses and WH counsel draws this out for months. Sekulow wants to call me, I want to call him, I wanna call Trump, I trust Roberts
Respond to last question
Schiff:
Obvious what's happening here, dare call for witnesses and WH counsel draws this out for months. Sekulow wants to call me, I want to call him, I wanna call Trump, I trust Roberts
@DickDurbin @SenatorTimScott @JeffMerkley @SenDanSullivan @BobMenendezNJ @RonJohnsonWI @SenSchumer 65th question, from @SenBillCassidy (R-LA):
Rep. Nadler warned against partisan impeachments 20 years ago, isn’t this what he warned about?
Philbin:
Yes, exactly
Jeffries:
No
timecode link to answer:
Rep. Nadler warned against partisan impeachments 20 years ago, isn’t this what he warned about?
Philbin:
Yes, exactly
Jeffries:
No
timecode link to answer:
@DickDurbin @SenatorTimScott @JeffMerkley @SenDanSullivan @BobMenendezNJ @RonJohnsonWI @SenSchumer @SenBillCassidy 66th question, from Sen. @BernieSanders (I-VT):
How can we trust anything Trump says since he lies all the time?
Schiff:
Don't even know how to answer. Telling that he yelled out "no quid pro quo" randomly on call with Sondland.
How can we trust anything Trump says since he lies all the time?
Schiff:
Don't even know how to answer. Telling that he yelled out "no quid pro quo" randomly on call with Sondland.
@DickDurbin @SenatorTimScott @JeffMerkley @SenDanSullivan @BobMenendezNJ @RonJohnsonWI @SenSchumer @SenBillCassidy @BernieSanders 67th question, from Sen. @CoryGardner (R-CO):
House says "sole power" to impeach, so president has to comply. That interpretation reflective of Constitution? what protects President?
Philbin:
No, not paramount, privilege other legal arguments still apply
House says "sole power" to impeach, so president has to comply. That interpretation reflective of Constitution? what protects President?
Philbin:
No, not paramount, privilege other legal arguments still apply
@DickDurbin @SenatorTimScott @JeffMerkley @SenDanSullivan @BobMenendezNJ @RonJohnsonWI @SenSchumer @SenBillCassidy @BernieSanders @CoryGardner 68th question, from @SenWarren (D-MA):
if Ukrainian President offered Trump dirt in exchange for military aid, that’s clearly bribery and impeachable. So why is it more acceptable for the reverse, i.e. what Trump did?
if Ukrainian President offered Trump dirt in exchange for military aid, that’s clearly bribery and impeachable. So why is it more acceptable for the reverse, i.e. what Trump did?
@DickDurbin @SenatorTimScott @JeffMerkley @SenDanSullivan @BobMenendezNJ @RonJohnsonWI @SenSchumer @SenBillCassidy @BernieSanders @CoryGardner @SenWarren Nadler:
Bribery is contained in abuse of power article. Also on standard of proof question, these facts have been proven beyond reasonable and ANY doubt.
Philbin:
Can't smuggle criminal words into article that doesn't allege crime.
Bribery is contained in abuse of power article. Also on standard of proof question, these facts have been proven beyond reasonable and ANY doubt.
Philbin:
Can't smuggle criminal words into article that doesn't allege crime.
@DickDurbin @SenatorTimScott @JeffMerkley @SenDanSullivan @BobMenendezNJ @RonJohnsonWI @SenSchumer @SenBillCassidy @BernieSanders @CoryGardner @SenWarren 69th question, from @SenTinaSmith (D-MN):
Trump says call "perfect" but If so, why not allow fact witnesses to testify under oath?
Schiff:
Because he knows what they have to say and doesn't want you to hear it. Also, Chief Justice can rule, we'll abide.
Trump says call "perfect" but If so, why not allow fact witnesses to testify under oath?
Schiff:
Because he knows what they have to say and doesn't want you to hear it. Also, Chief Justice can rule, we'll abide.
@DickDurbin @SenatorTimScott @JeffMerkley @SenDanSullivan @BobMenendezNJ @RonJohnsonWI @SenSchumer @SenBillCassidy @BernieSanders @CoryGardner @SenWarren @SenTinaSmith 70th question, from Sen. @BenSasse (R-NE):
Golden rule of impeachments, offer your view of limiting principles, both on type of offenses, proximity to elections, and guardrails for future?
Cipollone:
Should never be partisan, shoe on other foot test
Golden rule of impeachments, offer your view of limiting principles, both on type of offenses, proximity to elections, and guardrails for future?
Cipollone:
Should never be partisan, shoe on other foot test
